I don't know about zillions, but lots of them already do donate to charitable causes -- many of them. New York's cultural, fine arts scenes, its universities, museums, educational institutions, hospitals would not be the same without their efforts.
I make no pretense of knowing what will happen with a 2% across-the-board tax on millionaires in New York (not even a New Yorker) and generally skeptical of policies which sound an awful lot like 'free ice cream for everybody.' But Mahmdani is clearly smart, articulate, thoughtful, photogenic and victorious. He'll provide a test case to see how reformist politics accommodates current realities and vice-versa.
Can tell you one thing for CERTAIN, though. Donald Trump's name was never found in all those millionaires and philanthropists in New York who enriched it through their donations. Never gave a dime to anything or anyone not connected to himself. Never set foot in a symphony concert hall. Never went to a museum. Never wandered into a children's ward in a cancer hospital. As different from Michael Bloomberg as night is to day.
You’re spot on about the money they donate to the arts and medicine, but it’s the buying of politicians that is sickening when the money could be much better spent
Maybe, just maybe, rather than having their names plastered on museum galleries, etc., they could have a food pantry in their name or a childcare center in their name or a free neighborhood medical clinic in their name. Do good at the local level for those with the most immediate needs.
As a New Yorker, I am very glad to have museums and galleries and other cultural establishments made available to me via these donations. We also do not know of every donation and every donor and every charity that is being supported.
You don't know everything they give and do in private that they don't need their names plastered on. I'm sick of people thinking everyone with money does nothing for humankind. I live in NYC and am very grateful for the hospitals and facilities that have their names on buildings. Like the Iris Cantor Breast Institute I was lucky to get into for genetic testing for free 20 years ago as part of their research. Now I'm on Medicare. Not one top doctor I have gone to see at any top hospital here has turned me away. Good luck trying to find private doctors here. And who know what will happen in the furure. I'm also glad for their donations to museums and libraries, and the arts. Not everyone is Bezos or Elon Musk. You know what billionaire has never given a dime to charity? DONALD TRUMP! It's these young billionaires who do shit for the world.
Here's one billionaire you've never heard of and her gift to NY last year
So maybe, just maybe instead of blanket statements, you can look for the rich people that actually do some good. Many who pay their taxes. And are charitable and kind.
I'm afraid they need a big, shiny monument to their glory and their wealth. A Daddy Warbucks Food Bank just doesn't have the same cache. Things like that are so pedestrian.
So what happens if a 2% millionaires' tax is passed and a few New Yorkers move out of NY. Is NY really worse off? These wealthy people aren't paying their fair share to begin with. They've arranged their personal finances to minimize their taxes, city, state and federal. They use their clout to vote against the best interests of the people. Their businesses are probably finance and/or real estate related. Neither of these will move from NY. If this argument was valid no one of wealth would live in California. Let's stop making predictions for things that don't happen.
My daughter, a DVM, late 30s, and many of her professional friends love NYC but struggle financially. They certainly don't have earned income anywhere close to $1 million. If a 2% millionaires' tax helps these young professionals to afford to stay and thrive in NYC, then good for them and "better" for NYC.
Actually, you are mistaken, As a New Yorker of forty years, I can give you numerous examples from my personal experience, but I suspect that most of us are marked by living here. We have high expectations for education, medical care and the arts. We tend to be less racially and culturally biased because of our experience. We occupy less physical space per person than the average American, and we are far more likely to use public transportation. If we complain about the absence of these experiences, it's not a lack of imagination but a wish that they could be more widespread.
my point was not to annoy NEW Yorkers, but to point out not much chance of huge numbers of them moving out of the city for ANY reason possible exception of King Kong
Where do YOU live? How do you know who is not paying their taxes? Do you live in NYC? Let's stop making blanket statements about who lives here, what they earn and what they pay? You see those tall skinny buildings that have infested our Manhattan skyline in that photo? On "Billionaire's Row?. Those horrible monstrosities that cut off the sun, are so poorly built, that sway in the wind, are mostly empty, lawsuits against the builders, probably all foreign money, and don't pay taxes? How about going after them FIRST? I am not a millionaire but I worked my entire life for what I have. I pay every single dime, including an " extra" income tax just for us lucky dwellers in NYC (where people think it only means Manhattan when it is 5 BOROUGHS). What happens if a few New Yorkers move out? LOL. Guess you don't know this city was decimated by covid and has never recovered. Where is he going to get the money from? Maybe he can start by selling his mother's $2 million apt downtown. She's a well known director who made one of my favorite movies, Mississippi Masala", but let's get real here.
