A Stitch in Haste

Dear Homeowner:

On July 21, 2004, the City Council voted into law my rebate proposal allowing me to present you with the enclosed property tax rebate check. This rebate honors the sacrifices you made in order to help New York City's recovery during difficult times.

Sincerely,
Michael R. Bloomberg

I hate getting money in the mail like this!

No, I'm not being sarcastic. The problem with Mayor Blooperberg's little publicity stunt is that it's a flat refund -- everybody got the same $400, regardless of how much property tax they actually paid.

Just as a lump-sum bill is a regressive tax (the poor pay a higher percentage of their income), so too is a lump-sum rebate a progressive tax (the poor receive a higher percentage of their income back and the net tax schedule becomes even more progressive).

As the joke goes, you don't have to be a rocket surgeon to figure that out.

I paid $3,048 in property taxes in 2004 and got $400 back. Someone who paid $30,048 would have also gotten $400 back. Someone who paid $448 would have also gotten $400 back.

Is this what Blooperberg considers fair?

Even the most brazen socialists must have some limits. Or do they?

And as a sidebar: The stunt of physically mailing checks (at what cost, incidentally?), with Blooperberg's warm-fuzzy-feeling message certainly has no ulterior motive -- right? Mayor Mike's above that sort of petty politicking just as his re-election campaign is getting underway -- right?

And gee, where could a Republican possibly have gotten such a noxious idea?

Oh, right, from this guy. Silly libertarian me...

Now where did I put those deposit slips?

Related Post:
Social Security: Read It and Weep

The "Anybody But Bloomberg" Chronicles:
Bloomberg: "I'd Lose as a Democrat"
Bloomberg: "Poor Get Better Health Care Than Rich"
Bloomberg: "Too Busy" to Attend Inauguration
Bloomberg Claims Credit for Gay Pension Benefits After Losing Anti-Gay Court Challenge
Charges Against "Just Plead Guilty" Protesters Dropped
NYC and the Olympics

New York City Mayor Bloomberg refuses to rule out future tax increases:

Read Mayor Bloomberg's lips: no promises when it comes to possible tax hikes.

"Nobody could prudently predict what would go on in the future," Bloomberg said when asked at a Crain's forum if he'd commit to no tax increases in his second term.

This is of course invalid on its face. Fiscal entities -- whether cities, states, nations, businesses or plain old individuals -- strive to predict the future and plan for it all the time. The entire Social Security reform debate centers on people trying to predict the future (or lying about those predictions). All of my field (equity research), indeed all of investment banking, indeed all of Wall Street itself, is predicated on trying to predict the future. One might even dare posit that Bloomberg's own company is a grand exercise in aiding the quest for reliable prognostication.

But Bloomberg, borrowing every fiscal policy mistake from another failed Republican, hides behind the cloak of "wouldn't be prudent." Apparently Bloomberg not only can't see the future, but he also has trouble seeing the past. Go figure.

But wait, there's more:

"My objective would be to try to bring taxes down. But when you say taxes are too high, you're talking about a number out of context. The real issue is after you pay your taxes, what kind of a life do you have?" he said.

Read that again -- don't focus on what we take in taxes, focus on what we let you keep.

Can't afford to go to the movies every week because of high income taxes? So what -- you can still go every other week. Can't afford the property taxes on a doorman one-bedroom on the Upper East Side? So what -- we're letting you afford a walk-up studio in Hell's Kitchen. Can't afford to send your kids to private school? So what -- look at this magnificent free public school system that your kids might actually survive.

This is without doubt the most brazen acknowledgement of the penny in your pocket rule I have ever seen from a politician -- even worse than Hillary's neo-communism. So of course it's coming from a "Wall Street Republican." Only in New York.

Oh, and as a denouement:

In his first State of the City speech, Bloomberg pledged not to raise taxes -- only to follow up a year later by imposing increases on property, income and sales taxes.

Well, I suppose Bloomberg wasn't totally untrue -- after all, he certainly couldn't predict the future very well back then, could he?

Related Posts:
How the Other Six-Digit Salaries Live
Anybody But Bloomberg: "Happy Sneaky Progressive Tax Day"
West Side Stadium: "How Can We Compete with Competition?"
Anybody But Bloomberg: "Poor Get Better Health Care Than Rich"
China's (and NYC's) Totalitarianism

One of the reasons I left academic economics in disgust back in the late 1980s was the then-fashionable debate (think "Reaganomics") about "whether deficits matter" and the "maximum sustainable government debt."

