Mayor Mamdani Declares That New York Has A "Budget Crisis"

One of the first tasks that a new Mayor has in New York City after taking office is to present a budget. Given that an annual New York City budget is well north of $100 billion, you would think that this is a serious undertaking. But our new Mayor is the 34-year-old play-acting college socialist Zohran Mamdani. How does he handle the task?

Mamdani kicked the process of with a press conference at City Hall on January 28. Here is a transcript and video of his remarks. Excerpt:

I want to speak directly to New Yorkers, who have for too long been misled and misinformed about the true state of our City's finances. I will be blunt: New York City is facing a serious fiscal crisis. There is a massive fiscal deficit in our City's budget to the tune of at least $12 billion. We did not arrive at this place by accident. This crisis has a name and a chief architect. In the words of the Jackson 5, it's as easy as A-B-C. This is the Adams Budget Crisis.

Yes, there is a “serious fiscal crisis,” featuring a looming deficit of some $12 billion, all of which is entirely the fault of our prior Mayor (Eric Adams). And what is the underlying cause of this “crisis”? Mamdani:

[F]ormer Mayor Eric Adams handed the next administration a poisoned chalice. He systematically under-budgeted services that New Yorkers rely on every single day. Rental assistance, shelter, and special education, while quietly leaving behind enormous gaps for the future.

So according to Mamdani, Adams created a “crisis” of a looming deficit by failing to spend enough money? I mean, there is innumeracy, and then there is serious innumeracy. If you can’t figure out what this guy is talking about, you are with me. He doesn’t even know plus from minus.

Then on February 17 Mamdani presented his preliminary FY 2027 budget. Here is that presentation from the City website. The key takeaway is that Mamdani sees the point of the budget process as being an opportunity to target and punish his political enemies, irrespective of any need for the money. Those enemies could be the “rich” — here defined as anyone earning $1 million and up of taxable income in a given year. Unfortunately, striking that target would require approval from the state legislature and Governor. That looks unlikely in this election year. But there are plenty of other political enemies of the college socialists, so Mamdani has come up with a Plan B, this Plan being completely within the control of himself and the City Council. Plan B is to target City homeowners for a big real estate tax increase. From the February 17 presentation:

“There are two paths to bridge the city’s inherited budget gap. The first path is the most sustainable and fairest: raising taxes on the wealthiest and corporations,” . . . said Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani. “If we do not go down the first path, the City will be forced to go down a second, more harmful path of property taxes and raiding our reserves . . . .

So is there really a fiscal “crisis”? After all, New York City is already the highest-taxed jurisdiction in the country. Could it really be that despite already paying the highest taxes, we are somehow falling short, even though everybody else is doing fine with much lower taxes?

If the City doesn’t really need the money, we should consider that this process is instead all a game to target and bring down some portion of the “kulaks.” (The word “kulak” was a Stalin-era term in the Soviet Union, meaning anyone perceived as a political opponent, which came to mean any peasant who had managed to advance himself beyond the abject poverty of his neighbors, such as by owning a cow or a horse. In the late 1920s, Stalin set about to “liquidate the kulaks as a class.”). I’ll present some data and let you decide.

On this blog, I have often compared the fiscal situation of New York (State) to that of Florida. Since today’s issue is one involving New York City, let’s compare the state/local government spending situation of New York City to that of Florida’s largest city, which is Jacksonville. (In case you don’t know, Jacksonville, with about 1 million people, has more than double the population of Florida’s second largest city, Miami.)

Start with New York City. It has a population of about 8.4 million. Mayor Mamdani’s just-presented preliminary budget is about $122 billion. That would be about $14,500 spending per capita for each person in the City. (The New York City budget includes spending on the school system.). New York State also spends money on behalf of the people of the City. Governor Hochul has recently presented a budget for the coming year for the State of $260 billion. With a State population of about 20 million, that’s about $13,000 of spending by the State for each resident. So, with regard to residents of the City, between the City and the State, total state and local government spending comes to about $27,500 for each resident.

And how about Jacksonville? The budget of the City of Jacksonville/Duval County for 2025-26 is about $2.06 billion. School spending is separate. That budget for 2025-26 is about $3.25 billion. Add the two together and you get about $5.31 billion. Divide by 1 million people, and you get city/county spending per capita (so far) of about $5,310.

And then there is the State of Florida. Its budget for 2025-26 is about $115 billion for about 24 million people. That’s about $4,800 per resident of Florida.

So for Jacksonville, add together local spending of about $5,310 per capita, and state spending of about $4,800 per resident, and you get a total of about $10,110 per resident.

$10,110 all in state and local government spending per resident for Jacksonville, versus $27,500 all in state and local government spending per resident for New York City. New York City’s spending is well more than 2.7 times per capita the spending of Jacksonville.

Now, I am a reasonable person, and I could understand an argument that “New York is an expensive city” and we need to spend more than some other places. Like maybe 10% more, or maybe 20%, or even 30%. But 2.7 times more? This is completely absurd.

Consider spending on pre-K to 12 public education. Both Jacksonville and New York provide sufficient data so that you can compare per student spending. Jacksonville has about 130,000 students and a school budget of about $3.25 billion. That’s about $25,000 per student. New York has about 906,000 students and a budget of about $42.8 billion. That’s about $47,000 per student. It’s just less than double the cost per student of Jacksonville.

