randomWalks

Bloomberg's probably pretty smart to not watch his own coverage. If there was a recall provision in New York City like there is in California, Bloomberg would be on his way out of office right now. I would not be surprised if before his term is through that he is not tarred and feathered by an angry mob of New Yorkers at least once.

I love Mayor Mike, and I'm excited to vote for him in the next election.

You're going to be all by yourself.

:)

I don't think so. He'll be back for a second term.

There's a long time between now and the election. I'd vote for Bill Clinton, of course, but probably not Gifford Miller. What other Lefties are there in NYC politics, right now?

There's a couple of City Council types that are pretty Lefty, but I doubt any of them could get the NYC Dems to support them as Mayoral candidates. And while I think Bloomberg has a particularly nasty combination of being elitist and having absolutely no class consciousness, I really don't think any other politician would be doing anything different.

But I'm still just baffled by the fact that you *like* the guy. I just don't see it. I can see being indifferent towards him. But *liking* him? What's to like? He's doing the exact same stuff as Bush is in terms of attacking the poor and giving handouts to the rich.

You do realize, by the way, that he has the lowest mayoral approval ratings *ever*. We're not talking about needing a minor tweaking to his image. Judging by what I hear people say about him every week on the street, it would take a minor miracle for him to be re-elected. Most people I've talked to not only want him out of office, they want him dead!

I can't say I feel all that different. I agree with the majority of New Yorkers in that I have been directly affected by his budget cuts and general policy of making the poor and working class NYers pay for the crisis. It's all made doubly galling when you think about the fact that the dude's the 63rd richest person in the world and could close the budget gap with his own wealth and still have more than $1 billion to spare.

I didn't vote for Bloomberg in the last election, but I would strongly consider voting for him in 2005. He inherited an awful budget situation that was the result of three factors beyond his control: his predecessor was a complete jackass that ran a corrupt administration swimming in patronage; Pataki and Bush don't give a shit about New York City--their tax cuts have been much more harmful than any of Bloomberg's policies; 9/11 was a severe shock to Lower Manhattan and the region, and most of the aid promised by the federal government never materialized. And don't forget the MTA fare hike--also beyond his control, but no doubt reflected in his plummeting popularity.

I don't agree with every decision he's made, but for the most part he seems to be guided by altruism, not greed or love of power. The guy is not going to be seeking higher office as we all know Giuliani soon will. He's unpopular because he raised property taxes (that is a progressive tax, isn't it?) and cut spending. I'm glad he addressed the deficit head-on, or else things would just have gotten worse.

He's also unpopular because he successfully outlawed smoking in most bars and restaurants. Personally, I think this issue is rather insignificant, and I think it's a shame that he wasted so much political capital pushing for it. If he wanted to do something great that would really piss people off, he should have gone ahead with his plan to permanently toll all East River bridges.

What should really tip you off to Mayor Mike's credentials is the campaign against him by the New York Post. Anyone the Post hates so much has got to be all right. They are on a crusade to bury him so deeply that the GOP will nominate a REAL Republican in 2005. I hope they fail miserably, but if Bloomberg goes down, I think he is more a victim of bad timing than his own decision-making.

* Starting from the bottom up, the New York Post's anti-Bloomberg stance is direct reaction to his abysmal approval ratings. The Post tries to position themselves as the paper for the blue-collar New Yorker. Well, if the blue collar New Yorker despise Bloomberg, the Post can't sit there and support him. I think both the tabloids actually were trailers on this issue, only joining the Bloomberg bashing well after his approval ratings were in the toilet. It was purely reactionary.

* Why would tolling the East River bridges be "great" exactly? That seems like just another way of making your average New Yorker pay for a crisis that was created by the Giuliani/Pataki/Bush tax cuts you identified above. If Pataki's tax cuts for the rich of several years ago were repealed, there would be no budget crisis in New York City at all. But rather than fighting for something like this, Bloomberg tells us that we all need to "tighten our belts." That's remarkably galling to hear from a multi-billionaire. He certainly can't force Pataki to repeal the cut. But he's never once even tried to fight for it.

I agree that Bloomberg inherited a terrible situation, but the way he has dealt with it has been equally terrible. The way he's dealt with the budget crisis has been attack after attack after attack on working people. I don't necessarily disagree with the smoking ban, but the $2.00 per pack tax is punitive. He also doubled parking fines and has the NYPD enforcing arcane laws so that regular New Yorkers are bled dry through paying fines for petty offenses.

