A quarterly magazine of urban affairs, published by the Manhattan Institute, edited by Brian C. Anderson.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
The Coming Budget Crunch « Back to Story
Showing 10 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
"People living on SSI disability and SS old age pensions are scumbags for taking "handouts."
Did I miss the commentor who stated this? Or, was this just some ridiculous extrapolation that screamed of trolling. I think the thesis that NY likes to spend without restraint, or plan to fund such spending (beyond more taxation), was hard to miss. The comments followed in agreement. Perverse?
"The bad news, at least from a political perspective, is that the city would have to rein in its worker-compensation costs."
You can forget about any savings from this bunch - they are Democrats, and used to wringing as much as possible from the citizens, knowing that their lock on the media means that the public will not vote for any party but theirs. I meanreally, when it comes to the good of the citizens or the good of the unions, how will they decide?
The unions wanted to negotiate their contracts with the new Democratic mayor since they know that the new mayor will give them whatever they want, even if the city can't afford it.
The lessons of the past, and of cities such as Detroit will be forgotten,as Democrats rush to pay off public employees even as the city resumes the decline put off by Guiliani's election. We can all look forward to a 1970's style financial crisis as businesss go back to fleeing the City even as we once again return to the lawlessness of years past.
Face it - the Democrats have no reason to engage in anything other than paying off the public employee unions - they do not suffer politically if the city deteriorates, in fact, the more poor the City becomes the more votes and fedeeral and state money they get. And the more impoverished the residents become the more money can be demanded from the state and federal governments - money filtered through Democratic front groups as well as government.
In other words poverty brings together a happy convergance of money and power, so it is in the interests of Democrats to promote policies that cause poverty. There is no political reward to the Democrats for prosperity - none. And politics are all that matter to these people, politics and the power that comes with dealing with poverty and crisis.
In short, New York City Democrats, like Democrats everywhere, only know one way to run government - in a way that causes permanent conditions of poverty. There is no room in Democratic governance for prosperity since prosperity leads to a lessening of power and money.Look to actions,not words, and in action Democrats favor policies that drive away business and causes poverty. The goal is legions of poor and uneducated, a large number of apparatchiks in the form of poverty workers and public employees - and no one else excpet a few national corporations and the so called "good" rich. It's a playbook that Democrats use everywhere, and if I sound like a broken record it is because it is a playbook in use everywhere.
This is where New York City is headed - the Guiliani and Bloomberg Administrations temporarily put if off. Sooner or later city government will kill off the financial industry, which is already being hollowed out as back office operations move elsewhere. Once that happens the rest of the city will soon begin going broke, and we will be right back where we were about 22 years ago
Back then under Democratic Administrations the City was well on its way to decline. With the forthcoming election of a Democrat beholden to city unions, that decline will resume with a vengence. It will be 1991 all over again within a year, two at most. You are talking logic to people who have no use for what you are saying since they have a different agenda entirely.
The Democrats want a very different New York City from that which it is today. Goodbye 2013! Hello 1991!
Nonsense. They'll go like Detroit pennies on the dollar. And ask Uncle Sugar --funny's he's from Hawaii a cane sugar state at that -- for the rest. No worries mate. She'll be right.
Good article. Thanks for putting out the basic numbers. Too bad this doesn't connect the labor cost changes with the specific contracts that were implemented. That is a more difficult research problem.
The comments, however, go off to name calling and odd assertions that there are schemes in the works:
-- "every crackpot scheme like... refusal to allow fracking...."
-- "...NYC government is a malignant tumor...."
-- "...the half million New Yorkers living on generous government handouts...."
Yeah, folks. People living on SSI disability and SS old age pensions are scumbags for taking "handouts."
And with common attitudes among "conservatives" as perverse as these examples, why would anyone sensible vote Republican ???
Andrew Cuomo is highly unlikely to become President. Unlike Obama, who had virtually no history to pin on him (other than the likes of Bill Ayers), or Hillary's selling point (first woman POTUS) Cuomo now has the SAFE Act which will virtually disqualify him as a serious candidate nationally. He also has his tax increases, an environmental record of supporting every crackpot scheme like cap-n-tax, refusal to allow fracking, etc. When the NYC budget fiasco hits, he will demagogue and blame others, but it will not escape notice that he was part of the cause, not the solution. It is highly unlikely he will have the guts to do what Snyder is doing in MI or Walker in WI. There is remarkably little leadership in NY politics in this era.
New York City has a history of rising like a phoenix from the ashes. At the moment, it's smoking but not yet burning. I'm not fussed.http://www.thecriticalmom.com
The NYC government is a malignant tumor growing on the financial services industry. It can relocate and ultimately it will, once it figures out how to do it. There is no reason why Wall Street should pay billions in tribute to DC 37.
Not to worry. So what if New York City goes the way of Detroit? Would it even be newsworthy if the city couldn't pay its electric bill and the lights went out?
But seriously, it could happen, and it would be a really big deal. Fall of Rome size big. That event, should it happen, would be an incontrovertible, undeniable symptom of a more general decline.
New York State's Governor, Andrew Cuomo, has his sights set on a run for the White House in 2016. The main stream media is, for the most part, forming a protective circle around Mrs Clinton, Dear Leader's putative successor. Unfortunately for Mrs Clinton, she, unlike Mr Obama, has a public track record. And it isn't very pretty. The New York Times and the TV news networks can pretend that her record doesn't exist, but it does, and it is out there. Not to mention the many enemies that both Clintons have made over the years.
The Cuomo's (father and son) have shown in the past that they are ready, willing and able to fight dirty if necessary. Remember Cuomo's supporters handing out flyers and posters and chanting "Vote for Cuomo, not the homo", when Cuomo Sr. ran against Ed Koch for Governor?
The last thing that Governor Cuomo is going to let himself be seen as is a party to New York City's ultimate belt-tightening: closing schools, laying off city employees, and cutting back benefits to the half million New Yorkers living on generous government handouts.
The next Mayor will not have an easy time of it. On the other hand, if the next Mayor is Anthony Weiner, at least we may get some interesting photo-ops out of his tenure in office.
Mr. Malanga is right, but none of the candidates has the spirit to deal with such a problem of public employee union and welfare recipient entitlement.
NYC will follow Detroit within 5 years. Or quicker.