Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cato Institute Looks at Giuliani's Fiscal Record As Mayor
Cato ^ | 3/5/07

Posted on 03/05/2007 8:06:17 AM PST by areafiftyone

Giuliani


A new poll shows that Rudy Giuliani has pulled into the frontrunner position for the Republican nomination for President. Thus, it is worth looking at his fiscal performance as New York City Mayor (1994 through 2001).

A good source of data are the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports issued by the city’s comptroller. See the CAFR for fiscal 2002, which contains 10 years of historical data.

Total NYC general fund expenditures.

1994: $31.3 billion

2001: $40.2 billion

representing a 3.6 percent average growth rate.

NYC Outstanding General Obligation Bonds.

1994: $22.9 billion

2001: $26.8 billion

representing a 2.3 percent average growth rate.

The data suggest that Giuliani exerted reasonable fiscal control, particularly in comparison to prior NYC mayors, or President Bush. For example, NYC debt more than doubled in the five years prior to Giuliani entering office. But more analysis needs to be done.



TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: electionpresident; giuliani; rudy; rudy2008
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-151 next last
To: areafiftyone

So he grew government, but not that much. And he's coming for guns as a bonus prize. But he's electable, and that's all that really matters. lol


21 posted on 03/05/2007 8:42:23 AM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

That's the going excuse coming out of the Rudy crowd......but do you really think the others didn't have busloads of their followers as well?

Wouldn't YOU if you were running?


22 posted on 03/05/2007 8:43:48 AM PST by ElectricStrawberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: daviddennis
Isn't the gun lobby one of the most competent and powerful interest groups in the nation?

I think you can trust that the normal interplay of politics will not make this an issue during the term of any President in the foreseeable future, so I would not make it affect my Presidential vote.

That didn't stop AWB1 from getting signed into law in 1994 and AWB2, which is even worse, has already been proposed. The Rats will send it to the White House for the president's signature, guaranteed. We can't afford to have someone in the White House who will sign it and I have no doubt that he would. I consider gun control to be the most important factor in deciding on who to vote for, because without the Second Amendment, the others can be taken away from us at the whim of any politician.

23 posted on 03/05/2007 8:45:54 AM PST by AlaskaErik (Everyone should have a subject they are ignorant about. I choose professional corporate sports.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Don't forget that liberals ALWAYS describe cuts in the 'rate of growth',,,,as CUTS! It's unconscionable. They ALWAYS do that,,,whether it be social security, welfare, ANY social program, take your pic. It's outrageous.


24 posted on 03/05/2007 8:47:28 AM PST by stockstrader ("Where government advances--and it advances relentlessly--freedom is imperiled"-Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Believe me Rudy will not touch the gun issue.

AWB2 has already been introduced. There is no doubt that it will wind up on the president's desk. Can you guarantee me that Rudy will veto it? My guess is that he'll be more than happy to sign it and make America safe again. /sarcasm

25 posted on 03/05/2007 8:48:53 AM PST by AlaskaErik (Everyone should have a subject they are ignorant about. I choose professional corporate sports.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

"Believe me Rudy will not touch the gun issue. "

Then he will have no issue whatsoever making the following pledge:

"I will sign no law infringing in any way on our citizen's second amendment rights, including further regulation. I will reign in the BATF, ensuring that they focus on criminals and not law abiding citizens. BATF rules shall not be reinterpreted during the term of my administration to further harass gun owners, sellers or buyers. I reaffirm each American's individual second amendment rights and pledge with God as my witness that these rights will be off limits to infringement during my administration."


26 posted on 03/05/2007 8:50:03 AM PST by FreeInWV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FreeInWV

He won't even sign the 'no tax increase pledge' (like Romney has)--so why would you expect a 'gun grabber' like Guiliani to sign that??


27 posted on 03/05/2007 8:51:18 AM PST by stockstrader ("Where government advances--and it advances relentlessly--freedom is imperiled"-Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone
Very true. Michael Reagan has said quite often that he and his father didn't tell each other they loved each other until relatively recently.

Reagan was divorced. Nancy was preggers when they married. Their children are a mess. Government spending and the deficit both skyrocketed during his administration. He wasn't exactly a small government type while Governor of California either.

Yet he's beloved and Rudy, who actually *has* governed with some fiscal sanity, is being slammed. Tell me that makes any sense.

28 posted on 03/05/2007 8:58:04 AM PST by kellynch ("Our only freedom is the freedom to discipline ourselves." -- Bernard Baruch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FreeInWV

He might have trouble with the "God as my witness" part. At least if you look at what his promoters here on FR seem to think of those that do believe.