And New York City’s cost per student of public pre-K to 12 education has soared ridiculously in recent years. In 2019-20 New York City had more than 1 million students in the public schools, and spent only $27.1 billion — just over $27,000 per student. Since then the public school population has plummeted from over 1 million to just over 900,000. Shouldn’t spending have gone down, or at least gone up only a little? Instead, spending has rocketed to over $42 billion for 10% fewer students.

And don’t get the idea that New York City gets superior educational results for double the spending. If anything, the results are inferior.

So, Mayor Mamdani, how stupid do you think we are? I have an idea to solve your fiscal “crisis”: Just re-set our spending levels to the norms of other places. Or not even to the norms of other places; maybe just cut out around half of the excess over the norms of other places. For example, if you re-set our pre-K to 12 education spending from 188% of Jacksonville’s level per student to, say, 140% of Jacksonville’s level, that would take our school spending from $42.8 billion to under $29 billion. The whole $12 billion (and more!) of our supposed “crisis” disappears instantly.

And school spending is just one example. Our Medicaid spending is even larger, and even more out of line with national norms, let alone the levels in Florida.

As these data show so easily, there is vast ability to right-size New York City spending without any need to increase taxes beyond already astronomical levels. This has nothing to do with a supposed “crisis” of providing essential services. It is all about punishing political enemies and rewarding political friends.

Are you targeted by Mamdani’s tax increases? This is what it is like to be a “kulak” in a socialist regime.

I was just dreaming, for grins, with this, so sharing:

me: “Consider today’s headline of “Mayor Mamdani Declares That New York Has A “Budget Crisis”, and speculate what the headline and situation would be, had Curtis Sliwa become mayor.”

GROK:

The actual headline on February 23, 2026—”Mayor Mamdani Declares That New York Has A ‘Budget Crisis’”—reflects the real situation under Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani. He inherited and has highlighted a significant fiscal shortfall (initially framed as ~$12 billion across FY 2026-2027, later revised downward to ~$5.4 billion after revenue updates, agency savings targets, reserves, and $1.5 billion in state aid from Gov. Hochul). Mamdani frames it as an “inherited” crisis from the prior Adams administration, blames underbudgeted services and structural imbalances with the state, and pushes two paths: (1) new recurring revenue via higher taxes on those earning >$1 million and profitable corporations (his preferred option, presented as fairer and more sustainable), or (2) painful alternatives like property tax hikes (threatened up to ~9.5%) and reserve raids that would burden working- and middle-class New Yorkers. Critics (e.g., in outlets like the NY Post, Washington Post op-eds) call it spending-driven profligacy, tax-hike mania that risks driving residents/businesses away, and question whether it’s truly a “crisis” given strong Wall Street revenues.

If Curtis Sliwa had won the 2025 mayoral election and become mayor instead, the headline and overall situation would likely look very different—almost the opposite in tone and approach. Sliwa campaigned as a fiscal conservative focused on government waste, tax relief, aggressive public safety restoration, and cutting bureaucracy rather than expanding or protecting spending levels.

A plausible headline under a Mayor Sliwa might read something like:

“Mayor Sliwa Declares End to Bloated Spending, Vows $10B+ in Cuts to Fix ‘Runaway Budget’ and Deliver Tax Relief”

Or more bombastically (fitting Sliwa’s style):

“Mayor Sliwa: ‘No More Tax-and-Spend Madness’—NYC Budget Crisis Over as We Slash Waste and Bring Back Safety”

Key differences in the situation:

Framing of the problem — Sliwa would likely call it a “spending crisis” or “bloated bureaucracy crisis” caused by years of unchecked growth in city agencies (especially education/administrative overhead), rather than an inherited structural revenue shortfall. He’d blame prior Democratic administrations for fiscal irresponsibility, high taxes driving out residents/businesses, and failed policies on crime/homelessness that indirectly inflate costs.

Approach to closing gaps — Instead of seeking/accepting higher taxes on the wealthy or corporations (which Sliwa opposed), he’d target deep cuts: e.g., trimming billions from DOE “bureaucracy,” reducing redundant deputy positions/agency heads, ending or capping certain social programs/consultant contracts, and finding efficiency savings without broad service reductions. During his campaign, he repeatedly floated $10 billion+ in school/administrative cuts to fund tax relief. He’d likely reject or minimize reliance on state aid tied to Albany’s preferences, emphasizing local control and fiscal restraint.

Policy priorities and trade-offs — The budget would prioritize restoring NYPD funding/hiring (thousands more officers, subway undercover deployments), quality-of-life enforcement, and tax cuts/relief (e.g., property tax reductions or freezes for working-class/elderly homeowners, moratoriums on income taxes for young graduates staying in NYC). He’d likely frame any remaining shortfall as fixable through growth from safer streets attracting businesses/residents back, rather than revenue hikes. Crime and public safety would dominate messaging, with the budget tied directly to “making NYC livable again” instead of affordability via redistribution.

Tone and public reaction — Sliwa’s communications would be combative and populist—red beret symbolism, Guardian Angels roots, direct attacks on “socialist” policies. Conservative outlets would praise it as common-sense reform; progressive critics would decry service cuts, especially to education/housing/shelters. The “crisis” might be downplayed or declared “over” sooner if cuts materialized, though actual gaps could persist if revenue dipped from any exodus or economic softness.

In short, under Sliwa the narrative flips from “we must tax the rich or hurt the middle class to protect services” to “we must cut the fat, lower taxes, and restore order to grow out of the mess.” The city would face the same underlying fiscal pressures (e.g., post-COVID costs, mandates, revenue volatility), but the mayor’s response would emphasize austerity and law-and-order over progressive revenue solutions.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.