The Democratic Party is on the verge of claiming complete control of the New York State government. There is a Democratic governor, and Democrats make up about two-thirds of the state Assembly. The last remaining Republican holdout is the state Senate, and Democrats are only two seats away from a majority there. In addition, the watchword for this election is "change," and Democrats are on the "change bandwagon."

The major stumbling block to turning the state Senate blue is that Republicans have several million dollars available. The Senate Republican Campaign Committee (SRCC) has $1.7 million in cash, compared with just under $1.3 million for the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee (DSCC). As of a week ago, the Democratic state party committee had a tiny advantage over the Republican state party committee, $418K to $360K. In addition, over the last two months the SRCC had transferred far more to individual candidates than the DSCC had transferred to its candidates.

In other words, Democrats need a major transfusion of money, and there's no time to raise it.

There is a source of money that might be tapped. After a three-way primary in which he got 68% of the vote, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver still has $2.5 million in his own campaign account. State law only allows him to transfer small amounts to other candidates' campaign accounts, but it also allows him (or any candidate) to transfer as much as he wants to the DSCC, which could then transfer all they want to individual Senate candidates' campaign committees.

In other words, he could send $1.5 million to the DSCC, which would give Democrats a huge leg up in the battle to win the state Senate, and still keep a million dollars.

But wait - there's more!

The supporters and endorsers of Sheldon Silver's bid to retain his seat, and therefore the Speaker's chair, generally maintain that we may finally have the opportunity to pass major bills such on marriage equality, education finance reform, rent regulation, and so on. The underlying threat is that if Silver loses then those bills won't pass.

How's that again?

Suppose, just for the fun of it, that lightning strikes, the earth shakes, and Silver loses. The immediate result would be a mad scramble for leadership in the Assembly, and the only guarantee is that nobody knows who would win. Well, almost the only guarantee -- for whoever wins will have to promise to push forward exactly those reforms that Silver's supporters are talking about.

NY Capitol News reports that there may not be a complete state budget by the March 31 deadline.

Actually, they're reporting that some budget items that don't need to be decided by the start of the new fiscal year may be put off until later. The idea is to make decisions regarding education, heathcare, and other "basic budget" items now, and deal with the less vital decisions later, when there is more time to figure out just where we stand fiscally.

The problem is, where we stand fiscally is on sand.

New York, like most states, has a constitution that requires an annual balanced budget. The theory is that we need to force our "leaders" to be responsible. It's a nice theory, but it doesn't work. It doesn't work, because our "leaders" have not behaved responsibly. During the economic boom years, when the money was flooding into state coffers, nobody in power spoke out about finding a way to plan for a future date when that flood would become a stream, and then a trickle.

Seriously, who would have thought, a couple of years ago, that Eliot Spitzer's determined decision to name his running mate would make any real difference?

At this point, if there is anyone we would choose right now to put in the position of having to step in and become one of the "three men in the room," facing off opposite Sheldon Silver and Joseph Bruno just two weeks before the end of the fiscal year, rebuild confidence in our state government's ability to get things done, and do it all with a recession on the horizon and special interest groups licking their chops, it's David Paterson.

Sure, there were good people mounting a run for Lieutenant Governor (or, as it says in our state constitution, "lieutenant-governor"). But I for one am relieved that Spitzer brought then-Senator Paterson on board. I met the other candidates, and it's possible that they could have done the job. But I wouldn't want to bet a $120 billion budget on it, not with everything the new Governor will be up against.

In theory, when someone running for chief executive, whether of a city, a state or the country, picks a running mate, the choice is supposed to be based on who would be the best person to step in and take over on short notice. Fortunately, Eliot Spitzer made the right choice.