how many times have you thought about moving out of NYC ? I get it, it's a great place...you can't even imagine yourselves living in upstate NY, anywhere in NJ, much less Kansas
I'm a NYr my entire life except for school. Grew up in a suburb with real trees and grass lol., but I am a NYC lover. I like a city. I've also lived in a place.long enough not to die, to actually see it change, in my time, like history. I have relatives or friends/family iàn all 5 boroughs, and this affects us all. It does not affect other NYrs out of NYC. I have family and friends all over the state and out...even in Kansas. . 3 dear friends live in 3 totally different areas of upstate NY.and spread out. Upstate is big. No, I could never live there. (Love going to visit, love coming home).I spent summers in my youth upstate. I'm not a country, outdoorsy type, but I've visited a lot. I have never thought about moving and I could have, but chose not to. I always wanted to grow old here, and now, I have, LOL. I have family and friends in NJ, and other states. Strap yourself in. Iowa and Idaho too.. Really, people wind up in unexpected destinations.
The greatest anti poverty program of all time is Social Security.
Threats of “bankruptcy” of the two Social Security Trust funds abound in the media, and Trump Administration budgets have cut operational funding. There is reason to worry.
If Social Security is sliding toward a "default" it is because Congress and a succession of presidents would sell their families for a few votes. The default of Trust Funds is supposed to apex in 2033 due to the increase of birth rates of baby boomers. After 2033, birth rates of later generations flatten and the funds can be solvent.
Social Security protects workers, widow(er)s, orphans and disabled people and is a major investment for many of us.
Please donate to create an endowment to slow down the rate.
All that needs to be done is to raise the income ceiling on annual FICA contribution. The 2025 ceiling is $176,100. Once that income ceiling is hit no one making more than that will contribute a penny more. Eliminate the ceiling and Social Security will be solvent forever.
You are 100% correct. I should have included a caveat that it will not happen as long as any congress is controlled by those making more than the annual FICA ceiling which is like all of them.
Remove the income cap and SS will be funded in perpetuity. The reasons SS is in trouble are a declining worker population and tax dodging by the rich, as usual.
curious that there is no mention of Mamdani in these replies?
One thing Rubin doesn't mention is the real reason Mamdani is being so vilified - that he is a Muslim immigrant. It's that simple. His progressive economics only make that worse.
It is funny though, that the same people that call him a terrorist loving jihadist will also call him an ultra woke radical who will communize everything..
Agree. If his last name was Smith or Jones, I doubt we would see the overblown outcry that is occuring. A Muslim? Oh, the horror! I hope New Yorkers see past this in the general.
One thing I really, really, wish would happen is that non-Muslim people would recognize that Islam is no more a monolith than Christianity is. I suppose that the theoretical 'Muslim' people fear is the Islamic equivalent of Right-Wing Evangelical (white, patriarchal supremacist) Christian. There are such Muslims, typically less educated people who similarly lean toward authoritarian framing for their religious beliefs, and find things in the Koran to justify them, just as Christian Evangelicals find similar justifications for their beliefs in the Bible. Both groups are way off base in terms of mainstream or liberal interpretations of their faith. IMO as someone familiar with both faith traditions.
We don't see this group parting with their money willingly unless it in some way benefits them. As they already have theirs, feeding the hungry and housing the homeless is the farthest thing from their (collective) minds. Greed and charity do not go together.
Many charities are run by and for Republicans as a branch of the Republican spoils system. Many of the more famous were established as tax shelters when tax rates were high.
Indeed the question of our time. Am I the only one discovering a craving for all of those Dickens books so dutifully plowed through in college? "Dead, your Majesty. Dead, my lords and gentlemen. Dead, Right Reverends and Wrong Reverends of every order. Dead, men and women, born with Heavenly compassion in your hearts. And dying thus around us every day."
Ms. Rubin, would you please pen an essay that explains whether or not Congress has the authority to subpoena the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to appear before Congress to testify about important things occurring at the Court, e.g. 6/3, 6/3, 6/3 decisions ad nauseum, shadow dockets, perceived partisanship, etc. I think this would be MOST helpful to readers.
That's funny. The Contrarian posts about The Supreme Court literally every day,. while this has been the first full piece focused on Zohran Mamdani and his unprecedented win.
That recently oft-quoted statement by the late Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis, comes immediately to mind: "You can have democracy or you can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but you cannot have both." Clearly, "great wealth" is looking to continue its winning streak. DON'T LET THEM, NYC !!!
Cuomo and his cashed up backers spent over 30 million in the primary, ad unprecedented amount of money for a NYC mayoral primary.
In return, Cuomo lost by 12 points in a landslide, and Mamdani won more votes than any other mayoral candidate in NYC primary history.
Progressive voters here are incredibly fired up after this astounding win. It's gratifying to see actual grassroots people power, positive and creative ideas, and old fashioned in-person campaigning win a big one over massive cash and racially tinged attacks.
ha mine are crossed too, but I am very hopeful. The election results were a welcome surprise....many of us thought he could win, but few of us foresaw the massive landslide win he received.
It's welcome, and long overdue, for Jennifer Rubin to write a piece with some focus on Zohran Mamdani.
She could mention also that Mamdani didn't simply win the primary. He won with the single biggest number of votes in any Democratic primary in NYC history. He didn't squeak by with a win after several rounds of ranked choice voting tallies as Adams did in 2021, he won in a landslide vote in the first round, and then only gained more as the ranked choices were calculated.
Still, Rubin, being Rubin, she had to mention that Mamdani should 'respond to legitimate concerns about anti-Semitism'.
For one, he responds to these false charges, constantly, all the time, to the extent that it is the main question he is asked. You can see the instances of 'Israel' and 'antisemitism' in coverage of Mamdani just dwarfs mentions of anything else about him or his platform. There hasn't been a single day in months when Mamdani has not affirmed that he is firmly and emphatically against antisemitism.
The most prominent Jewish elected official in New York City, Brad Lander, has not only endorsed Mamdani but has been vigorously campaigning for him. He has been endorsed by Jerry Nadler, Bernie Sanders, and many other Jewish Democrats, as well as many Jewish organizations.
Rubin is right when she writes 'the mayor of New York is not a foreign policy position' but it is about more than that. As it is so often, the charge of antisemitism is to give cover to the real issue, that Mamdani has dared to criticize Israel's nonstop violations of international law.
Criticism of Israel is not antisemitism. Period. Israel is a state, and a state that is committing unspeakable horrors every day against not only the trapped and starving population of Gaza, but against the people trapped under apartheid in the West Bank, and all with US support.
It is past time Rubin addresses the ongoing and crucial support for Israel's war crimes by the US.
Still, I am glad to read this, finally, in The Contrarian:
"One wonders why anyone should trust the judgment of political backers who stood behind either of those two (Adams and Cuomo). Frankly, in light of the freak-out from the uber-rich, the clueless members of the New York state Democratic Party, and the “New Yorkers for a Better Future Mayor 25,” Mamdani might start to grow on previously skeptical voters."
Is it really still true that people confuse anti-semitism with anti Zionist fascism and/or war crimes against humanity? Really hard to understand. It seems as if some people equate anti-Islamism with anti-semitism. But, Islam is not a religion limited by ethnicity, and never has been. There are muslims of every race and nationality--around a billion and a half of them, worldwide, hardly any of them so-called Jihadists. And Mohammad himself thought the the Jews of his time would be his first and most sincere converts, as the Jewish faith was so similar to Islam, and extended an invitation to them. Blows my mind.
(actually, Jennifer Rubin basically does that here, in an indirect, passive way..she claims Mamdani needs to address charges of antisemitism (which he does constantly) while not mentioning anything at all about his criticism of Israel's war crimes and the US support for those war crimes. Mamdani has never said a word against the Jewish people. )
I don't think many truly confuse the two..I think much more often when regarding Israel, the charge of antisemitism is intentionally used to shut down protest or criticism or even discussion of Israel's crimes. I would wager many who engage in this bad faith argument are well aware of what they are doing.
It's also some next level hypocrisy when this comes from Republicans, who harbor so many openly antisemitic members in its ranks.
I have been following this from Massachusetts. While not the same kind of person as Mamdani in heritage or experience, a couple of his proposals, like free bus rides, have been implemented in Boston by Mayor Wu without the sky falling. So rich people, be not afraid!
I was in Beantown for a few days last month and spending even 5 minutes watching any random local TV station will show you that the billionaire class up there has her in their sights. I'm curious to see how it will end up.
I don’t live in Boston proper, but I’ve listened to Mayor Wu and I think she’s terrific. And we have a set of billionaires here I know, but I’ll have to look into whether they’re ganging up on her like they are on Mamdani.
