Eskow: Mamdani's Plan Is 'Surprisingly Affordable'

Image: Reuters

By Thomas Neuburger

Now that the New York City Mayor’s race is over with a significant Mamdani win (his vote share crossed 50%, defusing the Sliwa-as-spoiler argument), it’s pertinent to discuss his proposals.

The best analysis I’ve found is by the always valuable Richard (RJ) Eskow. It was published at his Substack site — the Zero Hour Report, named for his radio show — before the election, and it’s well worth looking at now, not only for New York but for other cities as well. The article is here.

Eskow’s bottom line:

“Despite the frantic tone of mainstream media coverage (and the revolutionary overtones of the phrase “democratic socialist”) most of Mamdani’s agenda could be accomplished at minimal cost to the city. The only exception is his plan for free universal childcare—whose costs may have been overstated by his own campaign.”

Let’s look at the detail, starting with city-run grocery stores.

Grocery Store Pilot Program Mamdani has proposed opening five city-owned grocery stores in the city, at a cost of $60 million. These stores would use city-owned property, which means they wouldn’t have to pay rent, and would sell the food at operating cost without making a profit. Would it work? Military commissaries are successful. So is Costco, which operates a trimmed-down, “bare bones” store model. Small towns and cities have already opened public grocery stores, although their problems and needs differ from those of a city like New York. … As for cost, $60 million is a tiny fraction of the city’s budget. Furthermore, New Yorkers—like the rest of us—are already paying an “invisible tax” on food, as consolidation and corporatization of the grocery business increases prices for everyone.

How about free buses? There’s an interesting fact at work here.

“Free, fast bus service” First, it’s important to recognize that 48 percent of the city’s bus riders board without paying their fares, according to the Transit Authority. Or, to put that another way: the city’s bus system is already half “free.” We’re just talking about the other half. Some opponents have argued that free buses will attract “undesirable” elements. The most generous interpretation of that iffy phrase means “poorer or more criminally inclined types.” But they’re the ones riding the buses for free right now! … As for expense, the New York Times estimates that it would cost $600 million in lost fares to make the buses free. The Times also argues that the cost could rise to $800 million in lost fares if more people choose to ride the free buses. But that logic is flawed. Since those new passengers wouldn’t have been there unless the ride was free, no revenue has been lost.

As Eskow points out, $600 million is 0.5 percent of the budget. Improving life for the many with very few dollars — what could be wrong with that? (As to why that question’s rhetorical, see below.)

Rent freeze? The cost is nothing, as far as the city’s concerned. Sure, the wealthy would be less than best pleased, but people with more money to spend (thanks to affordable rent) would make the bodega and restaurant owners happy.

The universal child care program is the one that’s actually expensive.

The Mamdani campaign estimates that the free childcare program will cost $6 billion. Another group, the Fiscal Policy Institute, estimates that it would cost a much lower $2.5 billion. Either way, however, there’s no denying that it’s a lot of money.

To help fund it, Mamdani proposes a tax hike that, unfortunately, must pass the legislature in Albany. My guess is, no help from that quarter. Mamdani also proposes a city tax increase on incomes over $1 million, which, as Eskow points out, “would still leave most of those affected paying less than they did before Trump’s tax cut.” There would also be other sources, more than enough unless the highest cost estimate is right, in which case the program could be scaled appropriately.

In other words, easily done, all of it. Which is why there’s a problem.

The Actual Objection

So what’s the objection of the rich who object to this? The actual problem — it would actually serve those government claims to serve and give relief to the muppets who generally lack control. It shifts power, in other words, within the state.

We could trace this problem, the fight for control, far back:

To the capitalist coercion, for example, of the 1800s, which made sure the “lazy” were forced to be “productive” by closing the shepherds’ fields and driving the poor into slave-shop factories.

Or back to the 1600s, when Calvin declared men evil and only God good, which prepared the ground for the rich to declare themselves saved and thus all their ill and coercive deeds were blessed (see Fromm’s Escape from Freedom for the full story on this).

Or back to the earliest states, 3000 BC, when control of cereal grain allowed the few to force the many to work for them only or starve. (See James Scott’s Against the Grain, which we’ve been examining here.)

Note well that none of this predatory wickedness works in tribes or tribal-like towns, where those who hoard for themselves and murder for gain would find themselves, quickly and swiftly, treated not well.

I’ll have more on the notion of tribal-like life in a bit. It’s the antidote everyone seeks: escape from the rich. But for now, consider its closest modern form to be (gasp) a full socialist state.

Mamdani. No wonder grandees of both stripes want him gone. He doesn’t just threaten the wicked living today, he threatens the way of the West. That’s a capital crime.