Almost twenty years later, and I'm still pretty disgusted.

New Yorkers may have to shell out 40 percent more for water by 2009, The Post has learned.

The increase will mean an extra $220 a year for the average single-family homeowner, jumping from $554 to $774.

The relatively minor 3 percent increase proposed for this year -- an election year -- is less steep than the 5.5 percent increases of the previous two years.

According to projections, though, water rates will immediately increase another 5.6 percent next year, followed by three years of 8.7 percent increases, which will be the largest rise in water rates in 15 years, and the biggest five-year increase since the early '90s.

But Kip, water is a necessity and, perhaps, a public good. And it's also metered, so those who use more water pay more for it. If water is becoming more expensive, then it's becoming more expensive -- it can't be helped. What's your gripe?

This is my gripe:

The primary reason for the increases...is the city Department of Environmental Protection's huge debt load and mammoth five-year capital plan.

In fiscal 2006 alone, the department will pay $722.3 million to service its debt load of nearly $14 billion. Another $8 billion in debt will be added over the next five years.

Add to that the DEP's five-year capital plan, which will cost over $10 billion.

I don't mind paying for water, preferably through a private utility but through a public authority if need be. But I mind a whole damn lot paying for the interest on an obscene debt level to correct the fiscal recklessness of the past.

Granted, capital projects, like the massive $6 billion third water tunnel, require public debt, and public debt requires public interest expense. But it simply cannot be the case that capital debt for a public work like water must increase every single year ad infinitum. This is interest on debt that covered operating deficits, which is a euphemism for public spending irresponsibility.

How delicious it would be if New Yorkers' water bills were itemized: "$200 for water, $250 for interest expense." There would be rioting in the streets.

Oppressive taxation is bad enough, but oppressive taxation to finance past debt, while future debt grows on top of that, is a recipe for disaster. New York City saw it during the fiscal crisis. The Social Security system in particular (and the federal government generally) will see it soon enough.

Oh, and did you catch that part about how the only "relatively minor" tax increase is coming -- surprise -- during an election year? Maddening.

NOT-SO-FUN FACT: The interest on the federal debt was $321,566,323,971.29 for fiscal year 2004. That's well over $1,000 per person. Not to fund defense, or pay judges, or even to fight drugs, poverty or AIDS. Just interest. And it will only go up from there. Enjoy your tax refund -- while you're still getting one.

Recently I blogged about an obnoxious stunt by Mayor Bloomberg and other NYC hack politicians regarding the allocation of substantial water tax hikes: having an artificially low tax rate increase this (election) year in order to mask far higher increases in subsequent years.

Well, in two days we have had two further examples of this immoral and despicable practice in NYC:

ITEM: What’s one thing at least as important as water?

New Yorkers in more than 1 million rent-stabilized apartments got good news last night from the city Rent Guidelines Board.

The board kicked off the annual battle over rents by proposing a range of modest lease increases that are lower than last year.
...
The entire board is appointed by Mayor Bloomberg and it came as no shock to observers that the proposed increases were relatively low in an election year.
...
"I think historically we see every time that it's an election year the final numbers are always low enough not to excite the masses of tenants," said [Joseph] Strasburg, whose Rent Stabilization Association represents 25,000 landlords.

MY TAKE: I’ll leave to other days and other bloggers the bigger question of rent regulation per se. I just want to highlight the Bloombergian hijinks for now.

---

ITEM: What’s another thing at least as important as water?

Amazing things can occur in an election year — even partial repeal of the tax on clothing sales under $110.

Sources said that's what Mayor Bloomberg will propose today when he unveils his executive budget for fiscal 2006. "It's the fairest way of reducing the burden on New Yorkers," said one city official.

The 8.625 percent tax was set to expire last June, before Albany decided to extend it to June 30, 2007, to help balance its budget.

Sources said Bloomberg is going to ask that the city's portion — 4 percent — be yanked this June 1, just five months before Election Day. Albany would have to approve the early repeal.

MY TAKE: What an astounding coincidence that the fiscal chaos of this city happens to recede just at the most politically opportunistic moment for the mayor. Who would have imagined?

I’ll give Bloomberg credit for this much: political "outsider" or not, he sure learned the rules of the fraud game quickly.

The tax man giveth, and the tax man taketh away...

