[Previous entry: "Scroogey for the Holidays"] [Next entry: "GET IN THE GAME"]

01/31/2005: "Miller Misses His Opportunity"

MILLER MISSES HIS OPPORTUNITY.

It actually took me a day or so to think of this point. That is how stagnant the political debate in this City has become during the era of term limits and Mayor Billionaire. And in some respects there are a number of reasons to blame. But in the end, last week’s budget announcement was a missed opportunity for Speaker Gifford Miller and any other Democratic Mayoral hopeful.

Mayor Billionaire announced his budget with the usual fanfare. It was a good times budget, the first of his term. Revenue projections were up and a large surplus was projected for the next fiscal year. The Mayor included various goodies in his budget, including his $400 property tax rebate proposal.

And the amazing thing is no one really challenged the Mayor’s budget. Yes, there was criticism, but there was no fundamental challenge. And considering the events of three years ago, this had to be considered remarkable.

What happened three years ago? Do you recall the Mayor’s proposed 25% increase in property taxes? The one that the Council negotiated downward to 18.5%? Do you recall Miller’s counter-proposal last year to the $400 rebate for property owners? Remember his across the board 2% cut, with some groups (for example, seniors) getting a complete rollback of the 18.5% increase?

Oh yeah, now you do.

And pray tell, why hasn’t anyone criticized the Mayor by stating that the basis for the 18.5% increase was that it was needed to keep City services going in the wake of 9-11? That need has now been eliminated or at least obviated. Simply put, the City has now recovered, and is anyone discussing reversing course on this tax increase? Miller, after challenging the 25% increase and trying to differentiate himself with the 2% cut, has now abdicated the tax cut discussion. And no other serious Mayoral candidate has raised the issue.

This failure points out a few things. First, the political attitudes of the Mayoral candidates. Miller is very liberal. Weiner is very liberal. Fields is very liberal. Barron is very liberal. Even Ferrer, whose record is moderate, is running as a liberal. It reminds me of the 1977 Mayoral race when everyone was liberal except Ed Koch. And Koch went onto become Mayor for 12 years. There is no Ed Koch in this race (sorry Tom Ognibene, Republicans with no name recognition don’t count).

Second, if you are a conservative Republican, it certainly adds gist to the argument that don’t ever trust the liberals to raise your taxes temporarily to get through a crisis. They argue that that increase will always become permanent. Well, they can make some hay here. And justifiably so. Once again, the liberals failed to keep their promise. Unfortunately, I don’t think this matters in New York City.

Now, Miller, Mayor Billionaire and all their candidate counter-parts can argue that the City’s budget in the out years is still fragile. Frankly, I don’t buy it. When good times start, they continue for a few years. And I can see the beginnings of a spending orgy. But let me take their argument at face value. If this is the case, then simply have a one-year cut, sunset it for next year, and re-evaluate matters under the new or re-elected Mayor in 2006. If the budget is good, then continue the decrease.

Of course, this will never happen. But at least someone could say this issue should be explored. First candidate to do so picks up a swath of voters, and credit for raising the issue.