The Ides of April or Et Tu, Albany George
By Henry J. Stern
April 18, 2003

    Since Tuesday, April 15, when Mayor Bloomberg proposed two executive budgets for fiscal 2004, reporters have produced sad scenarios about the impending loss of services, and the new or increased taxes that are likely to be imposed. 

    The city is in a macro-economic crisis; its tax revenues, current and projected, are simply insufficient, by billions, to maintain the current establishment of city employees.  If you cut services, middle class people will leave the city.  If you raise taxes, rich people will leave the city.  If you do both, only the poor will remain.  But if you do neither, the State's Financial Control Board will take over and make the cuts in its own way.   You know we exaggerate--we know that we’ll stay.  But quite a few will leave, or decide not to come here, and that will hurt us.

    Today two New York sages discuss the problem, Clyde Haberman in the Times laces his analysis with humor, and Tony Coles, a deputy mayor in the Giuliani years, writes in the Post with an insider’s perspective.  Both make sense.

    There are also micro-economic issues that have not received attention.  There has been no serious work done on the inefficiency, duplication of effort, rudeness, passivity and sloth that permeate parts of some agencies.  The Mayor has belittled the prospect of significant improvement in this area.  He is probably right on cost savings; better management would save millions, rather than the billions needed to balance the budget. 

    Nonetheless, change here would be most helpful.   It would give New Yorkers: taxpayers, businesses, scholars, civics, and even journalists, the sense that something was being done about the problems inherent in a $44 billion bureaucracy.  When there is the sense that issues of waste and incompetence are being pursued, it gladdens the spirit, and others may be more likely to give us help.

    Waste is often misuse of time; while corruption usually involves money.  The Mayor has an enormous advantage on the money issue.  His great wealth and his good character make bribery impossible.  He does not even accept campaign contributions. This administration will not end with the Mayor forced out by the Governor, as Jimmy Walker (1926-32) was by FDR.  Nor will he be appointed Ambassador to Mexico to avoid being subpoenaed, having had boodle delivered to the back porch of Gracie Mansion.  Remember Mayor William O'Dwyer (1946-50).   But what of the middle managers and the inspectors, who are the employees most likely to take graft ?

    Our Mayor has appointed a fine Commissioner of Investigation, Rose Gill Hern, a career prosecutor from the U.S. Attorney's office.  She needs resources to do her important job well.  In Mayor Dinkins' administration (1990-93), DOI was cut more drastically than any other city agency.  I don't know why.  Some of that cut should be restored.  She could also ship out a number of her less productive employees, hangers on from the days when DOI was a dumping ground. If civil service laws inhibit their prompt retirement, they could be sent to less sensitive agencies, where they might even be useful. DOI is in no way unique in this situation, every agency has its known (and unknown) slackers, protected by civil service laws, politicians, unions, and threats of reprisals.

    Back to the budget: The Mayor has been grievously disappointed by Governor Pataki. Mr. Bloomberg was right in treating the Governor courteously, and giving him time to find fiscal solutions. Shouting would not have helped.  But the result, sadly, has been precious little new money, and the attempted seizure of Federal anti-terrorism funds, an act so brazen that the Republicans blocked it.  Now he knows that some elected officials act primarily in what they believe are their own personal interests.

    The substantial wage increases the Governor awarded in 2002 to receive union leaders’ support were fiscally irresponsible.  By the way, the union leaders were right to take the money and endorse him. He would have won anyway, and their members would have been poorer.  Joseph P. Kennedy reputedly said, “Why should I pay for a landslide?”  In this case, it was the public that paid for Pataki's easy ride. 

    My suspicion is that the Governor has been mesmerized by President Bush's standing up to Iraq, and thinks if he firmly opposes tax increases, he too may become a  hero.  Of course, if there are increases, there will be a subplot so that he avoids or minimizes his responsibility.  Pataki was canny enough not to say, "Read my lips; no new taxes", the most famous line uttered by Bush 41, the year before he wisely and sensibly did raise Federal taxes.  There seem to be a number of generational differences between 41 and 43, who has made multiple tax cuts an obsession despite the huge federal deficit.  Freud and Oedipus are somehow part of this fascinating picture.

    With regard to timeliness and the budget, remember that we noted the dawn of the age of Aquarius, and wondered whether the fisc (as Senator Moynihan called it) would be straightened out by Gemini (the twins). Well, we have completed Aquarius and Pisces and we are in the last days of Aries (the Dodge Ram).  Taurus begins Monday, and the very next month is Gemini.  Then comes Cancer (named for the crab and the Tropic).  I may have been optimistic.

    Enjoy, and reflect, on the Passover and Easter holy days.

Henry J. Stern is the director of NYCivic.