A few days ago, the NY Post endorsed the candidacy of Michael R. Bloomberg to serve four more years as mayor of New York City.  The full opinion piece, as it was first published, is here, but I'd like to have fun with the piece below by breaking it down, sentence by sentence...

The Post this morning endorses the candidacy of Michael R. Bloomberg to serve four more years as mayor of New York City.

We do so for many of the same reasons that led us to back him four years ago: This is not the time for untested leadership in City Hall.

...When is the “time” for untested leadership?  Seems an inconsistent point, considering that the NY Post – as America seemed to be entering a world-wide Depression – endorsed one of the most “untested” people to take over a very critical office at a very critical time for New York…

All eyes are turning to Washington for the inauguration of Barack Obama as the nation's 44th president. Could there be a more propitious time for Gov. Paterson to name Caroline Kennedy to the US Senate?

For surely Kennedy, personally and politically, is best situated to speak to the new president on behalf of a fiscally beleaguered Empire State.

...Caroline Kennedy was always the wrong choice to be New York's Junior US Senator, even if there were only Democrats to choose from.  Being "tested" wasn't an important factor for the NY Post Editorial Staff in that situation.  How can their main justification for the endorsement of Bloomberg then be based on "experience?"  Back to the endorsement editorial...

And Bill Thompson, a fundamentally decent and well-intentioned Democrat, simply doesn't measure up to the standard Bloomberg has set since 2002.

...If “doesn’t measure up” means "hasn’t had the opportunity to tax and spend as much as Mr. Bloomberg," then that makes sense.  But for New Yorkers, that's a "standard" we could live without in Gracie Mansion…

It can be hard to warm to Bloomberg's governing style, and we have little patience for his often arrogant nanny-state meddling in New Yorkers' private lives.

...It’s much more than that, and I find it amazing how the media has looked past all of Mr. Bloomberg’s transgressions against individual liberty and freedom. 

Even as a town bursting with card carrying Lefty's, New York City has always been a place where authority was looked at with a very cautious eye.  Many on the Left went on and on about the supposed totalitarian state created during the tenure of Giuliani - and he only focused his "governing style" on controlling the very out-of-control issues surrounding rampant crime. 

Yet now, as the years pass on under Bloomberg rule, the nanny-state “meddling” has brought about millions of dollars in fines and even more millions spent on enforcement and regulatory administration for issues like smoking in public and calorie counting in restaurants.  The effect of these laws has more than just symbolic importance – they change the fabric of NYC - and in a way that is an affront to traditional individual freedom in the most diverse City in the world.

What happened to the outrage of New York City?  What happened to the outrage within our free press?...

But it is also hard to imagine what New York City would look like today if either of his past opponents, Mark Green or Fernando Ferrer, had been elected in his stead.

...It wouldn’t look much different and in many ways it would be much better - at least for the future.

No one – especially the most liberal Democrat – could have been able to get away with raising tax rates as aggressively as Mr. Bloomberg.  Because he has straddled the political party lines over the last 8 years, Bloomberg has been able to distract New Yorkers and been able to avoid personal blame for more than doubling the size of government under his watch - something that WILL put our City's fiscal future in jeopardy.

If Mark Green had tried to pass the property tax increases Bloomberg eventually passed, he would have been run out of office before his term ended – especially if he promised that they’d be “temporary” increases like Bloomberg did - and we'd probably have seen the rise of a Real Republican moderate to Citywide notoriety such as Rudy did during the days of true Liberal, Democratic leadership. 

Basically, without Democrat David Dinkins, we'd never have been able to elect Republican Rudy Giuliani.  With Bloomberg co-opting the Republican line as a tax and spend liberal, he has been able to run government like a Liberal without any coordinated challenge from the political Right.

The line “it could be worse” is the biggest myth in NYC politics today and the most humorous part about that line is that most New Yorkers will completely justify their vote for Bloomberg on that basis alone. 

Eight years of being Mayor and Bloomberg can only rest his hat on the fact that "he wouldn't be as bad as the other guy."  No wonder he’s spending nearly twice for re-election than what he spent to get elected as a relatively unknown businessman back in 2001…

Fact is, Bloomberg has put together a remarkable record.

