Suffolk legislator mulls spending cap

Setting up a debate that could have implications for this fall's elections, a key Suffolk legislator says he's working on an alternative to County Executive Steve Levy's call for a 2 percent cap on discretionary spending.

Legis. Jon Cooper (D-Lloyd Harbor) said he's also calling for a 2 percent cap. But he said his measure would make it more difficult to practice a "shell game" in which executives and lawmakers simply reclassify discretionary spending as mandatory to stay under the cap.

Cooper's cap also could be adopted by the legislature, instead of going to voters in the form of a referendum, as called for in Levy's proposal.

Some Democratic legislators worry that putting a spending cap on the ballot could bring out more conservative voters likely to back Levy for re-election.

Cooper denied trying to neutralize the potential political benefits for Levy, saying he simply was sticking to the typical process, in which legislators pass measures without a referendum.

Levy called Cooper "one of the most liberal spenders in the legislature. He has no credibility in talking about a spending cap."

"John Cooper calling for a spending cap is like Charlie Sheen calling for prohibition," Levy said, referring to the actor, who last month entered rehab for substance-abuse problems.

"That's absurd and below him," Cooper said. "I'll put my credentials against the county executive any day of the week."

Suffolk has a 4 percent cap on general fund discretionary spending, which can include areas such as staffing that can be altered from budget to budget.

Other spending, including Medicaid payments and interest on loans, is mandatory.

But some classification decisions are debatable, Cooper said. He cited a 2006 decision by Levy to reclassify employee-retirement contributions from discretionary to mandatory. Legislative budget officials thought retirement costs should be discretionary because the county's contribution depends on how many employees it chooses to have.

Levy said Cooper's proposed change is unnecessary because legislators and the executive must agree to reclassifications.