Room Eight is closed to new posts. The existing archive will remain up for the immediate future.
If you were a Room Eight writer and would like access to an export of your content, please contact the editor.
This site is not affiliated with or collaborating with any other news or opinion site.
Last week Steve Malanga, from the Manhattan Institute on this blog and in the New York Post made the case that Rudy Giuliani really was a real conservative, despite abortion, gay rights and gun control.
In the Post, Malanga wrote of Rudy:
He ran New York with a conservative's priorities – and delivered reform to a degree unprecedented in modern U.S. history.
As the previous essay shows, despite collecting far more in payroll taxes than was required to pay Social Security benefits over the past 24 years, the federal government was deeper in debt in 2005 than it had been in 1980. All the additional Social Security taxes, and then some, were spent, meaning that despite the $1.86 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund, the retirement of the Baby Boomers, and those after, will either have to be cut back or paid for a second time. To determine where the money went, the subject of this post, the entire federal budget in 1980, before the Social Security Amendments of 1983 and the Reagan Administration that authored them, and in 2005, the most recent year, must be compared. I have tabulated federal revenues and expenditures, by category, per $100,000 of GDP to show how large a part of the economy each category was then, and is now. Some of the results are not a surprise. Higher payroll taxes, which fall hardest on the middle class and poor, have been used to offset lower income taxes, which fall hardest on the affluent, and soaring health care spending has also soaked up a larger and larger share of federal funds, as is has for the State of New York. And some of the results are a surprise, at least to me, at least in their extent if not their direction. Federal spending has fallen as a share of GDP in virtually every other category aside from health care – and overall.
Last week was the 10th anniversary of the shooting spree at the Empire State Building that killed one and wounded many. The Daily News printed a story detailing that the family of the Palestinian killer now admitted that he did it because he “wanted to punish the U.S. for supporting Israel.
Nearly 25 years ago those running the federal government made my generation, and those after, a promise: pay a vastly higher payroll tax throughout your lives and accept a later retirement age, and Social Security will be there to keep you out of poverty in your later years. That promise was made by the eight Republicans and seven Democrats, appointed by President Reagan, who made up the 1982 National Commission on Social Security Reform, by the Congress that adopted its recommendations, and by the President who signed them into law in 1983. That Commission, now long forgotten, was headed by Alan Greenspan. The payroll tax increase has been especially burdensome, since this is a tax that hits you harder the less you earn, and the higher rate has coincided with an era in which the distribution of income has become more unequal in any event. Those my age know they will not be allowed to collect Social Security until age 67, rather than age 65. Yet despite all the additional money that has been paid, and the benefit reductions imposed, to “save Social Security,” the truth is that Social Security was not saved. What has happened is a generational betrayal.
New York City is known as a place with low property taxes, thanks to its virtually unique sky-high local income taxes. Yet there is one class of property for which the city’s property taxes are not low – commercial buildings without special tax breaks. While it has many liabilities, the property tax has one key advantage – it is hard to hide the asset being taxed, and difficult for it to move to a lower-taxed jurisdiction. But like trees, commercial buildings do move slowly over decades as new ones are built in some places and not built in others, while old ones are torn down or converted when they become obsolete. Does this have a negative effect on the New York City economy? We may be about to find out the answer.
In an article on The Politico website about the problems that Republican Presidential candidates are having with the abortion issue, Rudy Giuliani’s spokesperson says something interesting –
“He presided over a decline of abortions, promoted adoption as a real alternative and saw adoptions increase and abortions decrease,” says Comella.
It’s true that the abortion rate went down in the country and New York City during the Clinton years which largely paralled the Giuliani administration. But I don’t remember any city sponsored drives to promote adoption instead of abortion. Does anybody out there think this really happened?
A number of states, including New York and New Jersey are considering moving up their Presidential Primary dates to early February.
Those supporting the move in all these states are doing so for a reason that makes sense – giving their state’s voters more of a say in picking the next president.
But in a few states – New York, Illinois and Kansas, pols have said they have another motive. That is helping the presidential candidate(s) from their state.
In response to yet another demonstration that New York City residents pay above average state and local taxes, Mayor Bloomberg told the New York Post that “New Yorkers pay more taxes because they get more services.” But if you tabulate how much New York City spends on different type of services, as share of its personal income, you see that isn’t really so. The Independent Budget Office shows that the local share of Medicaid and welfare, which most places don’t have to pay, jacks up New York City’s taxes, in part because our Medicaid program is so expensive, in part because having a local share shifts the burden of the poor to those who live and work near them. That’s us.
The New York Times had an interesting article today on school choice within the public schools. “Under Mr. Klein, choice has increased exponentially,” the Times said. “Giving people choices is always empowering and almost always will lead to better outcomes for kids,” the Chancellor is quoted as saying. “Choices could indicate when an undesirable school should close.” Yet far from feeling empowered, parents are feeling frantic according to the newspaper. And less affluent, low income parents and their children will be left behind. Why? One sentence captures the problem. “While some parents say they are thrilled to have such a rich menu of options, others complain that it is the schools — not families — who do the choosing.” That’s the reality. The limited, though hopefully growing (some who post here say no) number of schools were a decent education is on offer are deciding which children they will deign to educate. Or it is being decided by chance, or other procedures. The other schools aren’t going to close. They are going to get the kids who aren’t accepted or who lose the lottery.
I'm confused.
The City's Independent Budget Office has released a report stating that New York City residents pay much higher state and local taxes than residents of any other city in the US.
How can this be possible?
From 1994 until 2002, wasn't our Mayor a conservative and a tax cutter? Didn't he cut the welfare rolls and refuse to cave into unions. Isn't he the natural heir to Ronald Reagan. Doesn't his conservative fiscal policy mean that Republican primary voters should vote for him despite his views on social issues?
Can Fred Siegel, Steve Malanga, the other folk at the Manhattan Institute, the editorial writers at the NY Post and NY Sun explain how this could have happened?