Latest news with #MarioCuomo
New York Post
18 hours ago
- Business
- New York Post
Zohran Mamdani's fiscal armageddon could bring NYC back to the bad old days
Ah, it's getting easier to long for the good old days — when Gotham was dominated by machine politics, corruption and fiscal mismanagement. Yes, it led to the dreaded fiscal crisis of the mid- to late 1970s, near bankruptcy and a deep city recession that hit hard at the working class in the five boroughs and even the suburbs, including my own family in Westchester. How the city fell into this fiscal abyss, which actually lasted a few years into the next decade, and climbed out is all laid out in gruesome detail in the extremely readable prose by Rich Farley, a lawyer who works on financial transactions. He's the author of 'Drop Dead; How a Coterie of Corrupt Politicians, Bankers, Lawyers, Spinmeisters, and Mobsters Bankrupted New York, Got Bailed Out, Blamed the President and went back to Business as Usual (And it Might Be Happening Again),' released in April. The title is a mouthful and it's not 100% accurate. New York City never declared bankruptcy. There's a debate that it even technically defaulted on its debt when the trigger for the crisis — investors losing confidence in the city's financial condition — boycotted buying city bonds. But those are mere quibbles as I dive into this trenchant historical account of how Gotham — with all its wealth and commerce on Wall Street and real estate and then a lot more — was brought to the brink, a near Detroit-style fiscal meltdown. Follow The Post's coverage of the NYC mayoral race In reading Farley's work, it does dawn on me that for all the grease and grime of those years, the city was immensely savable. The financial crisis did come to an end, but not until after a surge in crime because we couldn't afford cops, arson (The Bronx was literally burning), and unemployment (people like my dad, who lost his construction job because of a halt to city infrastructure spending). It was fixed, at least for decades, after the political leadership did re-establish itself as a stabilizing force. The saviors The saviors were people like Hugh Carey, the governor, who instituted reforms that repaired the confidence of investors and businesses. And Mario Cuomo (yes, that Mario Cuomo), who would succeed Carey and keep a close eye on his hometown for three terms during what's best described as a mini renaissance. And an upstart US congressman named Ed Koch, who inspired confidence that the city must and could survive. He ran for mayor on the slogan 'How Am I Doin'?' and won three terms. Don't forget that federal prosecutor named Rudy Giuliani, who took on the mob and municipal corruption with equal zeal, set the stage for becoming mayor and ushered in a real rebirth in Gotham of low crime and a booming business community. Here's the latest on NYC mayoral candidate, Zohran Mamdani There was also an engaged business community — people like investment banker Felix Rohatyn — that wasn't afraid to step up and say enough of the nonsense. And here's why I would love to turn back the clock, as crazy as that might sound. None of the gumption shown by those civic and political leaders is evident anymore, as a more serious existential threat looms — worse than 'Fat Tony' Salerno of Genovese fame, Tammany's Carmine DeSapio and graft in the Parking Violations Bureau. All of their lawlessness was snuffed out as the establishment re-established order. The fiscal Armageddon I fear comes in the form of a smiling socialist named Zohran Mamdani, who just won the city's Democratic mayoral primary over the son of the great Mario Cuomo. Mamdani outhustled Andrew Cuomo at every turn. Based on what we know, Mamdani seems like an honest fellow, which is good — and very, very bad. Bad because he's a noxious breed of politician who isn't afraid to promote his weird behavior and sell it as gold to an uninformed electorate. Even worse, no one in our political class or the business elite has really stepped up to call him out. He wants to tax to death those businesses and wealth producers that remain and employ our working class. He wants to give stuff out for free like bus rides. He wants to socialize grocery stores. He wants to defund the police, a sure recipe for more business flight. He has not disavowed the phrase 'globalize the intifada,' which many New Yorkers can reasonably interpret (as it was during those vile campus protests) as a form of antisemitism. There are more than 1 million Jews living in the Big Apple, but how much did Cuomo make of Mamdani's acquiescence to this sick rhetoric? Very little. NYC is still the epicenter of finance, the nation's largest bank run by Jamie Dimon. He has his headquarters and home here. But not a word from America's banker. In this city and state led by Dems, seasoned politicians — people like Chuck Schumer, a Brooklyn assemblyman and later congressman who is now US Senate minority leader — have been quiet as a mouse, except for congratulating Mamdani on his victory. Cuomo and Schumer should ask themselves if their precious political futures are worth not calling out this nonsense and angering the AOC wing of the party. Business leaders need to ask themselves if the price of doing business here is worth allowing a lefty loon to run the epicenter of capitalism. Our budget is in better shape from the morass of the 1970s. If you look at the numbers as I do, NYC is always a recession away from trouble. Couple that with rank socialist policies like defunding the police, and you see how things can and will go sideways if Mamdani wins — and you will miss the mess of the 1970s.