And even if the MTA is not his jurisdiction the fact that he defended the fare hike even after it was shown that the MTA cooked the books was a pretty disastrous stance to take. He was also involved in the contract negotiaitions with TWU and pushed for the concessionary contract and threatened that union and in general painted the TWU as the selfish party rather than the corrupt MTA. Taking a stance against the fare hike alone could have rehabilitated his image. But he chose to take the side of the MTA because that's what side he's on.

And here's just a general laundry list of some of Mike's "altruistic" deeds.

* $780 million in cuts to city services

* Shutting down 11 senior centers that the eldery rely upon for meals and basic services.

* Thousands of layoffs (more than 3,000) already with tens of thousands of more threatened to city workers of all stripes.

* Staying silent during the MTA fight.

* Staying silent while Pataki jacks up tuition at CUNY.

* He raised the property tax, but not surprisingly that's a tax that has major loopholes for corporations. For one thing most of them have the resources to appeal the value of their property and get it reduced, thereby cutting their property tax bill. That's not something that the average New Yorker has the resources to do for their house or apartment.

* Bloomberg is refusing to tax corporations to make up the deficit, referring to them as "job-killing" taxes. And yet, he is threatening to layoff 12,000 municipal workers unless their union, AFSCME District Council 37, agrees to $600 million in concessions.

* During the Queens bus drivers strike, Bloomberg claimed there was nothing he could do. "If the union wants better benefits, they are free to bargain with their employer," he sneered.

But the truth is that the city promised TWU in 12/02 that it would fund increased contributions to drivers’ health care at the same rate enjoyed by municipal employees. Then the city broke its promise and offered increases of just 3.5 percent over two years compared to the 19.8 percent increase it is giving to municipal employees.

And in place of a 25-year guarantee for job security, the city has offered only two years’ protection.The difference in health benefits proposals amounted to only $1 million--equal to the amount of lost fares after just three days of the strike. But Bloomberg wanted to send a message to all working-class New Yorkers--and city workers in particular. The strike went for a month, which cost the city more than the difference of the packages.

*In February 6,000 day care workers (paid $27,000 per year) went on a one-day strike after Bloomberg refused to negotiate seriously with the union. The union asked for a four percent annual but Bloomberg stonewalled offering 6 percent over five years even though the city received $136 million in federal funds for day care in the last two years but cut spending on such programs by $92 million.

His generous offer also included the loss of two weeks of vacation time and $15 co-pays on medical visits--in exchange for the union withdrawing the lawsuit.

* He annually attends the World Economic Forum, which I believe most rWers oppose.

* In March, after a four-day strike that shut down 17 Broadway shows, Bloomberg intervened in stalled negotiations to pressure the musicians’ union to accept a concessionary agreement. The mayor clearly acted on behalf of the League of American Theaters and Producers and theater-related businesses who lost $64.8 million during the walkout. The agreement called for a 25 percent reduction in "minimums"--the minimum number of unionized musicians that theaters must hire for each show. The musicians seemed poised for a complete victory until Bloomberg stepped in and suddenly, the producers emerged victorious. The union, not the producers, were made to feel responsible for the loss of business.

* In October, 2002, Bloomberg tried to railroad the firefighters, offering them a 11.5 percent raise over two-and-a-half years after they were going on 28 months of working without a contract. Of course he then later closed the dozen or so firehouses.

* During the TWU contract negotiations with the MTA, he sued the TWU for *threatening* to strike and sided with the MTA as it pushed for a concessionary contract.

* Bloomberg denied UFJP a march permit for the February 15 antiwar demonstration that brought 500,000 to New York.

* The Summer Youth Employment Program, a city service that provides work experience for inner-city teens during the summer months, saw its budget cut 90 percent by Bloomberg.

* Summer school programs have been slashed by $33 million.

* Twelve children's health clinics are scheduled to be shut down.

* Bloomberg said in June, "This will be painful. But we all have to understand that we have to make sacrifices." Yeah right.

I would just like to pose a question to zagg, and then, perhaps go from there, after he states the answer to that question.

