No compromise = no budget. Unfortunately for a majority of the people in this state, that is a negative. For the Gov. and enough R representatives who are in tossup districts who have voters who read propaganda filled papers, that means they must compromise or else they don't get elected. You blame the pols -- I blame the voters.
As I said, NY is just like the rest of the country, overwhelmingly conservative, with pockets of areas (i.e., like NY City -- Long Island has been taken over by liberals, so has Ithaca, which is like Berzerkely, which CONTROL the rest of the state's interests, but doesn't align itself with the rest of the state's interest.
As I said Binghamton, Syrucuse, Albany, Buffalo, the Lake Champlain area (even Rochester), they all vote liberal. Westchester is even more liberal than Long Island and L.I. is a majority liberal or at least they vote that way. The people of Long Island are liberal enough and gullible enough that when Newsday starts publishing stories about the budget not being passed, enough people listen to it, believe it and become unhappy. The only real populated area in NYS that votes conservative is Staten Island. What you call pockets is where most people live.
The nation is the same way. Apparently, you've forgotten all about the red/blue map with the counties showing how many counties voted conservative.
As I said, a majority of the country voted for Gore and Nadar in 2000. The distribution of liberals into populated counties vs. less populated countries doesn't make what I said less true. Do you understand that? It is illogical to think that it does. It is a non-sequitur to imply that I've forgotten about the red/blue map.
Dreaming most of the country is not conservative doesn't make that a reality.
To conclude from anything that I said that I have a wish for this country to be nonconservative shows your judgment to be -- poor!
Imply such again and I will demonstrate your poor judgment again.
Really, I don't care what you think of my judgment. Let the facts speak for themselves, not spin on biased data collected by liberals with an agenda.
Suppose the Democrats are trying to create some new $10B program. The Republicans have two choices: agree to a $5B "compromise" program, or let the program pass for the full $10B over their objections. Which course of action is better?
I would posit that the first course of action is pure folly. If the program works at all, the Democrats will take all the credit and the Republicans will be blamed for not having let it work even better. If the program doesn't work, the Republicans will be blamed for not having allowed it the necessary funding. In either case, the inevitable result will be that the program will get at least $10B/year forevermore.
By contrast, if the Republicans say the program is a completely horrible idea but the Democrats nonetheless give it full funding, then if the program fails to live up to its promises, the Republicans will be well positioned to argue that it failed because it was a bad idea and it should be cut entirely. The Democrats will not be able to deflect any blame for the program's failure, since they will have gotten exactly what they asked for. The Republicans, having been consistent in their uncompromising opposition to the program, will be vindicated. And while the program's first-year appropriation will have been $10B instead of $5B, the future appropriations will be $0/year instead of $10B/year. So the sacrifice of the initial "extra" $5B will repay itself double in the second year, and will pay off 200% every year thenceforth.