“So what does Mamdani actually want to institute, if elected in November, and why would it suck so much?
Consider free childcare, which his canvassers seemed to believe would be persuasive to me as I walked past them last night with my 2-year-old. Under Mamdani, the state would provide childcare—via taxpayer-funded daycares, akin to the universal 3K program currently in place (which doesn’t always provide parents with options they actually want)—for all aged six weeks to 5 years old. But if the idea is to lighten parents’ financial load, why aren’t all forms of childcare treated the same? Why don’t stay-at-home mothers get vouchers from the state to recoup loss of income? Why don’t neighborhood babysitting collectives get help? Why is one form of childcare—administered by the state—privileged above all others? Many education savings account programs, such as the one administered by Florida, recognize that assistance from the state, if it is to exist at all, ought to be handed straight to families so that they may use it as they wish. For socialists to offer universal state-run childcare as some great liberator is frankly insulting to many mothers; in the magnificent post-work future the socialists herald, won’t many women choose to spend more time with their children, not less?
City-run grocery stores—another of Mamdani’s proposals—look like a solution in search of a problem. Food deserts—geographic zones where there aren’t any affordable, healthy options available to residents—don’t exist in New York City.
…
Then there’s Mamdani’s rent freeze. He hopes to fully eradicate all rent increases for the roughly 2 million New Yorkers who are currently the beneficiaries of the city’s rent-stabilization scheme, claiming this will be a boon to the working class. What he does not realize is that decades of city-sanctioned housing market distortion is what has led to untenably high rents in the first place (plus it being too difficult to build), and that many of the beneficiaries of rent stabilization are not the poorest of the poor, but rather people whose friends or family have treated other people’s real estate as their own inheritances.
And don’t even get me started on the will-he-or-won’t-he of defunding the police. Mamdani, like all progressives swept up in the cultural fervor of George Floyd Summer, once talked big talk about defunding the police (a feminist issue, he says!), but has now motte-and-baileyed his way back to more social workers and investing in mental health services including voluntary rehabilitative programs. Other hints about what Mamdani believes: “Jails are not places where people can recover from a mental health crisis, and they often have punitive responses to mental health needs” and lots of talk about reducing stigmas and improving access to care. As with food deserts, Mamdani seems to genuinely believe that violent people in the midst of mental breakdown just don’t have access to care, and that if it is simply offered to them, they will no longer resort to terrorizing their fellow man. This strikes me as a simplistic understanding of this problem which would erase the improvements in crime rates made so far in 2025.
In order to pay for all these proposals—the grocery stores, the daycares, the corps of social workers, the fare-free buses (which 48 percent of New Yorkers fail to pay for in the first place, unfortunately)—Mamdani will simply press the button socialists love: Institute a 2 percent flat tax on those earning over $1 million. What Mamdani does not realize is that you cannot abuse the “tippy top.” It is the HENRYs (“high-earners, not rich yet”) or the “working rich” who are perhaps the best examples of meritocracy in action; they’re not the “idle rich”—those who’ve inherited their wealth or made it long ago, who are now mostly price-insensitive and untouchably well-off—and they’re frequently glued to Manhattan for industries like finance, law, and tech. Meet your tax base, Zohran. You should worry if they flee to the outlying suburbs.”
Wealthy people and great entrepreneurs aren’t going to not start that great business because they will pay more taxes if they make it big. Either way, if successful, they would have done something great and will be rich.
The most profitable and flexible workforce for Americans is illegal immigrants.
When we put tariffs on China, we are saying every country on Earth can get low inputs from China except America, making American business less competitive.
“”The OECD now forecasts global economic growth to slow to 2.9% this year from 3.3% in 2024,” notes Bloomberg. “It expects the rate of expansion in the US will tumble further, to 1.6% from 2.8%—an outlook that is significantly lower than its projection in March.””
“In March, President Donald Trump stood before a joint session of Congress and vowed to “do what has not been done in 24 years: balance the federal budget.”