The question is, "What is it that you actually do? Do you have intimate knowledge of the reasons behind these decisions, or do you simply just know that they have happened?"

The reason I ask this two-prong question is that I'm trying to figure out if there were actual necessary fiscal reasons for the actions proposed. And I would like to point out that in some cases the decisions were overturned or Bloomberg's administration went the other way after realizing their mistakes in some occasions.

Isn't a more produtive thing for every one to figure out the intentions and reasons behind the decisions, rather than just the "Bloomberg wants to shaft the blue collar worker hypothesis?"

I agree, doug, with your questions. And I agree with Ben as well.

During the TWU contract negotiations with the MTA, he sued the TWU for *threatening* to strike and sided with the MTA as it pushed for a concessionary contract.

If there had been a strike, many many jobs would have been lost and he definitely would have been blamed for that. In fact, it would probably be an anti-Mike bullet point on your list.

What's wrong with an 11.5% raise? firefighters make a much higher salary than other civil servants

Most of your arguments are red herrings, zagg. Bloomberg is better than any of the realistic alternatives, isn't he?

the cigarette tax & ban is not punitive, it's progressive

Minor quibble: uh, no. Unless somehow people that make more money pay a higher tax on the same cigarettes than people who make less, it's by definition not a progressive tax.

I am a New York City resident and an activist. I make it my business to know the attacks that continually come down. I talk to people on the street and at workplaces multiple times a week in trying to build an opposition to the war at home being waged by Bush, Bloomberg, and lots of other people.

To try to answer the questions in a direct way I'll say this:

There is a giant budget deficit in New York City.

It was not created by Mike Bloomberg.

It was also not created by the working people of New York.

Why are we the only ones that are having concessions demanded of us?

Mike Bloomberg's solution to the budget crisis on every front has been to get concessions from union and cut social services while refraining from raising taxes on corporations or wealthy individuals. If you can find any action where he's attempted to close the deficit that does not rely on attacking ordinary New Yorkers, I'd love to see it. I'd love to see the plan where he said tax the corporations or revoke their tax breaks or raise the income tax on the wealthiest New Yorkers.

As I pointed out above the *entire* deficit could be closed simply by revoking a tax cut that Pataki pushed through a few years ago. Moreover, Bloomberg has cut income tax in New York City since his election. Those earning $30,000—the majority of the city’s population—save $83 a year while those making $1 million annually cut their taxes by $13,700 annually.

So in time where services are being cut left and right, Bloomberg's actually attempted to cut the income tax and shower a hefty rebate onto the wealthiest New Yorkers.

If this is not class war, I'm not sure what else to call it.

And I would like to point out that in some cases the decisions were overturned or Bloomberg's administration went the other way after realizing their mistakes in some occasions.

In what cases? As far as I know, all of my figures are up-to-date. I know he did reverse $90 million in cuts at one point, but I'm unaware of any other fronts where he backed down other than when people fought him (the bus drivers, the day care workers). I don't think he changed his mind in those cases because he realized he had made a "mistake". He changed his mind after people fought.

Isn't a more produtive thing for every one to figure out the intentions and reasons behind the decisions, rather than just the "Bloomberg wants to shaft the blue collar worker hypothesis?"

I don't think Bloomberg deserves any benefit of the doubt based on his actions, which have been devastating to many people I've met and know. But I will add that it's not just Bloomberg. There's been an all-out attack on workers in this country for more than 25 years. It's clearest seen in how much the disparity in income and wealth has grown over that time.

the cigarette tax & ban is not punitive, it's progressive, and it will keep health care costs down in the long term for restaraunt workers and people suffering from second hand smoke. I love smoke free NYC.

I don't disagree with the ban. But like I said, I think the tax is purely punitive, but I'm willing to concede that this is the weakest of my points.

The mayor has NO power over the MTA. Whether he was silent or not has no political relevance. The governor controls the MTA entirely.

It absolute does.

Or are you saying that there was no relevance to any politician in this country that raised objections to the war because they did not "control" whether we went to war or not?

Bloomberg is the mayor of NEW YORK CITY. The residents and people that work in New York City had the most at stake if the fare went up. He did nothing to represent his constiuency. When the Straphanger's sued the MTA, several City Council members (who also don't have control over the MTA) supported and joined the suit. Bloomberg not only abstained, he DEFENDED the MTA, which we know lied about the whole thing.