29 posted on 03/05/2007 8:58:07 AM PST by Ingtar (...right wing conservatives are growing tired of crawling on bloody stumps looking for scraps - JRob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate

The deal is that the City Council was all dim and socialist. Rudy had to use a combination of blackmail, intimidation and rewards to bring them on board. Under the circumstances this was the best he could do. Not to mention every union coming out of the woodworks looking for their cut of NYC's new found prosperity. However, welfare rolls went down alot, although federal disability rolls went up alot too. All things considered under RG NYC became a better place to do business and a much more unfriendly place to engage in public urination.


30 posted on 03/05/2007 9:05:49 AM PST by appeal2 (R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kellynch
Your post is pretty pathetic actually.

First of all, Reagan did NOT publicly cheat on his wife. Guiliani FLAUNTED it. Guiliani divorced the FIRST time claiming that he didn't know his wife was his second cousin for 14 years. He can tell that to his liberal buddies. To compare Reagan's personal life with Guiliani's 'train wreck' is pretty pathetic.

Second, Reagan inherited a horrible recession--and he had to spend HUGE amounts to rebuild our hollow military forces. Guiliani was in office during one of the biggest ECONOMIC BOOMS in our country's history (the 90's)--and the last time I looked, NYC did not have to spend billions to rebuild its hallowed out military forces (thanks to Carter) and had no foreign military responsibilities.

Thanks to Reagan's economic policies--the US economy started its 20 YEAR ECONOMIC BOOM in 1982 (the biggest in WORLD HISTORY) which Guiliani was the beneficiary of.

31 posted on 03/05/2007 9:08:05 AM PST by stockstrader ("Where government advances--and it advances relentlessly--freedom is imperiled"-Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Dixie Yooper
Actually, I think it's the other way around. I suspect there was an upward jump in the city's debt right around late 2000 and early 2001 -- since the stock market had tanked by that time and New York City depends heavily on tax revenue from Wall Street activity.

I also suspect New York City would have shown an enormous "surplus" for the last three months of 2001, because the Federal government was dropping huge piles of cash on the city at the time.

32 posted on 03/05/2007 9:12:10 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

btt


33 posted on 03/05/2007 9:51:06 AM PST by Ciexyz (Is the American voter smarter than a fifth grader?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

3.6% was the average local inflation rate. Adjusting for population growth, government actually shrank. Not factoring out population growth, in real terms, it never grew while he was in office. And debt in real terms fell as well.


34 posted on 03/05/2007 9:51:54 AM PST by spikeytx86 (Pray for Democrats for they have been brainwashed by their fruity little club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: areafiftyone

Previous administrations let the City's infrastructure run down. Bridges, the main arteries in NYC, were not maintained, subways were horrible, roads were a mess.

During Giuliani's administration, the bridges were repaired, the subways were upgraded, free transfers were made easy between subways and buses via the new MetroCard, and the Staten Island Ferry became free to ride for all. Free! And he grew the budget very modestly during that time.

If anyone doesn't think that is miraculous fiscal responsibility in a place like NYC, they don't understand either fiscal responsibility or NYC.


35 posted on 03/05/2007 9:53:29 AM PST by KellyAdmirer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daviddennis
Isn't the gun lobby one of the most competent and powerful interest groups in the nation?


Considering the ongoing loss of rights over the past generations, I'd say the answer is a definitive NO.
36 posted on 03/05/2007 9:55:14 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: spikeytx86

What was the population growth for New York city in that time frame? I know that New York State lost a congressional seat in 2000 because it's relative population shrunk compared to the country, but don't know if there was an increase or decrease in actual numbers.

On the other hand, if you eliminated most of the welfare rolls, and replaced them with workers, wouldn't that cut how much money you had to spend on government? If your government is twice as big as it needed to be at the start of your term, wouldn't you expect it to shrink if you were really cutting half of it's work?

For a big city, this is a big deal, mostly because most cities are run by liberals. It's just not as impressive as it was made out to be. And it suggests what I have said before, that Rudy may be closer to a "big-government conservative" on spending, not cutting government, but redirecting the spending to more "conservative" positions.

One example -- cutting back on welfare by spending the money on a "jobs department". It's great for a liberal welfare state, because getting people jobs is better than giving them handouts. But it's not really government's job to get you a job, so why should my tax dollars pay for your job search?


37 posted on 03/05/2007 10:20:04 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Fierce Allegiance

FA you have been doing this for two days, its not getting any traction, time to slither on.....


38 posted on 03/05/2007 10:32:14 AM PST by Joan Wilder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Joan Wilder

So you are OK with it? To me, it says he's a scumabg for a parent. You must be too, if it doesn't bother you as well.

Yeah, keep holding your nose at all the lousy this scumbag creep of a republican stands for.


39 posted on 03/05/2007 10:34:19 AM PST by Fierce Allegiance (RINO = Rudy Is Not Ours! Keep scrubbing, Rudy supporters, the blood won't come off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Fierce Allegiance

Well, that's on topic.


40 posted on 03/05/2007 10:38:56 AM PST by DKNY ("You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it." --Margaret Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-151 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson