Mike Bloomberg Blog for techPresident

The Mayor's Responsible Budget

Fri, 02 May 2008 07:52:58 PDT

Hard economic times are the real test of a mayor’s budgetary skills, and New Yorkers appear to be in luck.

Mike Bloomberg On 2008 Time 100

Thu, 01 May 2008 06:06:10 PDT

Mike Bloomberg on the 2008 Time 100

I'm Not Running For President, But...

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:03:46 PST

By Michael R. Bloomberg

WATCHING the 2008 presidential campaign, you sometimes get the feeling that the candidates — smart, all of them — must know better. They must know we can’t fix our economy and create jobs by isolating America from global trade. They must know that we can’t fix our immigration problems with border security alone. They must know that we can’t fix our schools without holding teachers, principals and parents accountable for results. They must know that fighting global warming is not a costless challenge. And they must know that we can’t keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals unless we crack down on the black market for them.

The vast majority of Americans know that all of this is true, but — politics being what it is — the candidates seem afraid to level with them.

Over the past year, I have been working to raise issues that are important to New Yorkers and all Americans — and to speak plainly about common sense solutions. Some of these solutions have traditionally been seen as Republican, while others have been seen as Democratic. As a businessman, I never believed that either party had all the answers and, as mayor, I have seen just how true that is.

In every city I have visited — from Baltimore to New Orleans to Seattle — the message of an independent approach has resonated strongly, and so has the need for a new urban agenda. More than 65 percent of Americans now live in urban areas — our nation’s economic engines. But you would never know that listening to the presidential candidates. At a time when our national economy is sputtering, to say the least, what are we doing to fuel job growth in our cities, and to revive cities that have never fully recovered from the manufacturing losses of recent decades?

More of the same won’t do, on the economy or any other issue. We need innovative ideas, bold action and courageous leadership. That’s not just empty rhetoric, and the idea that we have the ability to solve our toughest problems isn’t some pie-in-the-sky dream. In New York, working with leaders from both parties and mayors and governors from across the country, we’ve demonstrated that an independent approach really can produce progress on the most critical issues, including the economy, education, the environment, energy, infrastructure and crime.

I believe that an independent approach to these issues is essential to governing our nation — and that an independent can win the presidency. I listened carefully to those who encouraged me to run, but I am not — and will not be — a candidate for president. I have watched this campaign unfold, and I am hopeful that the current campaigns can rise to the challenge by offering truly independent leadership. The most productive role that I can serve is to push them forward, by using the means at my disposal to promote a real and honest debate.

In the weeks and months ahead, I will continue to work to steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance. And while I have always said I am not running for president, the race is too important to sit on the sidelines, and so I have changed my mind in one area. If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach — and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy — I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House.

The changes needed in this country are straightforward enough, but there are always partisan reasons to take an easy way out. There are always special interests that will fight against any challenge to the status quo. And there are always those who will worry more about their next election than the health of our country.

These forces that prevent meaningful progress are powerful, and they exist in both parties. I believe that the candidate who recognizes that the party is over — and begins enlisting all of us to clean up the mess — will be the winner this November, and will lead our country to a great and boundless future.

Michael R. Bloomberg is the mayor of New York.

Bloomberg Incentive Chases King's Dream

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:59:08 PST

"I have a dream" will forever be linked with the man whose life we celebrated this month. But let's not forget that Martin Luther King Jr. also said, "An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity." New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has risen to King's challenge by investing in those less fortunate.

Mayor Bloomberg Tackles Poverty

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 06:36:23 PST

Politicians have mostly skirted poverty as a political issue since President Lyndon Johnson declared war on it more than four decades ago. Even the federal government’s method of measuring poverty is a relic from the 1960s

Armstrong, Bloomberg Join Forces In Cancer Fight

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 15:21:00 PST

Three heavyweights in the nation's public health debate — cyclist Lance Armstrong, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona — joined forces Friday to continue pushing cancer into the national political arena.

Mayor Climbs Philanthropy Top 10 List

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 06:08:45 PST

In 2007, Mayor Bloomberg gave away $205 million to charity and boosted his position on the Chronicle of Philanthropy's annual ranking of American donors.