The first major legislative package of Trump’s second term, however, will throw the federal budget farther out of balance, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded in an updated assessment of the bill.
The CBO estimates that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which cleared the House late last month and is awaiting a vote in the Senate, will increase deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. The bill will reduce tax collections by an estimated $3.75 trillion over that period, while reducing government spending by an estimated $1.3 trillion.”
Tip culture is already out of control. This can only make it worse.
“the Senate passed the No Tax on Tips Act 100–0, which “creates a federal income tax deduction of up to $25,000 a year for certain types of cash tips for eligible employees,” per The Washington Post. (“Cash tips” include tips given not just in cash but also via credit and debit cards.) This applies to employees earning $160,000 or less annually.”
…
“If you actually wanted to help the household budgets of working-class people, the best thing you could do is refrain from imposing 10 percent across-the-board tariffs (and more for goods imported from China). It’s not clear to me that no taxes on tips, though President Donald Trump touted it repeatedly from the campaign trail, will do all that much, or that there was a ton of accurate tip-reporting happening in the first place.”
…
“creates an opportunity for people to try to categorize their normal income as tips, and how much they can now get away with remains to be seen.”
Man who worked with Trump in his first term explains that Trump is not qualified to be president. He isn’t interested in policy, he doesn’t read his briefings, he’s vulnerable to being manipulated by praise, and he’s not concerned about the world but just about himself.
“Unlike every other department and agency within the federal government, the CFPB is not funded via congressional appropriations. Instead, its funding flows directly from the Federal Reserve. Each year, the White House submits a budget to the Federal Reserve, and the central bank hands over the necessary amount—$729.4 million last year, in case you were wondering.
For a long time after the CFPB was created in 2010, there were serious questions about the constitutionality of that structure. That finally got resolved last year, when the Supreme Court ruled that Congress was within its powers to hand off the purse strings. So, funding the CFPB via the Federal Reserve is not unconstitutional—it’s just unorthodox and foolish.
Here’s where the hubris enters the story. When Warren and Obama created the CFPB, they designed that unorthodox funding structure specifically to prevent a future Republican-led Congress from trying to defund the bureau. Remember, this was in the age when Republicans were running around the country telling voters they intended to repeal Obamacare too. By isolating the CFPB from Congress’ budgetary powers, Warren was trying to make it invulnerable to attack.
Instead, she simply gave it a fatal flaw.
Earlier this week, the Trump administration submitted its CFPB funding request to the Federal Reserve. It asked for…$0.
“Pursuant to the Consumer Financial Protection Act, I have notified the Federal Reserve that CFPB will not be taking its next draw of unappropriated funding because it is not ‘reasonably necessary’ to carry out its duties,” wrote Russ Vought, director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), wrote on X on Saturday night. “The Bureau’s current balance of $711.6 million is in fact excessive in the current fiscal environment. This spigot, long contributing to CFPB’s unaccountability, is now being turned off.”
That appears to be the end of the CFPB, at least until a Democrat returns to the White House. Trump will need an act of Congress if he seriously wants to abolish the Department of Education, for example, and even minor spending cuts being made across the executive branch will eventually need congressional or legal consent to be permanent. But there should be no serious questions about whether the president can unilaterally defund the CFBP. Congress has no role to play in that fight.”
“Economist Peter C. Earle, the director of economics and economic freedom at the American Institute for Economic Research, tells Reason that referring to Trump’s proposal to acquire vast amounts of cryptocurrency as a “strategic reserve” is “misleading first and foremost because traditional strategic reserves…like the strategic petroleum reserve [and] China’s strategic pork reserve are basically…repositories where large amounts of commodities are held [that] serve economic and security functions.” No cryptocurrency serves a security function, and only two, bitcoin and cardano, could plausibly serve the economic role since their supply is algorithmically constrained, explains Earle. Instead, the federal government committing itself to purchasing cryptocurrency would put a “floor under crypto values” and would function as a “sort of soft subsidy.””