During the TWU contract negotiations with the MTA, he sued the TWU for *threatening* to strike and sided with the MTA as it pushed for a concessionary contract.

If there had been a strike, many many jobs would have been lost and he definitely would have been blamed for that. In fact, it would probably be an anti-Mike bullet point on your list.

Absolutely not.

(Why get personal, dj? I've made all my points about Bloomberg. You're resorting to a cheap shot here.)

I was out on the street handing out flyers supporting the strike before it was supposed to go down. I was never confused about that.

The city has gone through transit strikes before.

It's always a good thing when strikes happen.

* In addition to the extraordinary property tax (an 18% raise!), Blooomberg also wanted to institute a commuter tax but was again shot down by Pataki. Same with CUNY tuition.

What did Bloomberg say about CUNY tuition?

* I don't trust any union in New York City - they're all as corrupt as city hall. Sorry, but it's true. I don't blame Bloomberg for a second for being a tough negotiator with crooks.

And you accuse me of tossing out red herrings?

I don't trust union *officials*. Many are corrupt and even the ones that are not are usually fairly conservative. If you want my thoughts on unions, go to this http://randomwalks.com/drublood/archives/013635.html" rel="nofollow">post I made on drublood's blog. Your position on all unions being crooks is very close-minded.

And a serious question for you. How can you be a committed anti-racist and at the same time write off some of the most multi-racial organizations in this country and especially in New York City? Unions are not once they once were. But they have the kernels, in that they are mass organizations of workers, to be at the front of many fights. Many New York City unions played roles in publicizing and funding the Feb. 15 anti-war demos. That's just a tiny taste. I think it's a giant mistake to abstain or right them off as corrupt because of the union bureaucracy.

Moreover, in most of the cases I listed above, the demands the unions were fighting for were about making people's lives better through maintaining health benefits, better wages and job security. How can you support smashing that? For what ends?

What's wrong with an 11.5% raise? firefighters make a much higher salary than other civil servants

Try 11.5 percent over 2.5 years after not having a contract for 2 years. That works out to be an annual raise of 4.6 percent--after not getting a raise at all for two years.

And if firefighters should be so satisfied with their great pay, how can you possibly criticize my remarks about Bloomberg's wealth??

I'm also strongly in favor of East River tolls - another progressive tax that would discourage non commerical traffic in NYC and improve the quality of life for the whole city, not just Brooklynites.

More people using mass transit would be better (I think that's what you're getting at).

But I feel like the net result of a toll increase like this would end up being passed on to us in the end. Taxi fares would increase as would courier charges, etc. Moreover a lot of

He annually attends the World Economic Forum, which I believe most rWers oppose.

Remind me how this is relevant to his political career? Many progressive leaders also attend the WEF.

Like who?

Most of the progressives I knew were outside of it trying to shut it down.

I also think your personal attacks on him for being a billionaire are misguided. He's a great philanthropist, and has given millions and millions of dollars to city services out of his pocket.

I don't see how that can be the case when I feel like he's personally attacking me for making $35,000 a year.

You may personally reject Marxist economic analysis, but I don't. I believe that all wealth is created through the exploitation of workers. Therefore my attacks on Bloomberg for being a billionaire are not personal, but political. He only got where he is today through massive exploitation.

Most of your arguments are red herrings, zagg. Bloomberg is better than any of the realistic alternatives, isn't he?

I clearly don't agree. But I also don't think it's simply about who the mayor is. Earlier in this thread I also proffered that I think that many others thrust into the same situation would have chosen the same road. Giuliani would have done all the same things, only he would have been 10 times more vicious in the process. He wouldn't just have tried to beat the unions, but to destroy them.

Unless somehow people that make more money pay a higher tax on the same cigarettes than people who make less, it's by definition not a progressive tax.

The major winners from the tax & ban are restaraunt workers, and from that perpespective it's very much progressive. I don't know many of the surrounding health care economics, but my guess is that the negative impacts of smoking affect the poor more than the rich.

Zagg writes: There is a giant budget deficit in New York City.

It was not created by Mike Bloomberg.

It was also not created by the working people of New York.

Why are we the only ones that are having concessions demanded of us?