Ha ha. Their 'fear of falling' is a well-documented sociological phenomenon. Might have something to do with the parable of the rich man being as likely to fit through the eye of a needle as through the gates of heaven. Something about an enlarged sense of self, I'd say.
Yes, "better" has become a code word for "what the people in power want." Any proposal or candidate that could reduce their power and ever-growing wealth is by definition "worse."
Another word that does a lot of heavy lifting in the Trump administration is "beautiful." His every move promises "beautiful" results. This one is downright Orwellian. I have yet to see anything coming out of this administration that isn't incredibly ugly.
Mamdani may be young and [relatively] inexperienced, but NYC voters seem willing to take a chance on him. And that scares the daylights out of certain people. But look at the alternatives they've put up against him: a re-tread like Andrew Cuomo with a long, ugly history of abusing women and his office, who left hundreds of nursing home residents to die during COVID; and Eric Adams, an indicted criminal who got off by making a corrupt deal with Donald Trump.
The monied class and the establishment NY Democrats have a lot of explaining to do, especially people who thought Cuomo's short time in the political wilderness erased all his crimes against women and the elderly. If those people are freaking out because New Yorkers prefer a young, energetic and talented newcomer, maybe the rich and the NY Dems should be asking THEMSELVES why.
I guess that to the ultra-rich, electing an individual of questionable integrity like Adams or Cuomo is infinitely better than electing a principled fella who wants to make the city more functional even for those without many zeros behind the number describing their net worth. How are the rich supposed to get richer without the help of the leaders they purchase? Who else can be trusted to look after their interests?
trump frequently bashes Sadiq Khan for being the worst mayor London ever had, simply because he's Muslim. I am furious that he is "welcomed" for another state visit to the UK and can imagine the discomfort with his meddling in the affairs of other countries, and for the Epstein files which could get Prince Andrew in trouble again. What a nightmare for King Charles who has had this foisted upon him! At least trump won't get to address Parliament.
I hope that Mamdani wins by a landslide. New Yorkers need someone "better" than they've had, certainly not Adams or Cuomo.
I too am shocked that this president will be given another state visit by the UK. Why King Charles' advisors couldn't think of a reason to decline Keir Starmer's request is beyond me. The president stains and stinks every place he steps foot in. I'm still hoping something will intervene to make this visit impossible.
I'm not a New Yorker so I have no skin in the game, nor have I followed the politics closely. However, my sense is that one thing working in Mamdani's favor is that the 2 other leading candidates were a pair of slimeballs. Heck, each one was sleazier than the other. When you contrast that with Mamdani's approach (young, photogenic, optimistic, energetic, great with people) it's easy to see how he could win regardless of what his politics were.
And let's not forget that when billionaires try to put the thumb on the scale it can blow up in their faces. A living example is when Musk sunk 9 figures of money into the Wisconsin Supreme Court race-- it didn't help the candidate and succeeded only in making Musk, one of the most hated people in the country, into a campaign issue.
I suspect that Mamdani will use the billionaire money as a campaign advantage, and again it will backfire on the billionaires.
He is 'young, photogenic, optimistic, energetic, great with people'....but people are also excited about his innovative and creative ideas that directly address the city's biggest problems.
Certainly backing a disgraced sexual predator didn't help, and really has done lasting damage to 'centrist' Democrat's credibility in the city, as Rubin mentions here.
I think there is a lesson for the party in general. Mamdani's politics might not "play in Peoria" but his approach to campaigning definitely will. The party needs to field more candidates like him, across the political spectrum that the Democrats cover, depending on the state/city/district.
yeah, I saw a similar comment in I think New York magazine, to the effect of 'Mamdani the candidate may not work everywhere, but the Mamdani campaign strategy can'.
"The party" doesn't have a say in who runs in the primaries. State, County, and Precinct committees are supposed to be neutral during contested primaries.... They can look for and encourage candidates to run, but have no say in who can be running in primary contests.
I'm not one to be concerned with NYC politics save for the fact that the rich are backing folks that will make them richer. I'm a Vet, living in a retirement home on the income of two small retirements and SS for the grand total of $25 K, and 90% of that goes to the "Home". Anyone that can't live on $400 K and pay taxes (15%) on the amount above has no sympathy from me AT ALL.
For sure, plus that other independent guy ...they are working hard to try to consolidate the votes to the leading candidate...but Adams and Cuomo both have such big egos, and both their campaigns are so driven by personal interests, that's hard to see happening.