Bloomberg Seeks New Way to Decide Who Is Poor

Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:34:34 PST

By Leslie Kaufman

The Bloomberg administration, frustrated by the federal government’s Great Society method of determining who is poor, is developing its own measure, which city officials say will offer a more modern and accurate picture of poverty.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg wants to adopt the new measure in part so he can better assess whether the tens of millions of dollars the city plans to spend on new anti-poverty programs will improve poor people’s standard of living.

But officials also hope the new measure will set off a nationwide re-examination of the current federal standard, and prompt other cities and states to adopt the city’s method.

The 42-year-old federal poverty standard, which is pegged to the annual cost of buying basic groceries, is widely viewed as outdated and off-target. The city’s formula would take into account the money families must spend annually on necessities including rent, utilities and child care. But it would also factor in the value of financial assistance received, like housing vouchers or food stamps.

The city’s efforts are already attracting attention. “There is widespread dissatisfaction with the current standard,” said Jack Tweedie, the director of the children and families program at the National Conference of State Legislators, which provides research to state legislators and policy makers.

“Because it is New York City adopting it, it could be a big step forward,” he said. “As it starts generating reports and data, others will be interested and you will get more momentum.”

The politics of determining a poverty level are intense because the number largely determines eligibility for numerous federal entitlement programs. And, perhaps as important, it is used by people across the political spectrum as they debate how well this nation cares for its less fortunate.

Of course, New York City’s adoption of a new calculus, which skeptics predict is certain to conclude that there are more poor here than previously counted, could be met with opposition from other areas around the country, like rural states, especially if the city uses the new measure to argue that it deserves more federal aid.

But city officials say their efforts are driven by Mayor Bloomberg’s second-term pledge to reduce poverty.

About a year ago, the mayor announced that the city would put $150 million in public and private money toward new antipoverty programs. At a press conference marking the anniversary of that effort last week, Mr. Bloomberg announced that 31 programs were up and running, and that a dozen more would be started in the next months.

In developing the new programs, however, the city discovered a serious obstacle: the federal poverty standard was all but useless in assessing whether the efforts were having an effect. This was especially frustrating for the mayor, whose business background and Harvard M.B.A. have conditioned him to look for measurable results.

So the city began drafting a new measure, based on research done a decade ago by the National Academy of Sciences. Dozens of respected poverty researchers in the nation have been asked to weigh in as well.

For years the Census Bureau has published several alternative measures of poverty, at least one of which is based on National Academy of Sciences data. However, poverty specialists say, that measure is of little use to cities or states because it only generates national data.

Mr. Bloomberg is seeking a balanced approach in devising New York’s formula, which will be rolled out this summer.

The federal method of calculating the income of poor people does not take into account the value of the extensive benefits that governments give out, like housing vouchers. But the city method will, offering an in-depth look at the assistance provided by New York, which has perhaps the most generous safety net in the nation.

Upwards of 600,000 families in the city are in public housing or receive substantial rental assistance. Other aid that would be counted toward income includes food stamps, subsidized child care and cash that is returned to families through the earned income tax credit and other tax credits. These benefits can be worth thousands of dollars a year for each family, and if that were the only change made in the formula, the number of poor in New York would drop drastically.

But New York is also looking to establish a more realistic picture of how much money is needed to live here.

The current federal poverty threshold was developed in the 1960s by Mollie Orshansky, an economist with the Social Security Administration, who based her number on a 1955 Department of Agriculture study that said low-income Americans spent about a third of their after-tax money on food. If a family had an annual income equal to three times the annual cost of basic groceries, Ms. Orshansky reasoned, they were not poor. If they fell below that income threshold, they were.

Obviously, that formula was developed in a very different America. Yet Mollie’s Measure, as it is known in poverty circles, is still pegged to an annual grocery bill, adjusted for little more than price increases over time. The current poverty threshold for a family of four (two adults and two children) is a little under $21,000. In its new formula, the city would set its poverty threshold at about 80 percent of the median amount spent by American families on essential goods, which would include food, rent, clothing, utilities, and a little extra. Costs would be adjusted to reflect New York prices.