Rebuttal: I would say that a woman who makes $300,000 or more a year pays $112,000 in taxes, then you are not the only one making concessions.

Corporations pay taxes for their workers, and as corporations themselves. Everyone makes concessions, and I think that you don't see the full breadth of how they are made. That's my way of saying the reason I was questioning what you were saying was because it feels like you make it an us vs. them thing, and I just don't trust that it is.

A review of the tax laws and an understanding of more than just one side's concessions might play out to show you the level at which the capitalist structure really does include everyone, and that it's not just a hammer on the poor.

In the following argument, zagg, are you re-defining what it means to be progressive? Is dj?

He annually attends the World Economic Forum, which I believe most rWers oppose.

Remind me how this is relevant to his political career? Many progressive leaders also attend the WEF.

Like who?

Most of the progressives I knew were outside of it trying to shut it down.

The distinction would be progressive means, to me, "enlightening ideas and the education of the people about their part in society," but it seems like zagg uses progressive to mean, "liberal thinkers and activists that believe halting the reasonable practices is better than having the most reasonable practices at all," which, to dj's point in all of this would mean yes, strikes are a bad thing when they prohibit action for the sake of a few interested parties and then drive costs up and see the infrastructure debilitated. Just see how the French have their lips locked on their asses in debacles involving transit strikes.

The distinction would be progressive means, to me, "enlightening ideas and the education of the people about their part in society,"

No. I'm pretty sure Zagg and I are both using the word progressive as it is commonly applied to taxes, whereby people who earn more money pay more taxes (basically). So, income tax = progressive; sales tax = regressive. It has nothing to do with liberalness or how good something is for society or whether it's forward-looking or not. Nothing. Perhaps dj meant a "progressive tax" in your terms d fresh, but generally speaking, referring to a tax as being progressive entails only its relationship to a person's income. Any other intended meaning only serves to confuse (obviously).

Where's my goldurn grammar posse?

Well, obviously. I'm not sure how I got confused.

Obviously I was reading it in the wrong manner. Obviously.

(Why get personal, dj? I've made all my points about Bloomberg. You're resorting to a cheap shot here.)

I was out on the street handing out flyers supporting the strike before it was supposed to go down. I was never confused about that.

Sorry, I didn't mean to take a cheap shot - I have a great deal of respect for you, and that's why I drive the differences so hard. But my point stays - even if you were also sure of your principles, if the strike had happened Bloomberg would have been blamed. And the Transit union got a pretty good deal, right?

And of course I do love Unions in principle.

As for my use of the word 'progressive', it was sloppy. I meant 'good.' As zagg as enumerated above, some taxes are good and some are bad. The cigarette tax is good. The property tax is good. Income tax credits are bad.

I see what you're saying about the Transit strike. Bloomberg would have been blamed by some for "letting" it happen, but in my opinion a transit strike would have been a good thing.

One of the weaknesses of the union movement is that it has forgotton how to effectively mobilize for strikes.

I firmly believe that most people in New York could have been won to supporting it. But besides a lot of PR, that would have also taken TWU workers helping set up alternate modes of transportation for other working class New Yorkers--the ones that would have been at risk in such a strike. I just recently read Teamster Rebellion, which chronicles a series of strikes in Minneapolis in 1934. It's amazing how circumspect they were and the things they did to protect other workers while still maintaining the effectiveness of the strike.

I don't think the TWU deal was good. The first year of the contract includes a "bonus" rather than a salary bump meaning that the base salary will stay the same for an extra year. The raise that kicks in during year two is built off that base rather than on what TWU workers will make. Moreover, the contract accepted a certain number of job cuts. There are a few other items. The fact that the TWU wasn't really prepared to strike meant that when the time came to actually go out, they kept negotiating. That doomed the contract. (Of course the other problem was that the MTA was pleading poverty at that point, which turned out to be a lie.)

I think the property tax is good in *theory* but, as I understand it, corporations have a lot more leeway in getting around than your average home owner in Brooklyn or Queens or someone that lives in an apartmant who's going to see their rent go up to pay off that tax.

Since Zagg answered the question, I think it might be safe to proceed. But we'll see...

Zagg, with your points being made, I will offer up this: that you seem to be taking the route of turning information to your side, when in some cases the information that exists offers up another interpretation. For example, I doubt that Bloomberg's intention is "class war," but a technique and string of decisions meant to help the city as a whole.