I think that's a fair assessment. I also suspect each of them sees the other's flaws very clearly but is totally blind to their own. That's why they can't reach an agreement for only 1 of them to run. It'd be terrible if the electorate got so fractional that somehow Curtis Sliwa managed to eke out a win.
In the second graf, you make reference to the "clueless oligarchy." Excuse me, but the oligarchy is anything but clueless if you're referring to its goals. It knows those goals (more money, more power, less regulation), it is working to achieve them, and it collectively doesn't give a rodent's posterior about the ordinary citizens who are harmed by its actions.
Having said that, it's true that the oligarchy may be "clueless" in a limited sense -- in that it does not collectively understand the extent to which candidates like Mamdani connect with the real concerns of those ordinary citizens.
Now, when it comes to the N.Y. Democrats, your reference to the "clueless members of the New York State Democratic Party" is much more à propos, in my view. But you paint that "cluelessness" as a bad thing that led to Mamdani's emergence as the presumptive mayoral candidate. Why? Because there are potentially better candidates out there who are white? Whose name doesn't conjure images of Iranian religious fanatics?
Maybe NYC politics -- and state Democratic politics -- needs a real kick in the @$$, and it might just be that Mamdani is the one to deliver that kick.
You make a good point here. It is misleading to say that the 'centrist' NYC Democrats and their billionaire backers were 'clueless' about supporting Cuomo. They just held their noses and supported him, knowing full well who he is, simply because of how much they hate and fear Mamdani.
There are some notable exceptions to this- but this is the single biggest source of his support...a combo of being friendly with establishment Dems, and being ok with the scion of one of New York's most powerful political dynasties...while hating everything about Mamdani..he's Muslim, he's progressive, he won't kowtow to bad faith antisemitism charges,...and worst of all, he doesn't need them.
you are right on with this comment:
'the oligarchy may be "clueless" in a limited sense -- in that it does not collectively understand the extent to which candidates like Mamdani connect with the real concerns of those ordinary citizens'
Agree completely. The Democrats need a refresh from the corruption and arrogance of people like Cuomo and Adams. It would send a message that we are little different from Trump to elect either of them. Mamdani is maybe unrealistic with his proposals, but at least he has proposals, unlike Trump who said he would bring down prices and had no proposals, and (surprise) prices have gone up. Mamdani can call himself whatever he wants, but he's sincerely addressing real people's issues and I am rooting for him.
Re Bloomberg -- he hadn't held public office but he had built and managed a substantial, groundbreaking business. NYC has a $116 billion budget and hundreds of thousands employees of all sorts. Four years as a junior members of the state legislature is unlikely to have prepared Mamdani for the managerial challenges of being Mayor. I'm not arguing for Adams or Cuomo, neither of whom I support, but you shouldn't be dismissive of either Bloomberg's leadership credentials or the inadequacy of Mamdani's management experience. Btw I would group Bloomberg with FDR and Buffett as wealthy men who acted in civic duty.
Being a big businessman is not the same as being a mayor.
Bloomberg won largely because he switched from being a Democrat to Republican and took the easy nomination with Giuliani's endorsement, back in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when Giuliani was still (bafflingly) loved and considered 'America's mayor'. He was then able to keep himself in office largely by massive funding from his own billionaire pockets. He spent $100 million of his own money just on the 2009 election.
Housing costs skyrocketed under his tenure, as well as police abuses, and then he extended his power by pushing through the permission of a third term...Everyone who lives here was flooded with full color glossy garbage in the mailboxes every time he ran.
(Ps- Giuliani has also never held an elected office before becoming mayor.)
Thank you Carol. I agree about Bloomberg and about Mamdani's lack of qualifications. Too many people are swayed by his smile, youth and energy and promises of free this and that.
I don't think Mamdani's aim is to provide "free this and that." It's to reduce the neediness of poor New Yorkers, and in some cases doing this means providing some free services and goods. It's an important distinction.
I'm looking at this election in terms of national outcomes. If Americans feel/see that left of center candidates are what Democrats put forth, then I fear GOP will continue to be reelected. We need center candidates who would appeal to a broad swath of American voters in upcoming elections.
right, like Hillary Clinton.,..or Kamala Harris...even Joe Biden really only squeaked in a win despite Trump's massive mishandling of the pandemic and endless scandals.
Mamdani did appeal to a 'broad swath of voters'. NYC is not Portland or Berkeley. Dems here are by and large pretty moderate. It needs to be repeated that Mamdani won the most votes of any NYC mayoral primary candidate in the city's history.