New Yorkers will save a little money in taxes as of Wednesday.

In 2003, the state and the city both added temporary tax increases adding up to 3/8 of a percent, but those temporary taxes ended with the end of May on Tuesday.

Unfortunately, a special provision in the state budget will offset some of the money. It introduces a special sales tax to fund the MTA.

People in New York City and nearby counties will pay the surcharge of 1/8 of a percentage point starting Wednesday.

The old rate in the city was 8.625 percent. The new rate will be 8.375 percent.

Some hasty stitches:

--How many politicians, especially those up for re-election this year, will go out of their way to remind us that "sales taxes went down" without any mention that part of the sales tax actually went up?

--Notice how a "temporary" tax increase suddenly became a little less temporary. When is it ever otherwise?

--Here's a radical idea: Have the people who use public transportation pay for it. If the poor can't afford it ($2 max), then subsidize them directly through discounts rather than indirectly through an MTA subsidy (fueled by a sales tax, which I always hear is "regressive" and "anti-poor" -- go figure).

--Here's another radical idea: If you absolutely must tax Peter to subsidize Paul, then how about -- instead of a sales tax -- you implement a taxi tax? Those who opt for the "luxury" mode of transportation -- and create congestion and pollution in the process -- would thereby underwrite those who don't. Wouldn't that make more sense? Why muck around with the sales tax? (Oh right, I already answered that question.)

Of all the RINOs ("Republican In Name Only") in this country, the most brazen is of course New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. So RINO in fact, that he was a lifelong liberal Democrat until he realized that he could never win that party's mayoral primary, so he nonchalantly decided that winning was more important than political, philosophical or intellectual consistency, and rather than run as an independent, he simply bought the Republican slot from Rudy Giuliani.

Anyway, now that Bloomberg is up for re-election, he has been engaging in a series of well-timed headline-generating maneuvers to placate voters:

--He borrowed a page from President Bush's RINO handbook and issued a (highly progressive) tax rebate check to homeowners.

--He ordered his shills on the Department of Environmental Protection to deliberately manipulate water rates to keep them artificially low this year, knowing full well that they would have to increase exorbitantly in subsequent (i.e., post-election) years.

--He ordered his other shills on the Rent Guidelines Board to authorize an unusually low rent increase for regulated apartments this year. More tenants vote than landlords. Go figure.

Now, making nice with the person who may end up being his main opponent in November, lame-duck City Council Speaker Gifford Miller, Bloomberg is offering up even more vote-buying goodies:

Mayor Bloomberg praised political rival Gifford Miller yesterday as they shook hands on a $50.2 billion budget deal that restores $229 million in proposed cuts to social-service programs and lowers the sales tax on certain clothing items.
...
It also provides $10 million for 1,500 day-care slots, keeps city libraries open for six days rather than four, and funds after-school programs that link kids directly with city cultural institutions. The new budget will also pave the way for a permanent city sales-tax exemption on clothing and shoes under $110, and keep the $400 rebate for homeowners.

With the exception of the clothing tax exemption (more on that below), a true Republican would have been opposed to all these taxpayer-funded giveaways. Consider:

--None of these programs are related to a fundamental function of government.

--The tax rebate program is just plain obnoxious -- how about just lowering tax rates up front rather than going through the (logistically costly) motions of collecting the taxes and then refunding part of them back?

--None of the pork in any way helps to foster tourism in the city, the single easiest way to ease budgetary woes.

--The day care and after-school boondoggles only help those with kids. I see no reason to endorse programs that tax the childless to support those with children.

--To the extent that public libraries should be funded at all, perhaps their hours should be based on actual usage rather than warm-fuzzy-feeling budgeting.

Finally, regarding the clothing exemption, a few observations:

--NYC quite frankly has little choice but to exempt clothing, since all our neighboring states do so, not to mention those Internet retailers who do not collect the sales tax.

--This is just the latest example of why proposals to replace the federal income tax with a national sales tax are misguided, to the extent that their supporters believe that a sales tax would be less subject to manipulation (i.e., the unrealistic notion that "everything would be taxed equally"). How long would it be before Congress decided that food and clothing should be exempt, or diapers, or prescription drugs, or college tuition, etc.? There may be valid reasons to prefer a sales tax (e.g., privacy concerns), but "fairness" isn't one of them. For more on this, see my latest post on the subject.

