NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg's Legacy: Massive Spending Increases
In The New York Post, Nicole Gelinas of the Manhattan Institute tallies up some incredible figures that underscore the massive spending increases we've seen in this 21st century. She's talking about New York City, where Mike Bloomberg has proposed his final spending plan as Gotham's mayor. Hizzoner's top number? A massive $53 billion. Now dig this: Since 2001, the city's annual budget increased by $19 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars or a whopping 56 percent.
Hey Big Applers, do you feel like you're getting that much more out of your taxes?
Bloomberg unconvincingly argues that while spending has gone up, revenues have kept pace. To which Gelinas calls bullshit:
New York will take in $1.1 billion less than it spends this year; it's had such gaps since the Wall Street boom ended more than half a decade ago.
The city is closing this year's gap with one-shots like selling new taxi medallions (maybe) and cash from banks who've reached court settlements on money-laundering charges. It plugged previous gaps with $8 billion in rainy-day funds set aside during the Wall Street boom years.
Bloomberg, writes Gelinas, is willing to talk about spending has gone up:
"A big chunk of it is fringe benefits," he said — that is, health-care costs for public workers and retirees.
"We had put away these reserves" during the Wall Street bubble to pay worker health-care costs, he said, "and we're using it all up." Health benefits will cost taxpayers $8.8 billion next year — twice the $4.6 billion they cost in his first year.
He noted how he's cut back on day-to-day operating costs (including 6,000 cops). But "all of the savings" has been "eaten up" by retiree costs, and then some, he admitted.
Gelinas points out that, contra Mayor Mike, not everybody - certainly not every business - gives his employees free health care without requiring give-backs on health care and pensions. It's well past time to start on that for public employees, who now tend to earn comparable or better wages than their private-sector counterparts while pulling down much better benefits. Gelinas also dings Bloomberg for bragging about raising education spending by $8 billion a year, as if most of that money ever makes it to the kids in the city's classrooms.
Then there's this: Whoever becomes New York's next mayor will inherit a $2.4 billion deficit (that's the rosy scenario) and a turning point in which "controllable" expenses (similar to discretionary spending in the federal budget) are dwarfed by "non-controllable" expenses (costs of benefits to retirees and workers).
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
On the plus side, they've chased out a lot of high-earning New Yorkers, so that cut in population means he can pare back on city services.
Good thing. Those 1 percenters were stealing the poor's vast wealth.
No surprising when you're spending roughly $7,000 per student or $1.1 billion total just on school bus services.
Why hasn't he been banished to St. Helena?
They haven't found a Bourbon willing to take his place.
td;dr (Too depressing; didn't read.)
But New York City HAD to give him a third term. No other person could have managed the consequences of the Wall Street bust.
/sarcasm
Shouldn't he be pictured with a vulture?