* On education: Mike Bloomberg will be remembered as the mayor who brought accountability to the system. Supervisors, principals, teachers, students -- all are now expected to show results.

And they have, often spectacularly.

Everyone in the education world knows that results have not markedly improved under Bloomberg.  The tests have become easier to pass - often every student who takes some of these exams passes.  National testing, as the NY Post wrote about here, is starting to debunk the myth that the education system has functioned better under Bloomberg's leadership.

And because the Mayor has mistakenly tied "merit pay" to this increasingly weakened testing process, we've paid out bonuses to teachers, supervisors and principals who have achieved almost nothing of real "merit."  What a wasteful way of spending precious education resources - that are being massively cut in Albany as we speak.

Although I believe the most people like the idea of Mayoral Control and the accountability it theoretically gives to the electorate regarding education, there are few inside our city's schools who believe the direction Klein and Bloomberg have taken us is any more effective than when the schools were run by the overly bureaucratic Board of Education.

Bloomberg has increased teacher salaries by 43% over the last 8 years, along with massive pay increases to all of the education special interests, and for all of that spending we've seen marginal improvements at best.  How is gaining few percentage points in "results" with a near doubling in education spending worthy of re-election?  Either way, the results certainly are not "spectacular"...

* On crime: Bloomberg and Commissioner Ray Kelly took a crime rate that already was declining dramatically and drove it to levels not seen since the '60s.

And they did so even while deploying significant resources into counterterrorism -- helping to keep New York safe from another 9/11.

Again, any real reporting would show that Bloomberg is presiding over a rise in criminal activity - albeit under-reported through CompStat because of the way Kelly and the Mayor are running the department.  I will not go on about this topic much but to say take a look at the contradictory information posted on the NYPD's website and the website for the Criminal Justice Court System of NYC that states...

The Court’s workload continues to rise. Criminal Court calendared 982,105 online/DAT cases in 2008, a 17% increase from the 841,894 heard in 2004.

...How does one process more cases year after year in the Courts, yet still claim that crime is "dramatically" going down?  Obviously you can't, but unless the media does some reporting, there's no way to find out the truth.

Besides, ask any cop on the street in the Bronx or in Brooklyn what is really going on.  It doesn't take in-depth reporting to find that police-officers will tell you - off the record if necessary - that crime is intentionally under-reported by the NYPD leadership and that gun and other violent crimes are on the rise.

* On finances: Eight years ago, Bloomberg took a city driven deep into recession by 9/11 and helped bring it back. Last June, he delivered a budget that cut spending by $1.5 billion -- even as Albany's budget grew by 10 percent.

This is the biggest joke of all in this endorsement.

The national economy recovered.  Bloomberg had nothing to do with this and, if anything, because of his policies we lagged the rest of the nation in terms of jobs and economic activity.

The Post’s reporting is completely lacking here again, but this one you can debunk without getting out from behind your computer.  A quick evaluation of the last 7 budgets produced by Mayor Bloomberg will demonstrate that the supposed “$1.5 billion” cut the Post is talking about will never happen.  Here's a link to the NYC OMB, where all of Bloomberg's budgets, executive and adopted, can be found.

Mr. Bloomberg has predicted a next year budget cut EVERY year since taking over as Mayor.  Yet, not once has it actually happened.

In 2003, his forecast for 2004 was a billion dollar cut – in reality NYC’s budget grew more than $3 billion.  In 2004, his forecast for 2005 was $600 million cut – in reality NYC experienced a $6 billion increase – more than 10%.  In 2005, Bloomberg’s forecast for 2006 was for a $2.5 billion cut – in reality NYC’s budget increased by nearly a billion and a half dollars.

I could go on, but in every year since Bloomberg’s taken office, he’s either intentionally lied to the people of New York about the future of the city’s budget or he just can’t predict things too well.  If the latter were true, those who claim he was irreplaceable would be at a loss for facts as to why we needed the billionaire for four more years. 

