Finally balancing a messed up budget is going to require making some tough decisions, and it might get a little ugly. But you endure that pain, because it puts the city government on solid footing for next year, and for years after, until some crook gets elected, and fucks it all up again.
Rather than declare this balanced budget a smoke & mirrors failure, let’s see where it stands in 2-3 years. I suspect the city will be much improved by then.
But, No, let’s pretend doing something great, and extremely rare, like balancing the budget, is a bad thing.
This budget may be balanced, assuming everyone involved votes for it to happen, but the structural problems remain.
Some of those structural problems were addressed in this budget balancing, and now that they’ve accomplished this objective (they’ll all sign on, nobody will dare not to), they’ll start working on the rest.
I’m predicting that he’ll succeed, and you’re predicting he’ll fail. The difference between my prediction and yours, is that mine is based on his already successful record, and his overwhelming public support, while yours relies only on your own cynical hope that he fails, with no evidence that will happen.
So far, he’s got his shit together better than ANY NYC mayor I can recall in the last 50+ years. I’m betting on THAT guy.
“Balancing the budget” means nothing without other information.
It just means they didn’t spend more than what was planned, which should be the default.
Trump could balance the budget spending billions on ICE. Just because the budget balances doesn’t make it “good”. Just means they took in the money they thought and only spent what they thought.
I’m a mayor and my town needs a new orphanage. My budget doesn’t have funds allocated towards a new orphanage in the budget. I don’t order a new orphanage to be built, kids live on street, but at least the budget is balanced. I must be a good mayor.
But, No, let’s pretend doing something great, and extremely rare, like balancing the budget, is a bad thing.
Let’s not pretend that doing something that is expected is automatically viewed as great.
Nice try at framing a successful mayorship as a failure, based on speculations that aren’t reality in this situation. Sure, if any of those things were true, it would be smoke & mirrors, but they aren’t true. He made cuts, he got the state to carry their responsibility, he raised taxes on the wealthy, got rid of stupid corrupt policies of past corrupt mayors, and managed to balance the budget without raising taxes or cutting services on the on the CITIZENS.
That’s the way a mayor is supposed to do it, but you declared the message false based on not enough information, when all the information you’re looking for is out there. Your cynical speculation is already wrong.
MAGAs are so quick to claim the Socialist is wrong, and they sound silly and ignorant every time they do.
Not knowing why this is critical, and massively positive, is a lack of imagination.
A balanced budget means minimization of your debt service. Cities can invest, they can also take on debt in various forms. There is “good” debt which services itself, but bad debt can be very expensive.
Balancing the budget means more cash flow to pay down existing debt quicker and not have to create new debt. It also means making new investments.
Maybe in 2 or 3 years you can build that orphanage, and you can do it with money your investments have earned, instead of raising taxes or taking on new long-term debt.
This could make NYC more self-sufficient and prosperous in the long run, and less reliant on outside creditors, which limits the leverage of outside parties against the city.
A balanced budget means minimization of your debt service.
If NY has a 1B dollar budget. Receives 1B in revenue and pays 1B in expensives. It has a balanced budget.
It has nothing to do with where or how the money comes in or goes.
Both NY and NY city are required to have a balanced budget legally unlike the federal government. So there would be a problem if it wasn’t balanced.
It is just a fancy way of saying that they don’t have to raise property tax to get enough revenue for expected expenses. Now if those expected expenses exceeds revenue in 2027 is another matter.
Well it’s still a balanced budget.
“Balanced” by getting one time money from the state and shorting the city pension fund.
Finally balancing a messed up budget is going to require making some tough decisions, and it might get a little ugly. But you endure that pain, because it puts the city government on solid footing for next year, and for years after, until some crook gets elected, and fucks it all up again.
Rather than declare this balanced budget a smoke & mirrors failure, let’s see where it stands in 2-3 years. I suspect the city will be much improved by then.
But, No, let’s pretend doing something great, and extremely rare, like balancing the budget, is a bad thing.
We should start by waiting to see if this budget even comes to pass. It relies on a number of disparate groups to approve various line items.
I suspect it won’t. Receipts from personal income tax are expected to decrease and budget gaps dramatically widen between now and 2030.
This budget may be balanced, assuming everyone involved votes for it to happen, but the structural problems remain.
Some of those structural problems were addressed in this budget balancing, and now that they’ve accomplished this objective (they’ll all sign on, nobody will dare not to), they’ll start working on the rest.
I’m predicting that he’ll succeed, and you’re predicting he’ll fail. The difference between my prediction and yours, is that mine is based on his already successful record, and his overwhelming public support, while yours relies only on your own cynical hope that he fails, with no evidence that will happen.
So far, he’s got his shit together better than ANY NYC mayor I can recall in the last 50+ years. I’m betting on THAT guy.
“Balancing the budget” means nothing without other information.
It just means they didn’t spend more than what was planned, which should be the default.
Trump could balance the budget spending billions on ICE. Just because the budget balances doesn’t make it “good”. Just means they took in the money they thought and only spent what they thought.
I’m a mayor and my town needs a new orphanage. My budget doesn’t have funds allocated towards a new orphanage in the budget. I don’t order a new orphanage to be built, kids live on street, but at least the budget is balanced. I must be a good mayor.
Let’s not pretend that doing something that is expected is automatically viewed as great.
Nice try at framing a successful mayorship as a failure, based on speculations that aren’t reality in this situation. Sure, if any of those things were true, it would be smoke & mirrors, but they aren’t true. He made cuts, he got the state to carry their responsibility, he raised taxes on the wealthy, got rid of stupid corrupt policies of past corrupt mayors, and managed to balance the budget without raising taxes or cutting services on the on the CITIZENS.
That’s the way a mayor is supposed to do it, but you declared the message false based on not enough information, when all the information you’re looking for is out there. Your cynical speculation is already wrong.
MAGAs are so quick to claim the Socialist is wrong, and they sound silly and ignorant every time they do.
Not knowing why this is critical, and massively positive, is a lack of imagination.
A balanced budget means minimization of your debt service. Cities can invest, they can also take on debt in various forms. There is “good” debt which services itself, but bad debt can be very expensive.
Balancing the budget means more cash flow to pay down existing debt quicker and not have to create new debt. It also means making new investments.
Maybe in 2 or 3 years you can build that orphanage, and you can do it with money your investments have earned, instead of raising taxes or taking on new long-term debt.
This could make NYC more self-sufficient and prosperous in the long run, and less reliant on outside creditors, which limits the leverage of outside parties against the city.
If NY has a 1B dollar budget. Receives 1B in revenue and pays 1B in expensives. It has a balanced budget.
It has nothing to do with where or how the money comes in or goes.
Both NY and NY city are required to have a balanced budget legally unlike the federal government. So there would be a problem if it wasn’t balanced.
It is just a fancy way of saying that they don’t have to raise property tax to get enough revenue for expected expenses. Now if those expected expenses exceeds revenue in 2027 is another matter.