With our pension system operating like a runaway bus which might explode if it slows down, what is called for is a City Comptroller with a reputation for honesty and integrity so shining that we are blinded by the bright light of their integrity.

Instead, we are facing a choice between two competitors--arguably, the two best competitors who sought the office this year--who’ve not blinded our vision with the bright light of their integrity, but rather, blurred it with the fog they’ve generated.

John Liu is seemingly incapable of admitting the simple truth about the most basic details of his own biography. By contrast, David Yassky has never lied about his personal history, preferring instead to confine his distortions to where he stands on any issue he may have to vote upon.

I cannot call Yassky a liar; rather he is an expert in constructing elaborate escape hatches to his every promise. By contrast, Liu lacks such expertise for niggling details, but he is a quick learner, and rather than focusing on such little picture minutiae, Liu has instead become a master of the broad-based elaborate prevarication, like his gutsy and ballsy attempt to take credit for uncovering scandalous conduct at the MTA he had absolutely nothing to do with revealing. Liu is nothing if not ambitious, and the scope of his falsehoods proves it.

Both men have mastered taking money from those pension fund entrepreneurs looking to pay to play at the Comptroller’s trough, and both have mastered taking money from developers and throwing it at favored groups with minimal attempts at “oversight” (actually, “overlook” might be a better way of describing it). In fact, on issues like private bus lines, Liu has sometimes seemed to side with his contributors over the interests of the general public. By contrast, Yassky seems merely to have sometimes thrown small amounts of money at some seemingly worthless programs.

Those who expect me to diss Liu for his WFP endorsement may be disappointed. Clearly, his election has not been their highest priority, and during the initial primary he did not seem to be involved in their fast-money shell games. In fact, as I noted last week, there was evidence that WFP operations for Bill DeBlasio sometimes dropped Liu for other candidates where it served their real interests. Nonetheless WFP’s support for Liu, and the favors they will surely seek, are not a point in Liu’s favor.

Still, as I noted before last week’s vote, there seems to be one real difference between the candidates. Yassky is the only candidate who has not ruled out considering adding a fifth tier to our potentially insolvent pension system. This is a brave stance only in context, but sometimes context is all we have.

As I also noted, Yassky eats dinner every night with the Executive Director of the watchdog Citizen’s Budget Commission, so it does seems credible that Yassky might harbor a genuine touch of fiscal conservatism, which is exactly the sort of watchdog those of with liberal visions desire: someone who will ensure as best he can that the money is there for our real priorities.

Despite his own efforts, Yassky has not attracted a great deal of union support, and while he will undoubtedly seek such support in the future, he will lack such obligations, making him a potentially honest broker on such questions as determining prevailing wages. At any rate, Yassky’s personality traits include an ability to sometimes forget his friends, which in a Comptroller may be an invaluable qualification.

It would be nice to have one Citywide official who is a person of color, even if it a banker’s son. But it would be nicer to have a person of any color who might take his fiduciary responsibilities seriously. Up until Mark Green entered the race for Public Advocate, Liu was seeking that office, which is a frightening measure of his seriousness.

By contrast, Yassky is one coldhearted mother--which may be his best qualification.

Vote for Yassky.