|The Mission of the Manhattan Institute is
foster greater economic choice and
Put Their Mouths Where The Money Is
By Heather Mac Donald
Lean economic times are threatening the city and the nation. No one knows if the slump will intensify or when it will end. A potential recession looms. So does a mayoral election. The candidates must articulate how they would keep spending down and taxes under control. This will be a key test for the campaign.
Despite last week's market upswing, signs of continued softening abound: Consumer confidence is at an eight-year low. Jobless claims haven't been as high since 1996. Layoffs are common. The Federal Reserve — rightly — continues slashing rates amid a shaky business outlook and Wall Street unease.
Confronting this uncertainty head on, Mayor Giuliani is seeking meaningful spending reductions over the next 14 months. His tax cut plan, which will be expanded this week to include lowering the city's personal income tax, deserves support.
As for the four Democratic mayoral hopefuls — and possible Republican aspirants Michael Bloomberg and Herman Badillo — they must explain how they would cope with a weakening economy and resist making unwise promises to unions and special interests. We need no repetition of the fiscal missteps that deepened the 1989-'92 local recession.
Here's how the candidates stack up:
The candidates have time to refine their fiscal plans. But they must embrace conservative budgeting and avoid tax increases. They also must find ways to make the city more efficient through agency consolidations, less bureaucracy and more privatization.
These men seek nothing less than the stewardship of a $39 billion enterprise. Voters deserve to know how each intends to run it.
Doing the Right Thing
After three years of legal wrangling, the pharmaceutical industry has doffed its black hat and donned a white one. On Wednesday, with self-congratulatory largess, the powerful drug firms dropped their lawsuit aimed at keeping low-cost AIDS drugs out of South Africa. That's definitely a good-guy move.
But before the 39 companies — including firms from the U.S., Great Britain and Germany — ride off into the sunset like Hollywood heroes, there's a bit of background to consider.
Public opinion had a huge role in bringing about the industry's concession. No surprise. While drug firms bleated about patent protection, the AIDS pandemic continued to ravage the Third World. According to a UN study, more than 2 million Africans died of the scourge last year. People or profits? The choice was no choice at all.
Private industry is clearly entitled to safeguard its research, production and profits. Drug development is costly. But in allowing the bottom line to define their image, the big pharmaceuticals branded themselves as heartless. By dropping the lawsuit, they demonstrate a much-needed sensitivity to world opinion.
Attention now must be focused where it belongs: on getting potentially lifesaving drugs to those who are suffering.
©2001 New York Daily News
Home | About MI | Scholars | Publications | Books | Links | Contact MI|
City Journal | CAU | CCI | CEPE | CLP | CMP | CRD | ECNY
|Thank you for visiting us. |
To receive a General Information Packet, please email email@example.com
and include your name and address in your e-mail message.
|Copyright © 2009 Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc. All rights reserved.|
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017
phone (212) 599-7000 / fax (212) 599-3494