As the Post just reported the other day, Bloomberg is looking to restore funding for programs that got recent cuts arguing that the “economy isn’t as bad as we thought.”  He is also looking to sign a few more municipal union contracts soon and deal with the financial ramifications of the Transit Worker union’s recent litigation on its new contract.

The last thing Mr. Bloomberg should be touted for is mindful use of public dollars.  He uses his resume and personal wealth, as Mr. Koch reminded us of at a press conference, to be labeled as a financial expert.  The facts do not demonstrate it is true.

And besides, even if the Mayor passed the “cuts” as the Post describes, that cut is coming after a near 50% increase in the budget over the last 6 years – from $44 billion to $63 billion.  Back to the editorial...

Yes, he negotiated deals with the municipal unions that included overly generous raises. But he also insisted on tough social-services policies designed to reduce fraud, end dependency and guarantee that only the truly needy receive government aid.

Like the program he’s personally funding to pay people to go to school and eat properly?  As well, the mandate for people on public assistance to work as part of the deal of being in the program was lifted – and the Mayor supported the effort.

How does the Post wipe out a massive blight on the record of the Mayor, the billions he’s thrown at municipal labor to get their support, with a factually baseless claim?  Reduce fraud?  Really?

Now I don’t believe the claim, but if he did “reduce fraud,” where are the cost benefits?

Whether he maintains this prudent fiscal course is the great question mark of a third Bloomberg term.

As Ronald Reagan said, “there you go again.”

What “prudent” fiscal course?  Is the NY Post actually saying that raising spending in NYC by about 60% over 8 years is fiscally “prudent?” 

But the record suggests that he will.

What “record?”  I’ve provided all the links.  Where is the “record” of fiscal “prudence?”

There is, of course, one other matter: Doesn't New York City have term limits?

Just that “little thing,” huh?

People are very upset about it.  And as alluded to here, it may come back to haunt the Mayor in his third term.  But this is an issue that is beyond public opinion.  It is truly what editorial sections in newspapers are for.  I will have another piece on the key lies told by the Bloomberg administration later on today…

No doubt, some New Yorkers are angry about how Mayor Mike used his considerable resources to having them set aside to allow him to run again. It was a characteristic display of Bloombergian hubris, and we suspect that it will cost him on Election Day.

Plus, the mayor himself may come to regret the run.

Seems like the last two lines were put in to make the Post’s writers feel better about themselves for endorsing Bloomberg.  I don’t blame them…

Third terms historically are problematic in New York politics; just ask Ed Koch. Events intrude, and conspire to tax the abilities of even the most talented leaders.

Ugh.  The “most talented of leaders,” huh?  The transitions being made in this piece are astonishing…

But that's all the more reason why it's important that the most talented candidate on the mayoral ballot be elected. Mike Bloomberg has been a competent -- sometimes brilliant -- steward of a successful city that not so long ago was deemed ungovernable.

Bloomberg inherited a city that was completely “governable.”  It was made so by his predecessor, even in the aftermath of 9-11.  New Yorkers were as ready as they’ve ever been to work together and even with the budget difficulties potentially faced in the first year of Bloomberg rule, in reality, Rudy had left the budget in such good shape that minimal tax increases were really necessary.

“Competent?”  Okay, I’ll give the Post that one, but never “brilliant” and barely “talented.”  Again, Bloomberg’s talent is having enough money to buy away dissent – political, media and financial.  If that what we are calling “brilliant” these days, I think I’d rather vote for “stupid.”

He has earned four more years.

Or maybe eight more.  Or possibly 12.  Who knows…

In the end, this endorsement, like with all the papers (and especially true for the small, local papers) has become a necessary evil in this town.  Cross the Mayor and he’ll have your head.  Go along with him quietly and no one gets hurt.  What advertising business could afford to lose those weekly full page ads?

The facts don’t support this tepid endorsement, which ultimately says he’s the most talented candidate “on the ballot” – not a ringing endorsement by any stretch.  Yet the Mayor got the endorsement regardless. 

I don't fault the Post or their editorial staff for this drivel, but as a longtime reader of the Post and a daily home subscriber, I find it hard to digest when I open the paper in the morning.  In the end, I guess I’m just disappointed…

< Prev		Next >