The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Cuomo Proposes to Curb Pensions in Public Sector,” gives one reason why he is such a great governor.

I’ve always supported unions, including their fight to maintain collective bargaining in Wisconsin, but Governor’s Cuomos reforms seem very minor in comparison, and the reaction to them by heads of labor unions yesterday almost appears ridiculous.

This is what Governor Cuomo is reforming: a raise in the retirement age from 62 to 65 for public employees and to 65 from 57 for teachers. Contributions to pension plans would rise from 3 percent to 6 percent of salaries, and employees would be unable to “game the system” by amassing large amounts of overtime in their final year to affect calculations concerning the amount of their pension.

Not great for public sector workers but not all that bad either. Most people retire at 65 in the private sector after all with far less of a pension.

But the labor union reaction was way out of line. Danny Donohue of CSEA called it a “grandstand play” for the attention of the Governor’s “millionaire friends,” and Kenneth Brynian of the New York State Public Employees Federation called them “draconian pension cuts.” Oh, and by the way, none of these changes will affect current public sector employees, only future ones.

The only change of the Governor’s that I disagree with involves scaling back special programs for police and firefighters. It seems to me that they put their lives on the line every day and deserve special treatment.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Albany Strikes Budget Accord to Cut Spending,” describes a striking first success for the new Governor, Andrew Cuomo. In additon to meeting the deadline for a new budget, the first time that has been achieved in five years — and sometimes they’ve been stunningly late for months or more — he reduced spending on Medicare, stood up to the health lobbyists and unions, and did it all without any major new taxes.

Albany has been criticized in the past for its dysfunction, but here’s hoping that Governor Cuomo is and will continue to be making a difference. I must admit I used to be more of a fan of his father but have been willingly to give him a chance and am suitably impressed. The Governor was also clever enough to lock in some of the new changes in the budget for two years and will thus avoid relitigating the issues again in just 12 months.

Andrew Cuomo employed a clever pressure point to the normally recalcitrant legislature, threatening to re-introduce his proposals as emergency legislation if the budget was not passed on time, leading either to passage without any concessions or a shutdown of the state government. Legislators clearly did not want to be responsible for the latter.

The lead story in today’s New York Times, “Nassau County has its Finances Seized by State,” may be the first of a series of stories of government units in such deep financial distress that they go through, either voluntarily or involuntarily, the equivalent of an individual declaring bankruptcy.

The article describes the takeover of Nassau County by the NIFA (Nassau Interim Finance Authority) after a 6-0 vote declaring the county’s budget was out of balance by almost six times more than the statutory authority they required to act. The NIFA was originally created in 2000 after a similar problem with Nassau County’s finances requiring a $100 million state bailout.

The County Executive, a Republican, Edward Mangano, protested the takeover declaring that everything was fine. But the article makes clear that it was far from that — despite the County’s intake of $1 billion in sales taxes and $800 million in property taxes. The government refused to raise taxes or cut services (Republicans in Washington, listen up!) and relied on one-shot revenue enhancements instead. And the Board observed that even by the County’s liberal accounting standards, it had the power to act.

The Board will remain in control until the County rewrites its budget, mandated by February 15th. But one can’t help but wonder if this is the first in a series of events across the nation of local, county and state units going belly up.

The lead story in today’s New York Times, “Rattner Settles Pension Inquiry for $10 Million,” augurs well for Andrew Cuomo’s performance as Governor. Mr. Cuomo cleared the last major case on his docket as attorney general, winning a fine from the financier, Steven Rattner, regarding improper activity related to the New York State pension fund. The activity involved promotion of investments by the pension fund in private equity companies, and Cuomo’s overall investigation returned $170 million to the pension fund as well as obtaining a felony conviction of Alan Hevesi, its trustee.

Mr. Rattner, who was designated by the Obama administration to handle the restructuring of the automobile industry, is a prominent Wall Street figure, and his feud with Mr. Cuomo threatened to taint the beginning of the new administration. The fine will not significantly affect Mr. Rattner, whose net worth is estimated at somewhere between $188 million and $608 million. Still, it will clear the deck for the new attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, and this is the responsible thing to do. In contrast, Eliot Spitzer left several prominent cases on the table when he became Governor and Mr. Cuomo took over in his stead.

The details of Mr. Rattner’s  improper activities are really par for the course. His company, Quadrangle, “allegedly” help private equity firms promote themselves as investments for the state pension fund, and he received kickbacks in turn. However, it is important to note that Mr. Rattner admitted no guilt as a result of the settlement.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Hevesi is Poised to Plead Guilty in Pension Case,” describes an impending major success for Andrew Cuomo in cleaning up state corruption.

The long-running investigation of ex-comptroller Alan Hevesi’s office seems to be on the verge of obtaining a plea agreement from Mr. Hevesi regarding misuse of New York State’s pension funds. The $125 billion fund was used by members of the comptroller’s office, and it now appears Mr. Hevesi himself, to reward political allies and friends by offering to invest the funds in their chosen instruments. All sorts of malfeasance were involved including kickbacks and manipulation by Mr. Hevesi’s outside political consultant, Hank Morris.

Apparently, a not too subtle attempt was made by Mr. Cuomo to achieve Alan Hevesi’s plea — Andrew Cuomo went after Mr. Hevesi’s sons, Daniel Hevesi and Andrew Hevesi, who were tangentially implicated in the scandal. The timing can not have been coincidental as Mr. Cuomo is starting to feel pressure from Republican nominee, Carl Paladino, in the race for Governor.

So, instead, now Mr. Cuomo is generating favorable headlines about the investigation instead of a political analysis he wishes to avoid. The coming convinction also drives home Mr. Cuomo’s main talking point in his campaign about the need to clean up Albany, when his opponent is claiming that Mr. Cuomo is part of the problem.

