Cato Institute Looks at Giuliani's Fiscal Record As Mayor

Cato ^ | 3/5/07

[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.

[mysterio]

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

[ElectricStrawberry]

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?

[AlaskaErik]

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.

[stockstrader]

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.

[AlaskaErik]

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

[FreeInWV]

"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."

[stockstrader]

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??

[kellynch]

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.

[Ingtar]

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.

[appeal2]

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.

[stockstrader]

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.

[Alberta's Child]

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.

[Ciexyz]

btt

[spikeytx86]

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.

[KellyAdmirer]

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.

[Atlas Sneezed]

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.

[CharlesWayneCT]

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?

[Joan Wilder]

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

[Fierce Allegiance]

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.

[DKNY]

Well, that's on topic.