It's early yet, but the latest polls suggest that Bloomberg may win re-election handily.

And the RINOs rage on...

I blogged recently about some political shenanigans regarding New York City's water tax rates.

It now seems that the water tax river runs not only wide but also deep:

About 231,000 water customers in New York City are late paying their bills — some by just a few months, others by decades. In all, these water delinquents owe the city more than $625 million in overdue bills and penalties.
...
And so officials have started working on a plan to selectively cut the water to a few residences with outstanding bills to show that they are serious about collecting those debts.
...
Instead, officials plan to target only high-income neighborhoods, to make examples of a few privileged New Yorkers who have not paid their bills — all bills average roughly $600 a year per household — and who would be in no position to complain if they were caught stiffing the system.

Here's what I don't understand: Unlike electricity or cable television bills, tenants generally don't pay water taxes; property owners do. So why not just do what every other property-related creditor or tax authority does — attach a lien to the property? Not only would the delinquent taxes automatically be available whenever a property was sold, but the threat of negative credit implications would serve as a powerful incentive to keep current with one's water obligations, the same as with any other debts.

Well, here's (sort of) the answer:

[A] loophole allows owners to take their properties out of the lien sale at the last minute by paying their property taxes, even if the water bills remain unpaid.

I still don't get it. If the problem is with the law, then, um, why not change the law? Wouldn't that be easier, and politically smarter, than shutting off people's water?

I can't help but wonder whether the fact that there's an income bias in this proposal is part of the explanation. I have no problem with shaming wealthy deadbeats, but how many "poor" landlords are there? And the article says high-income neighborhoods, not high-income delinquents, are to be targeted. Might there be just a hint of class-based retribution and schadenfreude in this proposal?

It's one thing to oppose high taxes; it's another not to pay the taxes you owe (although certain hyper-anarcho-libertarians might disagree). Of course the city should work to collect these unpaid taxes. But it should do so in a intelligent, efficient, and comprehensive way, rather than inviting abuse via soak-the-rich theatrics.

FUN FACT: NYC's water supply played a role in the famous (and lethal) rivalry between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. Having seen the success of Hamilton's new Bank of New York, Burr sought a charter for his own bank but was blocked by his opponents in the New York State legislature. He already had, however, a charter to start a water utility, the "Manhattan Company." So he used (abused?) a clause in that charter that allowed him to enter any business necessary to facilitate the water operations (somewhat like the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution). So he decided that — presto! — his water company "needed" its own bank.

The water company never actually opened, but the Bank of the Manhattan Company thrived. For those old enough to remember such things, that was the "Manhattan" in "Chase Manhattan Bank" (now part of JPMorganChase).

Architecture buffs, meanwhile, may be aware of the famous "height contest" between the Chrysler Building and the Bank of the Manhattan Building, which culminated in the former's now famous spire.

Back in February I lambasted Mayor Bloomberg for his obnoxious stunt of sending property tax rebate checks. I love lower taxes, but not as a political gimmick and certainly not as a progressive redistribution maneuver (the rebate was a fixed $400 for anyone who paid at least that much in taxes -- a fixed rebate on a proportional tax is the same as a progressive tax). Rather than simply reduce property taxes going forward, Bloomberg had the city mail checks to all taxpayers, with his signature on them and with a nice "thank you" letter from him. Like I said, a political gimmick (one he learned, remember, from another Republican -- go figure).

Well, now a senior Democrat on the City Council is grabbing the baton:

A Queens councilman said yesterday he'll propose legislation to bar Mayor Bloomberg from sending out $400 property-tax rebate checks with his name on them while he seeks re-election.

City Council Finance Committee Chairman David Weprin said he would submit the bill for consideration at the council's August meeting.
...
The bill would also call attention to Bloomberg's tax cut -- not a politically astute thing to do, political insiders said.
...
"It's inappropriate to have [Bloomberg's] name on the [checks], particularly in an election year when he is running for re-election," Weprin said.

Indeed. I can't speak to whether it's politically smart to draw attention to the checks -- one might think the checks will draw attention to themselves.

But the real point is that if Bloomberg were an honest politician, then he would abandon the signature stunt voluntarily.

Just like how, if he were an honest politician, he would run as an independent rather than hijack the Republican nomination again.

But as we all know, "honest politician" is a contradiction in terms.

The past four years under Bloomberg have been, and the next four years are likely to be, business as usual, his financial "independence" notwithstanding. He's no different than the rest of them.

And you can take that to the bank, right along with your rebate check.

New York City's liberal mayor, Michael Bloomberg, has been engaging in an extended series of high-profile, specifically-timed governmental stunts to buy votes in his upcoming re-election campaign. I have chronicled them here.

The latest naked pandering? Bribes to seniors:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed a bill into law Tuesday that will help more seniors pay their monthly rent through the Senior Citizen Rent Increase Exemption Program or SCRIE Program.
...
Seniors covered by the bill are exempt from paying more than one-third of their income in rent. Landlords will be able to make up the difference through tax breaks.

Gee, an "everybody wins" initiative. The seniors get rent-regulated socialized housing. The landlords get tax breaks. Bloomberg gets the spotlight and the credit.

Nobody loses, right?

Oh, right. All the taxpayers who foot the bill lose.

Not to worry. I'm sure Bloomberg will get around to buying their votes too. That's fair, right? Everybody pays for everybody else's handout, and Bloomberg gets credit for orchestrating it all.

Remind me again how the Bloomberg administration is not "politics as usual"?

Those who thought that the Bloomberg administration would not be "politics as usual" were, um, wrong:

New York City's 36 fat-cat marshals are about to get even fatter.

The politically connected, mayorally appointed private businessmen will get the multimillion-dollar monopoly on towing parking scofflaws in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and The Bronx by year's end, The [New York] Post has learned.

Officials confirmed that the city's deputy sheriffs are being pulled from the towing program, except on Staten Island, which historically has the fewest scofflaws.

Deputy sheriffs in NYC make $50,000 per year. The average gross income of a private marshal is over $1 million per year. Private marshals receive a 5% commission on any unpaid tickets (which, remember, are public revenues) that they collect; deputies receive a pat on the back.

Boss Tweed would be proud.

Towing the cars of ticket scofflaws is of course a proper function of government. And there is nothing intrinsically wrong with subcontracting public functions to private entreprenueurs, assuming that such arrangements are made at arms-length and preferably by a process of competitive bidding.

But "Businessman Bloomberg" is obviously unfamiliar with the idea of competition.

On the other hand, maybe he'll get some exposure to competition in November.

In case you've been living in a cave and somehow remained unaware that Michael Bloomberg is a life-long liberal Democrat who merely borrowed the Republican nomination long enough to run for mayor, here's the latest non-news:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Friday opposed John Roberts' nomination to be U.S. Supreme Court chief justice, making him the first noted Republican to break with the Bush administration over who should lead America's top court.

Bloomberg, a former Democrat seeking re-election in a heavily Democratic city, said Roberts had failed to show a commitment to upholding the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision establishing a right to abortion.

"I am unconvinced that Judge Roberts accepts the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling as settled law," Bloomberg said.

For perspective, this puts him to the left of Chuck Schumer.

This is, as I said, non-news. Bloomberg's uninformed (he is not a lawyer) litmus test on abortion is mandatory politics-as-usual in New York City in an election year, even for this fraudulent "outsider" (for a sampling of just how good a politician this "non-politician" is, simply peruse the chain below).

As I have said repeatedly, I have no problem with ultra-liberal New York City electing an ultra-liberal mayor. I just wish Bloomberg had the intellectual honesty, and the balls, to run as an independent.

I recently received my second annual property tax rebate from the New York City government.

So here's my second annual complaint about it.

Why exactly is the City intentionally overtaxing property owners only to give them $400 rebates every year?

Well first of course is the brazen election-period timing — how else to explain a tax rebate in October, less than one month before Election Day?

More importantly, however, is the desire to sneak in a stealth progressivity into property taxes. Under a sane fiscal policy, property taxes (like income taxes) would be strictly proportional: own more property, pay more taxes.

But in a city that is over 80% liberal Democrat, "mere" proportionality in taxation is unacceptable. The rich simply must be surcharged in some way. So one of the most liberal Democrats in the city — Mayor Michael Bloomberg — stopped pretending to be a Republican just long enough to craft this rebate nonsense.

Here's how it works: Every property owner who pays at least $400 in property taxes gets a $400 rebate, regardless of how much they actually paid.

Pay $401 in property taxes, get $400 back. Pay $4,001 in property taxes, get $400 back. Pay $40,001 in property taxes, get $400 back.

Suddenly a proportional tax becomes progressive.

