Hours before Eliot Spitzer resigned on March 12, State Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith was the featured guest at the first “On/Off the Record” Breakfast hosted by The Capitol. In a wide-ranging interview conducted at 74 State, Smith discussed how he first heard about the scandal that ended Spitzer’s political career, what the political earthquake meant for him and his conference’s intent to take the majority in the fall, and what he expected the change in governors would mean for policy in New York State in the years ahead.
What follows is an edited and abridged tran scri pt.

Q: Where were you and how did you hear the news about Eliot Spitzer?
A: It’s funny you ask that question. Governor Paterson and I always happen to be together when there are cataclysmic moments of late. We were actually in the Capitol in his office, we were meeting, going over some items regarding the budget, just sort of the future of the state, and an aide came through the door and said, “Lieutenant Governor, you have to take this call,” and he sort of motioned to them and said, “No, I’m talking to the Leader, I’ll be with you,” and they said, “No, you have to take this call.” And he walked out and I guess about two minutes later he came back in, he was standing there and he looked at me and right behind him came Charles O’Byrne, his chief of staff, and he said, “We have to tell you something. Now.” As a politician, I’m looking up thinking, “What else did I do? What happened? I thought my life was in front of everybody, what’s going on?” They both sat down and said, “We have to tell you something,” and I thought maybe something was wrong with David so I said, “What’s wrong with David?” and then they proceeded to say that the stories that had been out earlier about the incident involved the chief executive of the state. They were still straight-faced so I said, “Come on, that’s a joke, it just can’t be,” and they said, “No, it’s true, we’re not sure to what extent what occurred, but there was a problem.” So I, at that moment I said, “I need to leave,” and I left and went immediately over to my conference and kicked out all the staff and said, “I need to talk to the members.” We knew something was wrong but we didn’t know what was going on and I basically, not only did I kick the staff out but I told them to move faster, you have to get out right now, and the rest is history—just an incredible moment.

Q: What does the end of Eliot Spitzer mean for the Democratic efforts to take the Senate? Will it effect things?
A: No, quite frankly, and for those that may not realize this, for the Senate Democratic Conference has always been a six-year plan. Most people feel, as moments occurred, but we actually had a business plan about how we were going to do this from '04 to '08. If you know in ’04 we took two seats, in '06 we took two more. We did not anticipate Senator Balboni in the state government, but that occurred and we took that seat. Why we don’t think we’re off course is, if you remember, from the moment that Senator Craig Johnson got elected, a month or two later we had Troopergate and all this stuff that occurred during the year and everybody said, “Lose your strategy of the majority.” And then we went up to the North Country, where there were 30,000 more Republicans to Democrats and astounded the entire planet, because we did get calls from around the world about that race. Nancy Pelosi actually called.
So, the lesson there is that all politics is local. Darrel Aubertine was the right candidate. He was the person that they understood, and I think it was summed up in his theme, which was, “If you have to have somebody represent us, why not be one of us?” And that’s the same that’s going to go with Maltese, Robach, Alesi, DeFrancisco, Steve Saland, Seward.
…
It does not deter our plan. Our plan is probably accelerated, if you will. It is really a beautiful thing because people get a false sense of security from an event and that’s okay, but we are a very steady ship, we are sailing in the right direction, not only are we sailing in the right direction because of the compass and the mechanics of our ship are not only technologically perfect, but the wind is also in our favor.

Q: Are you concerned about protecting any of the incumbent Democratic senators?
A: Well, the concern is more about our resources and how they’re utilized. Because obviously we don’t have unlimited resources. We will have adequate resources and we may have a little more than we thought we would. It’s about how we strategically spend it becomes important. I will always work to protect the members of our conference.

Q: When the House Democrats were running in 2006, they laid out an agenda if they won. Is that something you think the State Senate Democrats will do?
A: Not only have we been preparing, we are ready. Most of our members over the last year, unbeknownst to most people, have been in what we consider Majority School. They were involved with intellectuals and academics and interest groups talking about their specific areas of expertise. We were preparing ourselves from an operational standpoint and going forward, we actually have, though I will not release today, a 20/20 plan for the State of New York—20/20 meaning the year 2020, also having 20/20 vision. We have a document that is about 200 pages that at some point you will be the beneficiaries of, when we actually implement some of which is there.
There are eight categories: education, housing, transportation, environment, health care, economic development, technology. And it lays out where we see the state not only in the long term, but in the short term. But we have already laid out part of how we move the state forward. One, if you recognize our conference has been the only conference that has been talking about cutting spending. It was our conference who came with a $2 billion cost-containment package that talked about, “How do we do that? How do we do it with attrition?” Yes, I got slammed by the unions for it, but our conference is bold and courageous and we are prepared to take tough stands. Now, all our members didn’t agree with that, and that’s the beauty of our conference, but we talked about that. We laid out a full plan on how you save $2 billion, and at the same time talked about the importance of cutting spending. $124 billion dollars is too much money. We are spending too much money. We can be a lot more efficient in our budget than just adding another billion dollars or $2 billion, so we could put a political year budget in place to help get elected or re-elected, there’s no question. But there can be some clear, efficient steps taken to do that. We laid out at the same time a “Right New York” plan. To the governor’s credit, he took a lot of that and put it in his budget. That $1 billion upstate plan? Well, that was our “Right New York” plan. Our “Right New York” plan was very simple. A billion dollars in technology, in agriculture, in higher education, in infrastructure. That would provide the kind of economic stimulus to the state of New York, that we would create 25,000 jobs just in a three-year period, and those jobs obviously are economic drivers to keeping us going forward, providing revenue. … We are spending too much money. There is no reason why this state cannot spend $120 billion and not still do the same thing. We are spending much too much money, and you just can’t continue to bond bad debt in the future—it’s bad debt. Now, I can’t take my credit card and take a loan out to pay my mortgage on my house. At some point, it’s going to crash. So we’ve got to make common sense, the call of the day and not just a short term expedient.

Q: There has been concern expressed by some that Paterson is a more liberal person than Spitzer. Do you think there will be differences in legislation and in the agenda pushed, and the issues that are focused on?
A: Well, listen, David is his own man, just as I am, and I can’t predict what the future will be for him in terms of what his agenda will be. I can only say that our conference will be there to support him. … Most people don’t realize, I believe, I haven’t done the research on it, but I believe Spitzer was the first governor in his first six months to have a veto override, that we did, that the Senate Democrats did. But no one published that. All they thought was that we were the group that would do anything he asked, and that just wasn’t so. I don’t want to get into David’s head right now in terms of future, and whether or not he’s more liberal than Eliot or not.

Q: We’ve talked a lot about Eliot Spitzer, David Paterson, the Senate Democrats, how all this affects you in your various roles. Let’s talk specifically about you. If Hillary Clinton wins, then there will be a Senate seat open. The conventional wisdom was that if the seat was open, David Paterson would be the frontrunner for it. He now gets to make the decision about who it would be if it happens. Is that something you would be interested in? Would you put yourself in the running for that?
A: No.