If the Bloomberg or Thompson campaigns have bothered to read my prior two posts in this series, I can imagine what they think of them. Who is this nobody to critique our leadership, when the one organization he has ever led was the Park Slope-Windsor Terrace babysitting co-op, and even that for just one term? Who is this nobody to critique our management, when he has never hired anyone, only once led a work team (and found the experience sufficiently frustrating that he would probably not wish to repeat it), and has probably spent less than $500 lifetime on behalf of anyone other than himself, in stamps, paper clips and photocopies as treasurer of the local chapter of the American Planning Association? Well I haven’t been a manager but I have been managed, though I’ll admit to being not much of a follower as well as not a leader. So take my views for what they are worth.
I am, however, an expert in state and local policy, and I did run for (or rather against) the state legislature, for what is (or should be) primarily a public policy position. When doing so, I set out four themes I promised to guided by on every issue without exception, in opposition to a state government that was and is doing the opposite: equity and simplicity in government (against special deals for some but not others), generation equity (in opposition to added privileges for older generations and a diminished future for those who follow), personal and social responsibility (in opposition to something for nothing pandering), and fair value in public services for taxes paid (in opposition to officials whose campaigns are funded by producer interests). It is against these principles, my principles, that I will evaluate the policies of the Bloomberg Administration.
I think my first post, on management, pretty much covered fair value.
As to personal and social responsibility, is it really worth talking about at this point? I am no longer able to make a case that people should be willing to contribute more, and need to expect less, from our institutions. The people open to such an assertion would merely be further exploited and abused by those who control those institutions, who would then contribute even less in and take even more out. And it was Mayor Bloomberg and the United Federation of Teachers who finally convinced me, by pushing through a massively expensive pension enhancement in the midst of a financial crisis and claiming it would cost nothing. Yes, when I go to play paddleball I will pick up the trash that more rational but less considerate people leave there, but only as a way of asserting my own values. Perhaps if Thompson is elected I’ll throw trash on the ground instead, since I am a member of “the middle class” and “the rich” should pay to pick it up. In the end, institutions are doomed to collapse due to the actions of Generation Greed.
And personal responsibility? Well the Giuliani Administration pretty much established the fact that we are going to demand personal responsibility from the poor, minorities, and those living in older central cities like New York. And the Bush Administration pretty much established that we aren’t going to demand personal responsibility from anyone else.
Let’s focus on the last two. Mayor Bloomberg has a mixed record on equity and simplicity in government. After getting re-elected in 2005 and before deciding he wanted to run again, he did alter – over the objection of the United Federation of Teachers – the policy of directing more school resources to the limited number of schools attended by the children of the better off. However, as the school system begins to collapse over the next few years, I would expect “fair school funding” to be rescinded” – this has already started.
Bloomberg has been a participant in the cycle of higher tax rates and special deals for those who matter more. He raised property taxes 18.0% while deciding to send a check with his name on it to those who pay the lowest property taxes as a share of assessed value – homeowners. He later tried to get rid of that deal, and finally succeeded, but the higher tax rate stayed. He also deserves credit for deciding only those self-employed people earning over $100,000 should pay double the local income tax people with the same income who matter more. As for Thompson, sending a check to all homeowners was not enough. He proposed sending more checks specifically to senior citizens, since their retirement income gets exempted from state and local income taxes, particularly if they are retired public employees. In one of my first Room Eight posts, I said I wouldn’t vote for him as a result.
One might say that by having a mixed record on equity and simplicity in government, Bloomberg has a better record that any other New York politician over the past 20 years.
As for generational equity, Bloomberg also has a mixed record. During his administration the city borrowed lots of money without investing in very much infrastructure, just as the Giuliani and Dinkins Administration had done, notably by maintaining the de-funding to the MTA capital plan and not objecting when the state did the same. Street maintenance was cut back. We are facing the worst fiscal crisis since the 1970s, but still paying interest on the money the city borrowed to pay for operating costs during the last fiscal crisis, including the $3 billion the state gave permission for after 9/11 and the $2.5 billion in debt from the 1970s fiscal crisis that was refinanced.
Although pension contributions have increased, the city is still not paying for the massive pension enhancement of 2000, maintaining an unrealistic projection of investment returns while falling further and further in the hole, all while asserting (based on those projections) that the pensions are fully funded and additional benefits can be provided for nothing. And the signature fiscal achievement of the Bloomberg Administration, paying for retiree health benefits as the obligation was incurred, turned out to be a slush fund that is being drained to postpone budget cuts until after the elections.