Yahoo
10-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's tariffs will hurt those they purport to help
If there is one thing president Trump does not lack, it is supreme confidence in his own policies. Despite an escalating trade war between the US and China, with £360 billion in trade between the two countries – 80 per cent of the current level – likely to be lost thanks to new tariffs imposed by both sides, the president assured reporters that 'Everything is going to work out amazing.' If only his supporter base could be as confident. In fact, it probably is, for now. The largely blue collar (in America the phrase 'working class' does not mean the same thing as it does here) voters of the Midwest and the Rust Belt who opted for Trump over his Democrat opponent remain as confident about their man as their man is about his own economic prowess. But at some point economic reality will bite, and it will bite hardest on those who supported the GOP candidate last November. It was always thus. Much was said and written about how the middle classes across the developed world would suffer most from the economic meltdown that accompanied the financial crash of 2008. A great deal of hardship did ensue, and indeed many are still suffering the impact of that world-shattering event in terms of long-term wage stagnation and anaemic economic growth. But however badly those with a college or university degree fared, however frustrating it became for home-owners and career middle managers to secure new jobs or promotion, those at the very bottom of the pile suffered disproportionately worse. The less qualified, the temporary workers, those who fork out a larger proportion of their weekly wage on essentials like rent and utilities – they are the real victims of the system's failures. With no resources to fall back upon – no savings, no capital, no or little education, no support networks – blue collar Americans will always suffer first and suffer most when their leaders make the wrong decisions on the economy. And Trump's solutions are most certainly wrong. His disdain for globalisation went down well with audiences during his presidential campaign, and no politician ever went without a round of applause by telling an audience exactly what it wanted to hear. But as New York governor Mario Cuomo never actually said, 'We campaign in poetry and we govern with limericks.' There is nothing wrong, in theory, about a politician wishing to implement the policies on which he campaigned and which are, on paper, popular. But when you start with the wrong policies this principle is self-destructive. Tariffs will, of course, hurt all those Trump (and non-Trump) voters who already live precariously, relying on employers' good will and hoping for a soaring economy to lift them up with everyone else. But when prices on imported goods, particularly from China, rise many times above inflation, this will lead to higher interest rates and all the negative consequences for a nation already relying too heavily on credit rather than savings. The next impacts are as predictable as they are depressing: a sluggish economy results in less job security and lower jobs growth as employers cut their cloth. Then, as the competition for jobs increases, wage levels fall and people fall further into debt, generating an inter-generational rise in poverty that future administrations will have to tackle or, more likely, ignore. Not that the middle classes (as Brits define the term) will escape the consequences of Trump's hubris scot-free – far from it. But they are (mostly) not inclined to support the president or his policies anyway, whatever the economic firewalls they may have erected around themselves and their families to stave off the worst effects of a tariff-led recession. No, as usual, it is the blue-collar workers, the already economically vulnerable, who will suffer most; that is how it has always been. Already there are signs that more partisan, Left-leaning American voters are starting to enjoy – in a bitter and tepid fashion – the forthcoming economic nightmare as something which certain voters have invited upon themselves by their decision to vote for Trump last year. Serves them right! But such schadenfreude will prove short-lived and unfulfilling; just as Americans cannot escape the economic realities of globalisation by pretending that it doesn't exist, they cannot heal their disastrous political and social divisions by mocking the poverty and desperation of their fellow citizens. That, remember, was a major cause of Trump's triumph in the first place. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
