$46.9 Billion Budget
Goes to City Council.
Mayor is Optimistic,
Critics are Skeptical.

By Henry J. Stern
April 27, 2004

As required by law, Mayor Bloomberg submitted his executive (e.g. proposed) budget for fiscal year 2005 yesterday.
 
It went to the City Council, which will hold hearings in May, chew on the expense items and tax reduction for a few weeks, most likely propose alternatives in these areas, and finally adopt a budget in June. The Council budget then goes to the mayor for review and possible veto, in which case the Council can adopt its own budget, as it has occasionally done. Even in that case, however, the mayor ultimately decides how much money is in the pot, and how it is to be expended.
 
First-day reviews of the new budget were lukewarm, with some expressions of skepticism, wishful thinking and advice to the City Council.
 
We first link to the Times report on the budget, "Mayor Proclaims Healthy Surplus in Budget Plan." This sunny view in an article by Mike McIntire, a new name, is the most sanguine (optimistic, not bloody) view of the budget. Some mild caveats appear in the Times' editorial column, "Mayor Bloomberg's Sunny Budget."
 
As usual, the Post is more critical: in "NYC's Sea of Red," E.J. McMahon explains that while the wolf may not actually be at the door, he is certainly around the corner. McMahon is a veteran observer of city and state finances.  The Post's news story, by David Seifman, is professional and balanced. Its headline is: "'Hole' Lot of Trouble in Mike's New Plan." Bureau Chief Seifman is dean of the City Hall press corps.

In the News, Richard Schwartz, an old city hand, has a column headlined: "Where's the Vision? Mike offers a budget with lots of excuses but few new ideas." The News' editorial, "Mike holds the line in too hard a battle," expresses sympathy for the mayor and chastises alleged extravagance of Council Speaker Gifford Miller, who secured passage of the lead paint bill..
 
Newsday devotes two pages to the budget. The lead, by Glenn Thrush, sees "a partly cloudy budget forecast." Dan Janison's analysis says there's not a dime to spare. And Jimmy Breslin denounces the authorities, targeting Chancellor Klein for particular abuse because he and his wife frequently appear in society columns.
 
Unlike the paper's name, the Sun headline is "Bloomberg Projects Big Deficit in 2006." The lead, by Dina Temple-Raston, begins: "Mayor Bloomberg yesterday painted a troubling fiscal picture for the city, projecting a $3.8 billion deficit in fiscal 2006, some $1.5 billion more than the city initially forecast." The Sun's editorial, "Bloomberg and Redistribution," concludes that the mayor "would have a stronger case if he weren't doing to New York City's rich exactly what he is complaining that Washington and Albany are doing to New York City."
 
There you have it: five newspapers, five versions of the situation. Better than Rashômon. Sunny in the Times, partly cloudy in Newsday, and we're down $3.8 billion in the Sun. If you want it the way the mayor tells it, link to his detailed and carefully-written press release. I heard the mayor's oral presentation on the Internet, and was impressed by his command of detail and the relative candor of his approach.
 
If you do not have the time to link to everything on this page; i.e., if you have a job or a family or a demanding lover or pet, I would first recommend David Seifman's news story and Richard Schwartz's column, although all the stories are quite good. Allow me to reserve my own views until tomorrow or the next day. You have been patient in going this far, and and I don't want anyone to gorge on a $46,900,000,000 budget. If you have ideas on the budget, let me know right away since I am impressionable.