NEW YORK, NY Jan. 1 (DPI) – The New York Times yesterday donned its cheerleading outfit for incoming mayor Bill de Blasio, as a news article trumpeted his administration as “a closely watched laboratory for populist theories of government.”
But reader reaction on the NYT site ranged from skeptical — “NYC will be turned into a mess” – to practical – he’ll run “a very middle-of-the-road government” in spite of his radical messages as a candidate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/nyregion/de-blasio-draws-all-liberal-eyes-to-new-york-city.html
The NYT comment board also has its share of de Blasio defenders pleased with both his election and his hard-to-argue-with message to reduce income inequality and class stratification in America’s most populous city.
But beyond curtailing charter schools, ending “stop-and-frisk” police tactics and negotiating new contracts with the city’s 150+ public unions, it’s not clear how effectively the new mayor can carry out his vision. New York City residents already pay the highest income taxes in the nation, and he follows a solid act: The 12-year administration of Michael Bloomberg was by almost all accounts a model of non-corrupt, effective city government. De Blasio, a Clinton protege with a scant record in government management, squeaked through a Democratic primary to win the November general election by a landslide.
The article by Michael Grynbaum included this curious explanation for Democrats ousted 20 years ago from the NYC mayoralty:
“The waves of crime and racial tensions that plagued Mr. Dinkins’s tenure nudged Democrats into the city’s political wilderness for two decades, as the lengthy tenures of Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Bloomberg ushered in an era of hard-nosed, business-minded executives in City Hall.”
Grynbaum omitted the obvious: That fiscal mismanagement by Democratic leaders controlled by public unions led to their loss of power.
Readers who identified themselves as non-New Yorkers were most dismissive of de Blasio’s prospects:
(24 Recommendations, writer from Ohio) “Look for this laboratory in liberalism to go about as well the great 1917 experiment in Russia.”
Some readers recognized the central issue for New York City, of managing public employee compensation and benefits:
(29 Recommendations) “Mr. Mayor – did I read correctly that the retired teacher you hired to lead the schools had a pension of nearly $200K a year? And, she will get to be paid that pension and a salary of > $200K a year now too? How can that be even remotely possible? Isn’t that indicative of what is wrong with city finances? Does ANYONE in private industry get a pension of > $200K a year for life even if they are reemployed at their prior job?
How many New Yorkers does it take to tax to pay this one official?”
All Comments:
What is interesting is that the report card is actually out on a centrist approach that brought prosperity, opportunity, and peace to the City. It was called the Bloomberg administration. The issue is not one of improving NYC from the doldrums of the Koch/Dinkins period but rather the only question is whether deBlasio will erode the success of two decades of progress
And the most recommended post reflected a widely held sentiment, that de Blasio will not be the firebrand as mayor that he positioned himself as a candidate:
Bill de Blasio tacked to the far left of the very liberal Democratic pack to squeak out a primary election. He is very quickly tacking back to the center with his appointments of career government officials, none of them radical or even left-wing firebrands. Mayor de Blasio understands keenly than you cannot govern a city like New York from the right or left fringes, that there is no conservative or liberal way to pick up the trash or clean the parks. Those on the right who expect a new Soviet collective will see a very middle of the road government, and those on the left who expect a new high bar of progressive politics will see business more or less as usual. That’s the nature of local government.