Michael Goodwin

Michael Goodwin

US News

Rift between Cuomo, de Blasio reflects changing party

It’s man-bites-dog news that Gotham’s mayors and Empire State’s governors don’t get along, especially when they are from the same party. They compete for contributors and fabulousness and have institutional conflicts.

Those factors help explain the simmering feud between Bill de Blasio and Andrew Cuomo. But there is another, more fundamental explanation for what ails them.

It is that they are different kinds of Democrats and their dispute reflects how the party is changing before our eyes.

(Feel free to be shocked by the idea of a civil war among Dems — the mainstream media would have you believe only Republicans have factions.)

Cuomo, at 56, is only four years older than de Blasio, but politically, he’s from a different generation.

The new breed of Dems is far more liberal and far less inclined to compromise. An example was the crude attacks on Mayor Bloomberg at de Blasio’s inauguration.

The old-style Dems think the new ones don’t have a clue about governing a complex society. Bill Clinton’s daring to say something nice about Bloomy was an example of that, as was Cuomo’s later statement complimenting Bloomberg’s tenure. By contrast, de Blasio defended the attacks.

Attitude is clearly a big difference, but in policy terms, taxes are a major dividing line. That’s why Cuomo is resisting de Blasio’s call for higher taxes on high earners to fund universal pre-K and after-school programs.

Cuomo came of age when party leaders couched tax hikes as necessary evils. Walter Mondale, the 1984 presidential nominee against incumbent Ronald Reagan, committed a fatal blunder with this shocking debate pledge: “Mr. Reagan will raise taxes; and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.”

Reagan won 49 states, a lesson not lost on a succession of Dems, including Mario Cuomo and Bill Clinton.

Andrew Cuomo is their heir. Running in 2010 and now for re-election, he talks frequently of making New York more business- and family-friendly. His State of the State speech Wednesday will feature tax cuts worth $2 billion.

“We have made unprecedented progress toward curbing the rise of taxes and government spending in New York, transforming a state budget with a $10 billion deficit to a $2 billion surplus,” he said in a statement. “These proposals build on our previous successes, including enacting the state’s first property-tax cap and achieving the lowest middle-class income-tax rate in 60 years.”

It is impossible to imagine de Blasio, or Barack Obama, ever making that statement or following those policies. A surplus for them would be party time, which is why they will never have a surplus.

Indeed, de Blasio says he wants his tax hike even if Cuomo finds other ways to fund his education agenda.

He and his ilk are not only willing to raise taxes, they embrace them. They see tax hikes as proof of authentic liberalism and a badge of honor among today’s ascendant Democrats. They are right — for that echo chamber of the electorate.

The problem is not just Cuomo’s. It’s any New Yorker’s who thinks the high city and state taxes already hurt the state’s economy. That seems to include Sen. Chuck Schumer.

“I’m leaving it up to de Blasio and Cuomo to work that one out,” Schumer said on TV the other day. After noting that he supported the top federal hike, from 35 percent to 39 percent, he said, “It’s a more difficult issue at the state level, because people can leave and go to Connecticut or New Jersey or somewhere else. So I’ve left that to them.”

That’s a clever dodge, but Schumer must have missed the action a year ago. As soon as federal income taxes went up, Florida reported a flood of wealthy New Yorkers heading south. As the combined top brackets passed 52 percent, moving to Florida made more sense because it reduced their burden by 13 percentage points. And now de Blasio wants to pile another hike on top of that, likely driving out more people.

I’m with Cuomo on this one. All things being relative, he’s the last moderate standing.

Iran as our peace pal is S-Kerry!

Having mocked John Kerry for ignoring the world’s hot spots, I am reconsidering. I hadn’t counted on him wading back into the Syria debacle with the dumbest possible idea. We were better off when he focused on less important problems.

The secretary of state says Iran might be able to help settle the civil war in Syria. Yes, that Iran, the worldwide sponsor of terrorism, a budding nuclear threat and Bashar al-Assad’s chief sponsor.

Incredibly, Kerry is open to having Iran pitch in “from the sidelines” at talks scheduled for Geneva this month. He’s got a strange idea of peacemaking.

Naturally, The New York Times echoed the administration, running a front-page story Tuesday about how many overlapping interests Iran and America have.

Technically, there is some truth to the claim. For example, we both want peace in the Mideast, though there are differences. Iran wants a peace achieved through the elimination of Israel and our other allies. If you leave out those pesky details, presto, we’re on the same page.

At times like this, I imagine Vladimir Putin shaking his head and saying to himself, “Has America lost its mind?”

In a word, yes.

Book Bares a New Low for O

The new Robert Gates’ book is drawing gasps of astonishment over how he flays President Obama’s contempt for military leaders, but the real surprise is that Gates went public with his criticism.

We already knew Obama looks down on our armed forces, but Gates, who served as secretary of defense for Obama and George W. Bush, was known as the consummate insider, with discretion part of his résumé. He must have been thoroughly disgusted by the Obama experience.

Perhaps the most revealing account in his book, “Duty,” as summarized in The Washington Post, has Hillary Clinton confessing to Obama that she opposed the Iraq surge because she thought it would help her in the 2008 primaries against him. Gates writes that “the president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political,” and adds, “To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.”

All of which confirms the Lily Tomlin observation: “No matter how cynical you get, it’s impossible to keep up.”

Spitzer in hot water again

We better kick Eliot Spitzer around while we have him. It’s well known that hot tubs in child-friendly resorts are not exactly sanitary, but that didn’t stop the Love Gov from sucking his lover’s toes in a tub at a big Jamaica resort. She also happened to be topless, which reportedly upset guests.

They should relax. Spitzer’s penchant for self-destruction seems to be approaching another reckless climax. Don’t be shocked if he goes out with a bang.