Allen Greenspan (i've been watching him this morning) seems to suggest in his comments that the trouble is deficit spending, which comes about from Republican decisions to cut some taxes and then spend despite the available monies. Okay. So, here's my point.

Greenspan re-asserted the claim that marginal propensity to consume falls at higher income levels. He states this aphorism of economics while indicating that, indeed, it wouldn't matter to the economy as a whole. That's the set up.

Here's the issue: Even if Bloomberg's administration lowered taxes against the wealthy, the wealthy are still paying most of the bill. This is axiomatic. No matter the tax cut or the tax relief, the money from the wealthy is still significantly more than that of the poor. This is a quantitative assessment, not one of quality.

If that's the case, what I was trying to figure out about what you are doing is whether or not you are just polling people and listening to people and then taking what they say as the truth without looking at the economic picture.

What needs to happen, if I might offer my own opinion, is that less work needs to be done in the realm of destroying or getting mad at the system, and using the system to one's advantage. Whatever group one belongs to, one should gather his or her capital and use it in the system.

Taking away the system, or getting mad at the system is not going to help.

Please refrain on lecturing me about our differences, as it is quite apparent what they are. Instead, what are you going to to do, specifically. Your rhetoric about these things being against the common people is tired, because all it does is point to a fact.

In fact, if you were to suggest a "revolution" wouldn't you still be marginalizing people, wouldn't the system or the infrastructure of what you would need to use to succeed, crumble, leaving you in just as or more dire straits than what the people are in now? I mean, I think keveryone needs to work together to formulate the system that will work, but I don't think you've ever given any conclusive strategies to do this.

If you took a block of people, like a city block of people and formed a neighborhood organization to build capital, and to generate profit and capital growth among that group of people, it seems that one would be doing more for those people than to have a strike or give money to a big brother union organization that would be using their money the way any other corporation would be using it.

That's what I want to address today. We need strategies and actual operational ideas to make the economy move better, not just a rhetorical strategy that employs the tactic of turning something into a war that is actually an area of potential for actual growth.

I appreciate the quality of this ideological discussion, but I'd like to bring it back to the topic at hand: is Mike Bloomberg a good mayor?

Zagg said: I think the property tax is good in *theory* but, as I understand it, corporations have a lot more leeway in getting around than your average home owner in Brooklyn or Queens or someone that lives in an apartmant who's going to see their rent go up to pay off that tax.

I agree completely that the property tax is an imperfect progressive tax. The same goes with the commuter tax and East River Bridge tolls, were they to be implemented (most people who drive to work earn more than those who take transit, but there are certainly exceptions). The other options you suggest--increases to the graduated income tax and taxes on corporations--are closer to what we would consider ideal. However, I think the responsibility for raising these taxes falls squarely on the federal government (and on the states to a lesser extent), and it is unreasonable to blame Bloomberg for not raising these taxes.

As Nedlog's excellent "wolf is at the door" post made clear, municipal governments across the board are resorting to property taxes, not income taxes. In the case of New York City, to raise the income tax for wealthy individuals would probably weaken the tax base, because high-income renters could easily leave town for somewhere else. The same thing goes for corporations, although it's not quite as easy for them to relocate.

Only the federal government can successfully raise these taxes without seeing their tax base shrink, but the current Administration and Congress have instead chosen to pass this burden down to the local level, where they know it cannot be shouldered. Blaming local leaders deflects responsibility from where it really lies: with the Bush Administration, the Republican Congress, and the Democrats too timid to stand up to them.

Bloomberg, unfortunately, ran as a Republican, and he is now beholden to them to an extent. He didn't criticize Pataki prior to the 2002 election, hoping more support for NYC would come in return. Pataki never gave it. I cede the point to you Zagg that he has not been an effective advocate in the face of Pataki's continuing mistreatment of the city. Perhaps next election a bolder candidate will emerge.

However, I don't believe his fights with unions deserve such scorn. The Mayor's Office is not a profit-maximizing institution out to exploit the city's unionized workers. It is bound by very real constraints, and I believe it is in the long-term interests of all the city's residents that the Mayor be a tough negotiator. One of the things I like about Bloomberg is that he has not curried political favor from unions and struck sweetheart deals a la Giuliani and Pataki. You are clearly much better informed on these matters than I am Zagg, but this is still the impression I have.