The lead story in today’s New York Times, “Cuomo’s Image as Unstoppable Suffers a Blow, describes a conundrum Andrew Cuomo must resolve if he’s going to be elected Governor of New York State. He must decide how to engage Carl Paladino in an effective manner without losing any of his own image in the process.

Paladino has been showing surprising success in recent polls, especially those of likely voters, where he trails Mr. Cuomo by only six points, 49-43. His unorthodox style and willingness to say just about anything is starting to score points with the public who are sick of politics as usual.

And Mr. Cuomo is nothing if not a politician. His career has been distinguished as head of the H.U.D. under Clinton and currently Attorney General. But in a year when politicians are coming under attack regardless of their skills, this background may ultimately prove to be a detriment rather than an asset.

However, in engaging Paladino, Mr. Cuomo must be careful not to descend into a mud-slinging contest where his former reputation for arrogance can reassert itself. Also, Mr. Cuomo may be plagued by a mistake similar to the one that doomed him in his prior run for Governor in 2002 when he said that George Pataki was just “holding the coat” for Rudolph Guiliani during the 9/11 attack.

My advice? Mr. Cuomo should not be afraid to enter the fray but in a professional manner, rebutting Mr. Paladino’s accusations by showing himself to be the adult in the room rather than the child.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Inquiry by State Clears Paterson of Criminal Acts,” describes the results of an investigation by Judith Kaye, former head of the New York State Court of Appeals. She was appointed to head the inquiry by State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who recused himself because of his current campaign for Governor.

The investigation found that Governor Paterson’s actions, while not rising to the level of criminality, definitely indicated poor judgement and a lack of commitment to fighting domestic abuse. The event started when one of Governor Paterson’s senior aides, David Johnson, was accused by his girlfriend of ripping off her Halloween costume, shoving her against a mirrored bureau and choking her.

Implicated in the scandal was a senior State Police official who tried to dissuade the girlfriend, Sherr-una Booker, from pressing charges, various officials in the executive branch, and even the Governor who called her personally to try and limit political damage from the matter.

According to the article, the dismissal of further prosecution of the Governor will enable him to retire with many opportunities still open to him, even though he still faces potential charges of perjury for lying about receipt of $2,000 worth of free tickets to the 2009 World Series from the New York Yankees.

One does wonder, however, about Governor Paterson’s chivalry toward the fairer sex. When you consider the way he treated Caroline Kennedy in her plans to run for Senate, a pattern starts to emerge.

The lead article in the New York Times today, “States Embrace Core Standards for the Schools,” describes an effort to apply basic core requirements for students from kindergarten through high school. Already 27 states have adopted the framework, primarily to participate in a contest for grants sponsored by the federal government under President Obama’s Race to the Top program. The total amount to be awarded is significant — $3.4 billion. Adopting the framework gives states a certain number of points in the competition.

President Obama’s successful governing style has become evident. Instead of trying to impose a top-down solution from the executive branch, he gives affected parties a chance to influence the legislation. The current national standards were initially created by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers.

As contrast, when the Senate was presented with history standards in 1995, they were rejected by a 99-1 vote.

The progress President Obama has made is particularly striking because there is a long tradition of local preeminence regarding school curriculums. According to the article, the Race to the Top competition is making the difference. There is, however, the issue of whether states will continue to implement the standards, a process that could take a year or more, if they do not receive a grant.

Anyway, more good news about progress thanks to the Obama administration.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Mayor to Cancel Teachers’ Raises, Averting Layoffs,” conveys Mayor Blooomberg’s decision to cancel teacher raises for two years, as a result saving more than 4,000 jobs.

Noone likes to have their wages frozen, and the teacher unions complained vociferously. Yet the idea of shared sacrifice is endemic to American values, and any reasonable person will recognize the tight budgetary predicament of schools in New York State.

In addition, teachers will still receive “step increases,” based on new degrees, advanced training or milestones in their careers.

In fact, the ability of Mayor Bloomberg to freeze the wages is partly a result of the unions’ greed in the first place. Both the city teachers’ union and the principals’ union are working without a contract because their negotiations with the city are at an impasse.

Now, don’t misunderstand me. I’m one of the strongest supporters of unions, except when they become dysfunctional. This generally occurs as a result of accumulating too much power and ignoring the needs of the people they were meant to serve, those who benefit directly from their jobs, in this case, the students.

Saving 4,000 jobs, and the impact of that on class size is undeniable. And it’s when unions become too greedy, that they affect the public support essential for their ultimate success.

The lead story in The New York Times this morning, titled “New York State Votes to Double Charter Schools,” describes a legislative victory for charter school advocates last night in the State Assembly and Senate. The bill will increase the number of charter schools across the state to about 460.

Passage of the bill was crucial if the State is to receive about $700 billion in federal grants under a program known as Race to the Top. The state’s eligibility for the program will also be assisted by a separate bill tying teachers’ salaries to their students’ performance on standardized tests.

Surprisingly, the State legislature avoided its useful dysfunctional results and may help to avoid thousands of teacher layoffs should the grant money be received. In fact, they passed the bill just in the nick of time since the deadline to apply for the federal grant is this Tuesday.

Mayor Bloomberg, who also supports an increase in charter schools, also won a hard-fought victory. And so in the end did students, who will benefit from these institutions, publicly financed but privately run.

Of course, the teachers in charter schools are generally not unionized, thus giving them more flexibility to pursue innovative strategies not commonly used in other public schools. And that seems to be the sole reason they are opposed by teachers’ unions. I’m one of the strongest union supporters around and applaud the entire history of unions in our nation, but, at some point, too much of a good thing is just that. And that is the story of teacher unions’ opposition to this bill.