The article also seems to belie your claim that “Rudy borrowed his way through his administration, incurring massive debt servicing costs and leaving the city with a huge deficit.” It appears to me that he inherited a large budget deficit from David Dinkins, cut taxes, balanced the budget for most of his term, and that the deficit that he left office with as the economy had headed into recession (and much of which was due to 9/11) was covered by surpluses in previous years of his administration.
Given that he did all this in such a heavily Democratic city I find what he did accomplish to be amazing, and that’s not even counting the dramatic reduction in crime or his performance on 9/11.
And while I admit he’s no social conservative (neither am I on several issues) it’s tough to look at Time’s Square before and after he took office and view him as a liberal.
As for the people he appointed who went to jail, I think that’s basically a cheap-shot guilt-by-association argument. He appointed so many people in a city where most of the candidates for those positions had climbed their way up through a corrupt system that there was no way he could realistically avoid appointing some people who would turn out themselves to be corrupt.
I never said he hasn't done anything positive. I said that your recap was misleading and inaccurate, and it was(reduced spending, etc). There are many, many other articles that negate your recap of Rudy's fiscal record. Keep reading (and lose the rose-colored glasses). He did inherit a small deficit from Dinkins, and despite 8 years of a boom economy, spent every dime and left the NYC with a larger deficit. I could give you quotes and sources all day long, but if you are unwilling to accept the truth, what difference does it make? I didn't know the truth until doing my own research almost a year ago that I posted here:
I read some of the prospectuses filed with the SEC by the bond brokers during Giuliani’s reign. He borrowed his way through his tenure (surprise, surprise). When he hit the constitutional limit on borrowing, they set up two new “Authorities” that issued more debt—that didn’t count against the city’s debt limit formula. Something like 18-20% of city revenue now goes to debt service alone. While he says he reduced taxes, the personal income tax surcharge that was due to expire when he took office was extended up until his last year in office, then “restructured” to expire on a declining scale over future years—after he left office (the surcharge was about 1/2 billion a year which dwarfed the other tax decreases). Yet other tax decreases were put into law but not implemented until after he left office. He says he left the state with a big surplus but, when he left, the projected multi-billion dollar gaps between revenue and spending were double what they were when he took office.Rudy's comments about how he would balance the federal budget are beyond naive. First he claimed that he wouldn't rehire retirees, across the board. That assumes that all federal services are equal or that retirees will retire only from jobs where he thinks reductions should occur. The only way to effectively reduce government is to target unnecessary or redundant services. You don't do that via attrition, or with across-the-board cuts.
...while I admit he’s no social conservative
He's not a Conservative--period! Social or otherwise. Heck--the guy opposes about 80% of the Republican platform.
As for the people he appointed who went to jail, I think that’s basically a cheap-shot guilt-by-association argument.
These are people he CHOSE... and people he continued to support, and some he still does, excusing them for their human flaws. The real human flaws that matter are with Rudy, a flawed candidate. I simply CANNOT TRUST his JUDGMENT and certainly don't want to hand him the keys to the White House.