My main point remains that attacking this Mayor deflects blame from the real culprits, Bush and Pataki.

In the case of New York City, to raise the income tax for wealthy individuals would probably weaken the tax base, because high-income renters could easily leave town for somewhere else.

The extension of this logic, then, is to leave the rich alone and go after a less mobile sector of the population to pay for the crisis?

Really I think your point is that we have to have a more global picture--that we have to focus on the state and federal levels. I assure you that I agree with that. I just don't think Bloomberg is blameless.

Only the federal government can successfully raise these taxes without seeing their tax base shrink, but the current Administration and Congress have instead chosen to pass this burden down to the local level, where they know it cannot be shouldered. Blaming local leaders deflects responsibility from where it really lies: with the Bush Administration, the Republican Congress, and the Democrats too timid to stand up to them.

I agree about 90 percent with this statement. I agree with all of it, but I don't think Bloomberg's policy of advocating for further income tax cuts and for cutting the New York City income tax are a good idea.

However, I don't believe his fights with unions deserve such scorn. The Mayor's Office is not a profit-maximizing institution out to exploit the city's unionized workers. It is bound by very real constraints, and I believe it is in the long-term interests of all the city's residents that the Mayor be a tough negotiator.

This is true. But, like in federal politics, local elected leaders are beholden to the same corporate interests.

Secondly, those constraints (as you just pointed out) stem from the budget crisis facilitated by Pataki and Bush. Shouldn't Bloomberg then focus on fighting them rather than on targeting those of us below him? We have a crisis not created by us being paid for by us. How is that reasonable? Why shouldn't we oppose that?

Moreover, if city unions are defeated in their contracts, that weakens the entire labor movement, which means unions in the private sector also will be weakened. The fact is that all New Yorkers have a stake in these fights because if unionized workers--the most organized section of the class--are forced to take pay cuts, pay more for health care or accept layoffs, than what hope do the rest of us have? Overall something like 1-in-4 workers in New York City is in a union (about 70 percent of public sector and 15 percent private sector). All their fights are tied together. So from the start you've got 25 percent of workers who have a direct stake in whether a particular contract fight is won or lost because it will affect their fight.

Beyond that there are the unorganized workers who should be organized. Their fate is tied to how the unions fare. And it's been unions like UNITE that have begun to organize the most vulnerable--the undocumented immigrant workers at the green grocers--and win real gains for them. Such fights would become much harder if city unions go on to a cycle of defeats. Moreover, if city workers are made to work longer hours for less or to give up benefits, that has real, tangible impacts on our city. Do you want the health care workers forced to have to cover more patients, work longer hours, etc.? That will only further degrade the quality of city hospitals. Etc.

I guess a quick question should be whether or not you think people in this city are well off enough to afford concessions? I don't think the majority of New Yorkers are.

The best thing for all workers--unionized or not--is a strong labor movement. The regions in the country with the highest unionization level also have the highest wages and best benefits--for all workers, not just those in a union.

I don't want to come of as being uncritical of unions.

I'm deeply critical.

But I think they are *essential*, even in their weakened states. Moreover, we have to support union victories for the good of us all. Their defeat only makes us all worse off.

Ultimately when public unions are forced to take concession-laden contracts, it means that the rest of us will only be made more vulnerable. I've seen that in my own (non-union) workplace where health care costs have been raised without our consent and after health-care benefits were the subject of many a labor battle throughout the country. I also can't get the same health care for my partner because we're not married. That's meant an extra burden. I believe this is the sort of demand unions in New York City are in the position to win, which would be a great help for many in this city.

One of the things I like about Bloomberg is that he has not curried political favor from unions and struck sweetheart deals a la Giuliani and Pataki. You are clearly much better informed on these matters than I am Zagg, but this is still the impression I have.

It seems like you have a similar position to DJ--that unions are corrupt--or else that they are irrelevant or else fat and bloated. My position is that I probably hate the union leaders--or have as many criticisms of them--that you do. But the membership of those unions deserves our support.

The case of TWU is probably the most interesting in that respect as that union went through a massive reform movement just three or four years ago to kick out the corrupt old boss for Roger Toussaint. It came as a bitter shock to many of those that supported Toussaint in his campaign to be elected to the head of that union that he ultimately caved in very similar ways to the MTA as his predecessor, Willie James.