10-04-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Trump's tariffs will hurt those they purport to help
If there is one thing president Trump does not lack, it is supreme confidence in his own policies. Despite an escalating trade war between the US and China, with £360 billion in trade between the two countries – 80 per cent of the current level – likely to be lost thanks to new tariffs imposed by both sides, the president assured reporters that 'Everything is going to work out amazing.' If only his supporter base could be as confident. In fact, it probably is, for now. The largely blue collar (in America the phrase 'working class' does not mean the same thing as it does here) voters of the Midwest and the Rust Belt who opted for Trump over his Democrat opponent remain as confident about their man as their man is about his own economic prowess. But at some point economic reality will bite, and it will bite hardest on those who supported the GOP candidate last November. It was always thus. Much was said and written about how the middle classes across the developed world would suffer most from the economic meltdown that accompanied the financial crash of 2008. A great deal of hardship did ensue, and indeed many are still suffering the impact of that world-shattering event in terms of long-term wage stagnation and anaemic economic growth. But however badly those with a college or university degree fared, however frustrating it became for home-owners and career middle managers to secure new jobs or promotion, those at the very bottom of the pile suffered disproportionately worse. The less qualified, the temporary workers, those who fork out a larger proportion of their weekly wage on essentials like rent and utilities – they are the real victims of the system's failures. With no resources to fall back upon – no savings, no capital, no or little education, no support networks – blue collar Americans will always suffer first and suffer most when their leaders make the wrong decisions on the economy. And Trump's solutions are most certainly wrong. His disdain for globalisation went down well with audiences during his presidential campaign, and no politician ever went without a round of applause by telling an audience exactly what it wanted to hear. But as New York governor Mario Cuomo never actually said, 'We campaign in poetry and we govern with limericks.' There is nothing wrong, in theory, about a politician wishing to implement the policies on which he campaigned and which are, on paper, popular. But when you start with the wrong policies this principle is self-destructive. Tariffs will, of course, hurt all those Trump (and non-Trump) voters who already live precariously, relying on employers' good will and hoping for a soaring economy to lift them up with everyone else. But when prices on imported goods, particularly from China, rise many times above inflation, this will lead to higher interest rates and all the negative consequences for a nation already relying too heavily on credit rather than savings. The next impacts are as predictable as they are depressing: a sluggish economy results in less job security and lower jobs growth as employers cut their cloth. Then, as the competition for jobs increases, wage levels fall and people fall further into debt, generating an inter-generational rise in poverty that future administrations will have to tackle or, more likely, ignore. Not that the middle classes (as Brits define the term) will escape the consequences of Trump's hubris scot-free – far from it. But they are (mostly) not inclined to support the president or his policies anyway, whatever the economic firewalls they may have erected around themselves and their families to stave off the worst effects of a tariff-led recession. No, as usual, it is the blue-collar workers, the already economically vulnerable, who will suffer most; that is how it has always been. Already there are signs that more partisan, Left-leaning American voters are starting to enjoy – in a bitter and tepid fashion – the forthcoming economic nightmare as something which certain voters have invited upon themselves by their decision to vote for Trump last year. Serves them right! But such schadenfreude will prove short-lived and unfulfilling; just as Americans cannot escape the economic realities of globalisation by pretending that it doesn't exist, they cannot heal their disastrous political and social divisions by mocking the poverty and desperation of their fellow citizens. That, remember, was a major cause of Trump's triumph in the first place.