On the other hand, virtually every other elected official in New York has proven to be far less responsible that Mayor Bloomberg, one-upping each other before joining across purported ideological lines to defer costs, advance revenues, and generally sell out our future well being. The Mayor, at least, has not proposed taking a public asset with an ongoing revenue stream and selling, leasing or bonding against it so that all that revenue can be spent now. That is standard practice for the State of New York.
The Bloomberg Administration at least pre-paid some debt during the bubble years, postponing city’s fiscal collapse for a couple of years. That is something no other New York politician would have proposed. While the transit system is no doubt at the start of a long-term decline, it has at least been painting streets to allow future generations to get around by bicycle, and by using zoning to shift development to close-in areas, increased the share of the city’s population that will be in a position to do so. The Mayor did propose congestion pricing as a way of partially funding the MTA, and has stood up for environmental sustainability, albeit only during the time when he did not think he would be running for re-election.
All this in an environment when the New York State legislature has practiced a scorched earth policy with regard to the state’s future, running up debts, disinvesting in the future, handing out money to existing interests, creating an environment hostile to new business, and raiding every source of revenue out there. A large share of the extra taxes we are paying, and service cuts that are coming, are due to bills run up during the Giuliani and Pataki Administrations, with the New York State legislature joyfully involved.
When it comes to labor relations, however, Bloomberg followed their lead. To pay for the 2000 pension enhancements, he cut the pay of new hires among police officers, firefighters, and those represented by DC37, just what the unions wanted, and now has proposed to cut the benefits of new hires as well, also the path of least resistance. He agreed to contracts that provided greater raises for teachers with seniority than new hires, and cut the take home pay of all future teachers by five percent. So far.
What is most infuriating about these decisions is that neither Bloomberg, nor the unions, nor the state legislature, nor the Governors, have come out and said what this means. What does it mean? They have decided that younger generations will be worse off than those who came before in public employment. By borrowing so much money, they have also decided that taxes will be higher for younger generations. Similar decisions have been made at the federal level. Yet when have you read “we have decided that younger generations will be worse off, and this is why we think it is right?” Never. It is always presented as a regrettable action due to “circumstances beyond our control.” If that is the case, then how come there is one deal after another added for older generations and public employees with seniority?
Mayor Bloomberg pushed through the 25/55 deal for teachers with seniority. According to his values, therefore, allowing existing teachers to retire seven years early while paying little or nothing more is more important than any educational program or level of quality that will be cut over the next few years. It is more important than having the take home pay of future teachers be the same as those today. Mayor Bloomberg has been unwilling to challenge the prevailing New York ideology of feudalism – what you should get depends on what you have got, even if unearned and unneeded, and all “shared sacrifices” are to be made by those who don’t have the deals. And, according to his values, we are not even owed an explanation. And he knows he doesn’t have to give one, because in this he is on the same side and the unions, the state legislature, Governor Patterson, and all the other politicians of his generation. That they even use the words “shared sacrifice” is an outrage. The 25/55 pension deal, followed by cuts in school services for children and lower pay and benefits for new public employees, is the template for what we can expect going forward.
And what could we expect from a Mayor Thompson? The same or worse. After all, he was Comptroller, the only office that is truly charged with defending the future, yet he did not do so. All he talked about is how many people ought to be getting a better deal right now. What we could expect of a Mayor Thompson is a proposal to have transit workers retire at 50 instead of 55 after working 25 years instead of 20, backed by an assertion that it would cost nothing. And then a demand that the “unaccountable MTA” use their “hidden billions” in their second set of books to pay for everything. Why not?
The Bloomberg Administration has a better record on fairness in government and generational equity than any of the other political actors in New York State, particularly the state legislature, which is flat out evil. It has provided the only fairness and generational equity out there for the past 15 years. That, however, is only because this has been the era of Generation Greed. In an absolute rather than relative sense, we are going to find out what the Bloomberg Administration has really done over the next three years. Beginning, perhaps, in three weeks. However is elected, the important decisions for the next 15 years have already been made. It is just a matter of waiting for the consequences to emerge.
One more thought. Mayor Bloomberg did his big sellouts of fairness while running for re-election, and took action in favor of fairness and the future when he didn’t think he would have to run again. What does that mean? I guess it means that only certain people are paying attention, and those are the people who need to be pandered to during elections. The rest can be lied to, as long as the consequences can be deferred, and then someone else can be blamed. Over the next four years, I expect the state legislature to blame Bloomberg if he is elected. And if Thompson is elected, the Democrats in the state legislature will expect him to allow the people and future of New York City to suffer a disproportionate share of “shared sacrifice” as he “takes one for the team.” Which he would do without objection.