Though city officials insist they are approaching this undertaking without bias, it is almost impossible to separate the process from politics.

Douglas J. Besharov, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, is watching the New York experiment intently and not without some cynicism that the city will come up with a far too generous formula. "It is highly likely they will come up with a higher poverty rate," he said. "It is perfectly safe politically in New York and it certainly is a good P.R. device for the mayor who wants to be a poverty crusader.”

From The New York Times on the Web (c) The New York Times Company. Reprinted with Permission.

Big Apple of Mike's Eye

Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:22:55 PST

All New Yorkers will live within 10 minutes of a park:

* Added 300 acres of new parks and wants to create 2,000 more

* Planting 1 million trees around city by 2017

* Creating 800 more green triangles at street inter-sections; 80 a year for 10 years

* Reclaiming 7,600 acres of toxic brownfields citywide; $15 million budgeted for cleanup

NYC will have the cleanest air of any large US city:

* Waived city's sales tax on hybrid and fuel-efficient vehicles

* Added 1,700 hybrids to city fleet in five years; will add six hydrogen vehicles in 2008

* Creating two $820,000 hydrogen gas stations

* Retrofitting 800 diesel city trucks for biodiesel fuel; plans to retrofit all buses, ferries

* Working with the Port Authority to bring clean technology to airports, marine vessels and ports

* Targeting 100 city schools with boilers that burn oil

Reduce global warming:

* Wants drivers entering Manhattan during peak hours to pay a fee

* Creating an 1,800-mile network of bicycle routes; 400 miles already in place

* Distributed 5,000 free NYC biking helmets last year

* Installed 700 bicycle racks citywide; 200 more expected

* Two rapid bus lanes installed; plans to build hundreds more

* Wants greenhouse-gas emissions cut by 30 percent by 2017; pledged $80 million for energy upgrades in city-owned buildings

* Planning an anti-idling test project for for-hire vehicles
* Rehabilitating 290 schoolyards

* Turning the closed Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island into a 2,200-acre park

* Opening 90 percent of city's canals and waterways for recreation

* Developing Governors Island into a 90-acre park

Wants New Yorkers healthier:

* Approved citywide ban on trans fats in restaurants

* Extended city law prohibiting smoking in bars

* Enrolled 1,400 low-income families in privately funded pilot project that pays them for good behavior

Wants a growing New York:

* Backed Atlantic Yards in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn, with at least $205 million in city subsidies

* Rezoning Coney Island into a park with 4,500 low- and middle-income apartments and some commercial use

* Developing the West Side rail yards as mixed-use residential and commercial area

* Rezoning Harlem's 125th St. for high-rise and commercial development

* Backing Columbia University's expansion in West Harlem

* Invested $110 million in the Hunts Point Fish and Produce Markets

* Gave $135 million for a new Yankee stadium

* Gave $160 million for a new Met stadium

* Supported the creation of the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. to oversee construction at Ground Zero

* Announced plan for 5,500 units of mixed-income housing, office space, a hotel, a park and a bridge at Willets Point, Queens

* Distributed 3 million free NYC condoms monthly

* Put $600,000 toward counseling teens and young women about STDs, HIV and pregnancy prevention, including the Plan B pill, in 2007

* Issuing 1,500 new permits for fruit and vegetable carts in low-income neighborhoods

* Gave $2 million to city-run hospitals to encourage moms to breast-feed

Wants more housing for poor and middle class:

* Announced a 10-year plan to create or preserve 165,000 units of affordable housing at a cost of $7.5 billion; has financed 39 percent, or 64,408 units, to date

* Changed the 421A tax credit law to spur developers to build more low-income housing

* Rezoned Downtown Brooklyn in 2004 for more residential and commercial development

* Rezoned Williamsburg and Greenpoint in 2004, allowing for high-rise development along the waterfront

Wants to revolutionize NYC's public school system:

* Tied teacher bonuses to increased student achievement through a performance pay program at 205 schools

* Redirected $350 million from administration costs to schools since 2002

* Created 3,700 new classroom seats in 2007

* Increased number of 10th- and 11th-graders taking the PSAT by 200 percent over last three years

America Must Resist Protectionism

Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:00:41 PST

By Michael Bloomberg

The US economy has turned downward. People are feeling insecure. There are grave concerns about jobs moving overseas and about losing ground to Asian countries. Heavy pressures are mounting on the presidential candidates in both parties to pander to protectionist and even isolationist sentiments. The year, however, is 1992. Fortunately, the two parties’ candidates – Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush – refuse to cave in to the pressure. They resist the special interests and stand strong for the long-term health of the American economy – and the country begins one of the greatest economic expansions of our history.

