Assemblyman Tom DiNapoli's column, "Vote for the Budget Amendment," completely misrepresented the real purpose and impact of the

Legislature's scheme to radically rewrite our state constitution.

In reality, the proposal is a thinly veiled power grab by our notoriously irresponsible state lawmakers. If it passes, it will unleash a new wave of spending; borrowing and taxing that could easily destroy New York.

While our state budget process has been a mess in recent years, this can't be blamed on the Constitution, which sets out a simple and precise set of rules designed to control spending and to make the governor primarily accountable for the results. (And if you don't think governors pay for over-taxing and over-spending, just ask Mario Cuomo.)

The Constitution now requires the Legislature to take "final action" on the governor's budget before it can appropriate any money on its own initiative with good reason. Senate and Assembly members concentrate on goodies for their home districts, while the governor is the only player in the game that has to run on a statewide basis. Eliminating this check is insane.

In addition, legislators now pay a personal price for their budget delays. Under a law effective since 1999, once a fiscal year starts without a budget in place, DiNapoli and his colleagues aren't paid until "final action" occurs.

The proposed amendment would turn the existing rules inside out, by abolishing any requirement for the Legislature to act on the governor's budget proposal. If a fiscal year ends before a new budget has been approved, the governor's budget would automatically expire and the prior year's budget would automatically stay in effect. Simply allowing this to happen would qualify as "final action" by the Legislature, under the terms of the proposed amendment. In other words, DiNapoli could claim he was "acting" when he was actually doing nothing - but he'd never again lose a day's pay.

For the first time since the 1920s, the Senate and Assembly would regain the primary power to shape the state's annual spending plan, because they would be authorized to attach their changes to the prior year's budget. And they would be free to exercise that power in the same way they have always operated - in the dark. The resulting legislative budget would not even have to be balanced. For DiNapoli to call these "positive changes" is a new low in cynicism, even by Albany standards. Positive for him, yes. But terrible for the rest of us.

DiNapoli cites a short and unimpressive list of groups supporting the proposed amendment. He doesn't tell you that it's been strongly criticized by leading constitutional scholars and financial experts. Nor does he tell you the amendment is opposed by his own party's gubernatorial candidate, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, and has been condemned by a broad cross section of other watchdogs including the Manhattan Institute's Empire Center, The Business Council, the Citizens Budget Commission and virtually every major newspaper editorial board in the state. In short, there is strong bipartisan opposition to the proposal with the noteworthy exclusion of the members of both the New York State Senate and Assembly.

DiNapoli's right about one thing. We should all go the polls and make our voices heard on this. But what we must say is "no."

Bruce Bent, CEO

The Reserve Funds

New York, NY

(The writer was the Republican candidate for Nassau County Executive in 2001. He resides in Manhasset.)