In the terrific first part of his State of the State address last week, Governor Paterson declared this "a winter of reckoning."

New York has a crisis in governance, he said: "Chronic and continuing experiences of outside influence and inside decay have bred cynicism and scorn of the people we represent."

Paterson unveiled a "Reform Albany agenda": severe caps on campaign contributions, ethics reform, term limits for state officials, spending cuts.

The legislators' response? "Cold," said the New York Times.

No surprise there; Paterson aimed his address straight at the legislators and at the interest groups who control so much of what happens in this state. But Paterson was expressing the outrage that many New Yorkers feel about their government.

He talked about "special interests who intimidate, who badger, and who push when they don't get their way - even when they are aware that the cupboard is bare."

"Cultures of addiction to spending, power, and approval have ruined empires," he said, "and now they threaten the Empire State."

Surely many legislators know, deep down, that Paterson is right, but I've seen no brave souls step out to embrace his call for reform. So is there anything the rest of us can do?

There are no simple solutions, although simplistic proposals abound. Among them: dump the incumbents.

But New York's problem, says Kent Gardner of Rochester's Center for Governmental Research, is not so much individual legislators as it is the system itself. If we vote out every incumbent next year, he says, there's no guarantee that their replacements will be any better. And they may be worse. Do we want neophytes who don't know their way around instead of legislators who have some clout in Albany - and who get state funds for, say, the Eastman Theatre or the Jazz Festival?

Much of the problem is that the legislature's leaders are more powerful than New York governors (in particular, this governor). Members of the legislature approve the state budget. They dole out money to governments and organizations in their districts. And for years, the Assembly and Senate leaders have controlled their members.

Nobody dares to rebel. The Senate majority leader and Assembly speaker can cut off money - not only for legislators' pet projects at home but also for their own re-election campaigns.

Gardner thinks maybe term limits could help. And maybe nonpartisan redistricting, which could take away some of the leaders' power.

But, he cautions, "there's nothing we can do that will solve the problem quickly."

My own favorite proposal is campaign finance reform. In New York, the limits on campaign donations are laughable. And that lets money, not needs, set public policy.

Paterson wants to limit donations to $250 if the donor is involved in the financial industry, $1000 otherwise. Gardner calls that "really, really draconian," and adds: "If we could pass that, we could really change things."

But legislators are no more likely to approve strict donation limits than they are to stage a rebellion against their leaders and bring democracy to New York State. And rebellion, unfortunately, may be the only real solution to the state's problems of governance.

In his speech last week, Paterson said his reform plan was "an invitation for leadership." Unless something dramatic stirs deep in the hearts of state legislators, that invitation won't be taken up. And as they wrestle with the governor over a new state budget, New Yorkers will be treated to more arguments and more backroom dealings.

Sadly, I don't sense that even now, legislators understand the depth of the public's unhappiness. The "crisis of governance" to which Paterson referred has led to a crisis of public faith in state government. Elected officials are causing that crisis. And only they can end it.

This is indeed "a winter of reckoning." Are any local legislators willing to join Paterson's call for reform?