Today, we would do well to remember this lesson. It is easy to say that times have changed and take a more protectionist viewpoint. In fact, times have changed. Dramatic advances in technology and increased global trade are creating enormous economic opportunities, but also challenges. If America is to remain the world’s economic superpower, it must capitalise on the opportunities and confront the challenges. Countries that run away from globalisation in the 21st century – as with those that ran away from capitalism in the 20th century – will pay a heavy price for decades to come.

This week I am meeting with business leaders and government officials in Beijing and Shanghai to discuss the increasingly important relationship between the US and China – and the opportunities that we hold for each other. Some in the west believe that a growing Chinese economy is a threat. As a businessman, and now as mayor of the world’s largest financial capital, I believe the opposite is true: Chinese growth is, in fact, an opportunity for the US and the world, because the global economy is not a zero-sum game. We all share in each other’s success.

A growing China creates jobs for our export producers, keeps consumer prices low, expands our choice of goods and services, and increases our access to capital and talent. It also intensifies pressure on China itself to act responsibly on international issues, including security, trade, product safety and climate change. Our serious differences with China in these and other areas must be managed through engagement, not used as excuses to pursue politically expedient – and economically wrong-headed – short-term retaliatory measures.

What of the argument that China is taking jobs from America? Those jobs – if they did not go to China – would go somewhere else. The US government cannot keep them here through costly consumer-funded tariffs and taxpayer-funded subsidies. We learnt that lesson the hard way in the 1970s, when congressional protection of the automotive industry only hurt Detroit and helped its foreign competitors.

When politicians suggest that the benefits of globalisation go primarily to low-wage countries, they are playing to people’s fears. In fact, globalisation benefits every country that maximises its strategic advantages – and no country has more strategic advantages than the US. We are blessed with many of the best universities in the world; an enormous domestic consumer market; the most cutting-edge technological, medical and scientific research communities; deep capital markets that offer financing to businesses of every kind; and a level of freedom, opportunity and diversity that is unmatched.

These strategic advantages are a powerful magnet for the investors, entrepreneurs and innovators who are pioneering new fields and creating good jobs. But when the federal government builds walls around industries, it also blocks the exploration of new frontiers. Countries that offer open and fair access to new frontiers will be the winners in the new global economy, while those that build barriers will increasingly see their productivity decline and their innovators move elsewhere.

The opportunities created by globalisation will raise salaries and living standards for American families, but the transition can be difficult. The way to help workers affected by globalisation is not to prop up uncompetitive industries, but to assist the people who are displaced, so that they do not bear the costs of globalisation alone. This means strengthening our support of displaced workers and increasing investment in them, so that we can help them acquire the skills that the new economy demands.

At the same time, we have a responsibility to prepare today’s students for tomorrow’s economy. To compete in the 21st century, our students must learn more mathematics, more science, more engineering and more computer technology. Students around the world are outpacing American students in these subjects and unless we change that we will begin falling behind. That is why I have made public education reform a top priority in New York City and the progress we have begun making – substantial gains on math and English scores and graduation rates at 20-year highs – offers hope that by injecting accountability and standards into schools, we can aim for excellence, rather than settle for mediocrity.

Investing in infrastructure is equally critical to a nation’s competitiveness. China is finishing what will be the world’s largest airport terminal in Beijing. It is building 20,000km of railway lines and has already built the world’s fastest train, which runs at a top speed of 267mph. These are the kinds of investments we need more of in America if we are to keep pace with our international competition.

The new global economy holds enormous promise for fulfilling the American dream – that each of us can build a better life for our family. But capitalising on that promise requires courageous leadership. We had it in 1992 and we could use more of it now.