A Stitch in Haste

MAYOR, NEW YORK CITY:

Since the two leading candidates for Mayor of New York are both lifelong liberal Democrats who have no inspiring vision of the city and no agenda except to raise taxes, raise spending, raise entitlements, raise municipal employment, pander to every union within earshot and huff-and-puff about the public school system while doing nothing substantial about it, there's really no basis for preferring one over the other. No endorsement.

A sampling of my past posts about Mayor Bloomberg here.

There is a Big-L Libertarian running for mayor. Her major claim to fame, however, is the very un-libertarian advocacy of "smokers' rights." There is, of course, no such thing as "smokers' rights," only property rights -- see this related post.

If anything, I'd be more inclined to give a protest vote for the candidate from -- I am not making this up -- the Rent is Too Damn High Party. When in a socialist dystopia, do as the dystopian socialists do.

PUBLIC ADVOCATE, NEW YORK CITY:

I only ever vote, if I vote at all, for President, Senator, Governor and Mayor. But of all the unimportant local hack politician jobs out there, none is hackier than New York City's Public Advocate. The Public Advocate has no power whatsoever, and her primary duty is to make speeches and hold press conferences (and to collect a $150,000 annual salary in the process). No endorsement.

I only mention the race at all because another Big-L Libertarian is running for the office. Which just goes to show how pathetic and decrepit the Big-L Libertarian Party has become. Since when do "libertarians" run for what may be the most-unlibertarian political office in the country?

(FUN FACT: Bernie Goetz -- yes, that Bernie Goetz, is also running for Public Advocate.)

PROPOSITION ONE (NEW YORK STATE):

Politically literate residents of New York State know that Albany is essentially a sort of quasi-imperial triumvirate, with all power concentrated in three people: the Governor, the State Assembly Speaker and the Majority Leader of the State Senate. New Yorkers also know that the Gang of Three has not been able to agree on a state budget before the mandated deadline in 20 of the past 21 years.

Proposition One proposes to "fix" this problem by cutting the Governor out of the budget loop whenever the budget deadline is missed, thereby turning the triumvirate into a diarchy. For supporters of this bizarre proposition, the answer to excessively concentrated power is apparently to concentrate it even further. Brilliant.

The only sane option is to vote "NO" on the atrocious and absurd proposition, if for no other reason than to have more confidence in gridlock than in politicians.

PROPOSITION TWO (NEW YORK STATE):

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, coming off an "unexpected" billion-dollar surplus, now wants to borrow, together with the Department of Transportation, an additional $2.9 billion for "infrastructure improvements."

In theory, capital projects should indeed be financed by long-term borrowing and such a bond issue would be no big deal.

But this is New York, the most heavily indebted state in the country and fifth-highest on a per-capita basis, at about $2,600 for every man, woman and child in the state.

The bond issue will NOT guarantee a Second Avenue Subway or a "JFK to Grand Central" rail link. It will, however, be a "mini-me" version of the recent embarrassingly pork-laden federal transportation spending bill, with plenty of handouts for gobbledygook like "bicycle trails" and "pedestrian pathways."

Fifty billion dollars in state debt is enough. The correct vote is of course "NO".

[No position on Proposition Three.]

PROPOSITION FOUR (NEW YORK CITY):

After the New York City fiscal crisis of 1974-75, the City was subjected to a state law that essentially requires it to have a balanced budget. That state law is set to expire in 2008. Proposition Four would amend the City Charter to impose the same balanced-budget requirement after the state law expires. This is obviously a good idea, one that at least slows down the runaway tax-and-spend mania gripping the city's hack politicians. The correct vote is of course "YES."