So for the TWU we're talking about a union that was recently reformed to rid it of corruption. And yet people still wanted to oppose it.

My main point remains that attacking this Mayor deflects blame from the real culprits, Bush and Pataki.

I do think Bush and Pataki are also important to focus on. But I don't think Bloomberg deserves a free pass (mostly because we strongly disagree on the union thing). Moreover, I've found that it's actually been very effective to talk to people and build a case against Bush starting with people's intense anger towards Bloomberg.

But it also seems to me that what you're saying is that Bloomberg has no choice to but to close the budget gap by going after the poor/average New Yorker. His strategy has been to go after services, unions, etc. and I think that's worth opposing very strongly.

But it also seems to me that what you're saying is that Bloomberg has no choice but to close the budget gap by going after the poor/average New Yorker.

Yes, I do think his hand has been forced, and for the reasons I stated above he has had few other options, if any. My sense is that he very clearly favors reinstating the commuter tax, which I view as perhaps the best of all possible revenue sources, but that is the domain of the state legislature. I believe he appeased Pataki in order to gain the governor's very necessary support for this measure, but that strategy has failed.

Unlike Giuliani, who obviously relished chastising the homeless, bulldozing community gardens, and making life difficult for street vendors, Bloomberg just doesn't strike me as a heartless, vindictive jerk. I pretty much accept the "reluctant tightwad" image he projects at face value. In different circumstances I think he would be much more generous with city services and union contracts.

I don't think he is going after the poorest New Yorkers, as Giuliani did. You ask if I think people in this city are well off enough to afford concessions, and my admittedly hasty answer is "Yes, at least temporarily." Hopefully these givebacks will be shortlived, and there will be no cycle of defeats. I think the best way to ensure that is to employ the strategy you mentioned of channeling the anger directed at Bloomberg towards Pataki and Bush. That's a model that can be adapted in cities all over the country.

I don't think Bloomberg's policy of advocating for further income tax cuts and for cutting the New York City income tax are a good idea.

I hadn't read about that. Unless the cuts are targeted to relieve the burden on lower- and middle-income earners, that's clearly a wretched idea which would make me re-evaluate my opinion of him.

This is basic to municipal labor relations. So is the politics of layoffs. It's a dirty word for union leaders, but it is also a truism that — as Mr. Bloomberg said he had learned — some union leaders were not very concerned about his threat of layoffs. Because former union members do not vote in union elections.

Bloomberg opens up, for a select few.

That's a bit of an overstatement.

I have major problems with the top-down nature of unions and union bureaucracy. But bad union leaders are tossed out. The Willie James example I used applies.

Re: Ben's statements about Giuliani and Bloomberg. I absolutely agree that Giuliani was a monster in comparison. But I don't think you amass a fortune of billions by being a nice guy.

You ask if I think people in this city are well off enough to afford concessions, and my admittedly hasty answer is "Yes, at least temporarily." Hopefully these givebacks will be shortlived, and there will be no cycle of defeats.

That's illustrative. I didn't ask that as a leading question to trap you or anything. But I disagree strongly. I can point to a ton of figures on this, but I'd start with unemployment and homeless, which exceed the national average by a good margin. But as a New Yorker, can't you just see it walking around the streets now vs. a few years ago? How many more shuttered businesses are there and how many people are there on the street?

Anecdotally I know a number of people who have seen a real drop in their quality of life as a result of the recession and budget cuts. My partner has been laid off twice in less than a year and now is working a job at about a third of their former salary with no benefits. This was after having a $60,000 a year job.

I also think that concessions are a terrible idea. There's no such thing as a temporary concession. Moreover I think it's absolutely unacceptable that we should be paid for a mess we had no role in creating. That's more than just a principle. That's about people's lives and livelihoods.

I guess one other point I'd like to make is that the arguments Bloomberg is using (and some of the arguments that you are making) have been brought up before in previous times of crisis. And I think what history teaches us is that concessions lead to more concessions. And when things turn around, the city/state/etc. are going to fight like hell from giving these things back. And it's also incredibly demoralizing to have to fight for the same demands over and over if you keep giving back what you've won in the past.