de Blasio con't, con't.
A continuation of recent posts. I couldn't simply reply because I used to many words!
And again, we are most likely talking past one another and
in general agreement. Its odd that often times a critique can immediately be misconstrued
as opposition.
I was indeed critical of Mayor de Blasio’s
morning-after-the-storm news conference performance even though, in actuality,
he did manage to make it to Woodside Queens for the news conference part
thereby diluting my complaint of its Brooklyn theme. This critical outburst on
my part does not mean I stand in opposition to his policy and yet that was the
assumption made by those who responded.
One newscaster remarked about the same morning that it was such a stark
change from a “just the facts ma’am” socially tin-eared Bloomberg, to a folksy,
I-shoveled-my-own-driveway-just-in-case-you-wanted-to-know de Blasio that we
all took notice. Another said, after hearing de Blasio’s comment that he rose
at 4AM to have a phone conference with the schools chancellor, and so was the
most informed New Yorker about the snowstorm, “well you ought to be”.
Your list of Bloomberg’s failures in leadership cannot be
argued with except to say that his imperial style and overall effectiveness in
getting something done does not
fairly earn him a ‘lack of leadership’ award but rather demonstrates a
leadership in directions other than your preferences. He was no wallflower nor
no ineffectual. Some of the results of his tenure I continue to appreciate are
more green space (especially the work done on Manhattan’s Hudson shoreline), a
robust parks department, bike lanes, the city bike program, and the return of
architecture. That last is such nourishment to my esthetic soul.
Yes, I was aware of Bloomberg’s property tax increases. That
it holds a record of being the largest in New York City history ever, I would
love to see substantiated. Certainly in the 1800’s when there was no income
tax, save during the years of the civil war, and tariffs and property taxes
were the primary source of local income, there must have been some increases to
match, no? Hyperbole or fact? Interesting. Regardless, a major reason for the
size of the increases was to put back in place the large cuts Giuliani enacted,
throwing the city into a downward spiral, which led to continuing deficits.
Besides, I’m not understanding your larger point. Mayor de Blasio will be
relying on increased taxation for his purposes. Bloomberg relied on increased
taxation to close the budget gap and to fuel his purposes. Doesn’t that at
least align their funding tactics if not their agendas? You may have assigned to
my trepidation as to how to handle more taxes the weight of an argument against
more taxes. As I said amidst complaining, de Blasio is probably right to
revisit property tax hikes, its just tough on the budget.
Progress and Poverty by Henry George 1879. I haven’t read it
cover to cover and its remedies are based on a society long gone, but its just
one random title to demonstrate that the inequality argument currently grabbing
headlines has simply resurfaced. This observation is not meant to diminish your
points in the least. I agree that this widening gap is deadly. But I do not
believe that any politician or set of policies or party platform can
sufficiently alter the inequities of American society. In fact it has been my
long held belief that it cannot be corrected but by the demise of capitalism
itself. And this is where your attempts
to label me may fall into disarray. You see I am essentially a fiscal
socialist. I do not hold out any hope however that the necessary changes to
correct the excesses of capitalism can come about without violence. It need not
be an armed violence but the tensions of what capitalism naturally creates,
haves and have not’s, needs must rise to the level of revolt. Only then will
there be sufficient motive for the wealthy and powerful to change, for they
will have no alternative, it will be perforce. I hope not to be alive then
because it will be a very difficult time. I believe there is a natural economic
progression through capitalism to something more egalitarian and sustainable.
Nature might also force the issue by its inevitable
sloughing off of our overpopulated species, a more likely scenario given our
capacity to procrastinate. When draught and melting ice caps and rising sea
levels and weather extremes have had their way in one hundred or two hundred
years, those left may find it beneficial to rethink how they form economic
systems. Until then I will enjoy the parks and architecture and be quietly
thankful that I don’t have to keep up with the decaying educational system.
Now I have put some cards on the table. Now I am open to
labeling and criticism. Enjoy.