And since the progressivity is cloaked in a rebate check, some people will actually be grateful for it.

Despite the fact that the first rebate was rationalized as the result of an "unexpected" surge in revenues, the rebate returned for a second year. Never mind that checks get lost or misdirected in the mail (no direct deposit is available). Never mind that paying property taxes only to get a rebate can complicate people's income tax returns. Never mind that a $400 rebate, like income tax withholding, constitutes a compulsory interest-free loan to the City. Never mind any of that — expect the tax-and-rebate system to become permanent. It's just too deliciously obnoxious for New York's liberal politicians to give up.

---

I will note, however, that this year, unlike last year, neither the rebate letter nor the check were signed by Mayor Bloomberg himself as a petty propaganda stunt. Because he doesn't believe in petty propaganda stunts.

So this year it was all wound and no salt. B.F.D.

You re-elect him, you pay for it:

Forty-eight hours. That's how long it took for Mayor Mike to double-cross New York and call for new taxes -- violating repeated promises that he would do no such thing.
...
On Friday, he renewed his demand to restore the commuter tax, which would zap non-city residents who work here and, indirectly, their employers.

Over and over again during the election campaign, Bloomy vowed not to raise taxes.

Here is what I wrote before the election:

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.

Acta est fabula, plaudite!

New York City's Republican ultra-liberal mayor, Michael Bloomberg, wants everyone, absolutely everyone, to be eligible for food stamps:

The waiver now being sought by the city, which is expected to be approved by the federal government, would affect adults ages 18 to 49 who are not responsible for a child or incapacitated relative and are not physically or mentally unfit for work. The federal welfare overhaul of 1996 imposed a three-month limit on food stamps in any three-year period for this group, known as able-bodied adults without dependents.

Make no mistake about it: If you believe that "adults ages 18 to 49 who are not responsible for a child or incapacitated relative and are not physically or mentally unfit for work" are entitled to food stamps, then you believe that everyone, absolutely everyone, is entitled to food stamps. There can be no rational basis for excluding anyone from such a program.

Which is the same as saying that you really have no principles whatsoever, liberal or otherwise. For if your concern is truly for the deserving poor, then you don't demonstrate it by expanding the public tax burden to subsidizing the undeserving poor. It is neither unreasonable nor cruel to insist that those who can work either do so or rely on private charity — which, incidentally, is abundant in this city.

Libertarians can afford, and endorse, a modest and reasonable welfare state where those truly unable to care for themselves are not expected to. But this isn't that. This is just politicians being politicians, with no sense of responsibility and no sense of ethics. Just keep spending other people's money on whatever gives you that self-serving warm fuzzy feeling until either your term, or the money, runs out. And then pat yourself on the back for your "compassion."

That's no way to run a city. And it's no way to help the poor.

UPDATE: Oops -- backlash! Never mind.

Michael Bloomberg, who spent $160 million of his own money to buy two terms as Mayor of New York, now thinks that -- gasp! -- there is too much money in election campaigns.

Firms that do business with the city and also make political contributions are engaged in "bribery or graft," Mayor Bloomberg said yesterday.
...
Taking off from there, the mayor went on to decry the campaign-finance system he says invites corruption for allowing city vendors to try to influence the government by making hefty campaign contributions.

"If you've got business before the city, state or federal government, you shouldn't be giving to elected officials. Period. End of story."

Oh my goodness.

Is there a single person on the planet who has less moral sanction to invoke the flaws of campaign finance than Michael Bloomberg? Is there a blacker pot to be going around lecturing the kettles?

Money is speech, and speech is protected by the First Amendment. To the extent that our campaign finance laws, or the Supreme Court, or Michael Bloomberg, say otherwise, they are wrong.

Period. End of story.

If our philosopher-king mayor is so concerned about corruption in government, then perhaps he should focus on, um, government. On what the government does and who does it.

If the City of New York, with its $55 billion annual budget and 350,000 employees didn't go around buying so much and building so much and generally doing so much, then no one would be chasing any government contracts. There would be no need to worry about conflicts of interest, because there would be no conflicts of interest. There would be no need to call for limits or bans on campaign contributions, because no one would be making any campaign contributions, at least not out of any ulterior motives.

Period. End of story.

Only a politician could dare suggest that the problem of political corruption has nothing to do with politicians. Only a self-loathing ex-businessman could dare suggest that businessmen deserve to be loathed.

Period. End of story.