Yahoo
27-01-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Perspective: What a realistic pro-parent, pro-worker agenda looks like
The late New York Gov. Mario Cuomo had a famous dictum that politicians campaign in poetry and govern in prose. After a successful run to the White House that at times resembled a freestyle beat poetry session, President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress now face the task of channeling those energies into tax and spending policy. On the campaign trail, Trump promised a whole host of benefits to various groups: no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, no tax on overtime pay, no tax on emergency generators in states hit by natural disasters. Delivering on all those promises would be difficult enough, even before addressing the ticking time bomb that is the expiring provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which Trump signed during the first year of his first term. Republicans know they simply cannot choose not to act — allowing the 2017 tax cuts to expire would mean higher taxes for millions of American households. But crafting a tax bill that keeps GOP members of all stripes happy is the equivalent of solving two different 1,000 jigsaw puzzles simultaneously. The White House will need to lead the way toward an agenda that delivers on its key themes of supporting workers and parents. One key tension was put on display in a leaked negotiation document earlier this month. The all-important House Budget Committee, chaired by Texas Rep. Jodey Arrington, has been engaged in laying the groundwork for large-scale federal budget cuts for the past couple of years, pushing an aggressive blueprint called 'Reverse the Curse.' That spirit influences the leaked menu that's supposed to help the GOP train its focus on the tax changes the committee would like to see. Some of the ideas are good, verging on great. Currently, Medicare pays more for services provided in outpatient centers at hospitals than the very same services provided by physicians. As the Niskanen Center's Lawson Mansell has written, switching to so-called 'site-neutral' payment reform could save $126.8 billion over a 10-year window — enough to give every new parent $2,000 at the time of a child's birth as a so-called 'baby bonus,' or direct assistance with the needs of childbirth. The idea simply needs sufficient political capital to break through resistance from big healthcare players. The GOP budget menu includes other good ideas as well: the Biden administration's signature green energy and electric vehicle tax credits are surely not long for this world. Expanding the scope and size of the tax on university endowments will unify most parts of the party's base. Redesigning the Earned Income Tax Credit, or scrapping the Head of Household filing status, could simplify the tax code while leaving most low-income parents no worse off. Some of the small ball ideas, like eliminating favorable tax treatment for employer-provided gyms or transportation benefits, could lead to a more streamlined tax code and provide revenue for other worthy aims. And then there are some stinkers: eliminating taxes on overtime would cost nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars over 10 years. Attaching work requirements to the federal government's SNAP (formerly known as food stamp) program, or capping the amount families with multiple children could get, would add a decent amount of bureaucratic headache for users while generating only a couple of billion dollars in savings. Of course, the vast majority of the options the document sketches out won't make it into a final package. But it showcases how many competing impulses lay within the GOP caucus. Should Republicans in Congress seek to indiscriminately slash federal government spending? To prioritize tax relief? And if so, for who? To lower tax rates as far as possible, knowing that doing so could complicate the Federal Reserve's ability to fight inflation? These questions will give Arrington, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, and the rest of Republican leadership headaches over the weeks and months ahead. It's not enough to just figure out the overarching strategic questions, like whether Republicans should pursue one big bill or split their legislative package into two parts. In a sense, they're packing for a long vacation only what can fit in a carry-on. 'All of the above' isn't an option. Ultimately, what could cut the Gordian knot of so many competing priorities would be strong leadership from the White House. If the president were to prioritize, say, an expanded Child Tax Credit and no tax on tips as the two signature victories in a tax bill, that would help Republicans find the requisite revenue options to make this happen. One effort to support families was introduced earlier this month by Utah Rep. Blake Moore, whose Family First Act would bump the current $2,000-per-child Child Tax Credit to $4,200 per child aged 6 and under, and $3,000 per school-age child, while consolidating other child-related benefits in the tax code. Trump has historically disdained to get into the weeds of legislative dealmaking. But the messy bundle of competing priorities will need to be sorted out among the House GOP caucus before it has a chance of making it to the president's desk. If there is no leadership from the top, the intra-house fighting will be messy. Arrington, for example, is reported to have rubbed many of his colleagues the wrong way with his heavy handed approach to spending cuts. One leaked document isn't the be-all and end-all of GOP tax negotiations. But it does lay out the kind of tough choices Republicans will need to make to prioritize what an authentically pro-parent, pro-worker agenda should look like. The goal should be favoring smart reform over slash-and-burn cuts, and prudent fiscal management over temporary sugar highs. Those goals are in reach — or could be, if Republicans make the right choices in upcoming weeks.
