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.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/05/rudy_giulianis_economic_record.php
They did criticize him on some of instances where he failed to pass tax cuts, his opposition to NAFTA (though he’s now much more in favor of free trade) and a few other issues, but overall the review was very positive.
Specifically I would like to point to the statistics they show for spending. During his administration spending grew at 2.84%/year, which is slightly under the 2.9%/year combined population growth and inflation during his term. Also the city budget fell from 10.9% to 9.3% of the GCP (Gross City Product) of New York.
Of the three Republicans with executive experience I would say his fiscal record is the most conservative, though Romney’s isn’t bad, and might be considered more conservative if I placed more emphasis on other aspects of fiscal policy. Certainly he and Romney have far more conservative records than Mike Huckabee.
Both Romney and Giuliani are for more conservative economically than John McCain, and I would argue that Romney, Giuliani and Thompson deserve the label of fiscal conservative, while McCain is a fiscal moderate and Huckabee a fiscal liberal.