'Centrist' Charles Schumer is about the least popular figure in American politics right now, with worse approval ratings that even Trump...while AOC and Sanders continue to get high approval ratings and pull massive crowds.
I am really hoping AOC challenges Schumer for Senate...he needs to go, badly.
Why are left of center candidates more threatening than right of center candidates? Let candidates be clear about their priorities, without attaching labels, then let voters make their choices.
Why don’t they donate their zillions to charitable causes…feed the hungry, house the homeless, medical care for the poor…
I don't know about zillions, but lots of them already do donate to charitable causes -- many of them. New York's cultural, fine arts scenes, its universities, museums, educational institutions, hospitals would not be the same without their efforts.
I make no pretense of knowing what will happen with a 2% across-the-board tax on millionaires in New York (not even a New Yorker) and generally skeptical of policies which sound an awful lot like 'free ice cream for everybody.' But Mahmdani is clearly smart, articulate, thoughtful, photogenic and victorious. He'll provide a test case to see how reformist politics accommodates current realities and vice-versa.
Can tell you one thing for CERTAIN, though. Donald Trump's name was never found in all those millionaires and philanthropists in New York who enriched it through their donations. Never gave a dime to anything or anyone not connected to himself. Never set foot in a symphony concert hall. Never went to a museum. Never wandered into a children's ward in a cancer hospital. As different from Michael Bloomberg as night is to day.
You’re spot on about the money they donate to the arts and medicine, but it’s the buying of politicians that is sickening when the money could be much better spent
Well, there is that... 😏 Another great accomplishment to be laid at the feet of the Citizens United Supreme Court!
Too many of these donations are tax scams or are PR schemes. Many "charities" are management cash cows. https://www.charitywatch.org/?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=19240199652&gbraid=0AAAAAD_CEXG_YmARuhdj6qSN29onICSTA&gclid=Cj0KCQjw-NfDBhDyARIsAD-ILeAnHuQ95_sKa8Ut6VOwLlA6RbJw0hg58en24C5Acdc-cHF_bsj_tJgaAjpWEALw_wcB
The donations to the arts and health care are reputation washing, too.
Also I question the word "efforts" - I don't think their donations cost them much if any effort.
Maybe, just maybe, rather than having their names plastered on museum galleries, etc., they could have a food pantry in their name or a childcare center in their name or a free neighborhood medical clinic in their name. Do good at the local level for those with the most immediate needs.
As a New Yorker, I am very glad to have museums and galleries and other cultural establishments made available to me via these donations. We also do not know of every donation and every donor and every charity that is being supported.
There's something about that in the Bible (i.e. doing good without advertising the fact).
You don't know everything they give and do in private that they don't need their names plastered on. I'm sick of people thinking everyone with money does nothing for humankind. I live in NYC and am very grateful for the hospitals and facilities that have their names on buildings. Like the Iris Cantor Breast Institute I was lucky to get into for genetic testing for free 20 years ago as part of their research. Now I'm on Medicare. Not one top doctor I have gone to see at any top hospital here has turned me away. Good luck trying to find private doctors here. And who know what will happen in the furure. I'm also glad for their donations to museums and libraries, and the arts. Not everyone is Bezos or Elon Musk. You know what billionaire has never given a dime to charity? DONALD TRUMP! It's these young billionaires who do shit for the world.
Here's one billionaire you've never heard of and her gift to NY last year
https://apnews.com/article/free-medical-school-tuition-ruth-gottesman-11eec429784776027161bcd1b6ea1905
So maybe, just maybe instead of blanket statements, you can look for the rich people that actually do some good. Many who pay their taxes. And are charitable and kind.
Outstanding. Thank you for sharing.
Thank you.
I'm afraid they need a big, shiny monument to their glory and their wealth. A Daddy Warbucks Food Bank just doesn't have the same cache. Things like that are so pedestrian.
Too true
Sadly, these rich pricks want nothing to do with their view of "the great unwashed".
They can do both. It does not have to be either or.
So what happens if a 2% millionaires' tax is passed and a few New Yorkers move out of NY. Is NY really worse off? These wealthy people aren't paying their fair share to begin with. They've arranged their personal finances to minimize their taxes, city, state and federal. They use their clout to vote against the best interests of the people. Their businesses are probably finance and/or real estate related. Neither of these will move from NY. If this argument was valid no one of wealth would live in California. Let's stop making predictions for things that don't happen.
My daughter, a DVM, late 30s, and many of her professional friends love NYC but struggle financially. They certainly don't have earned income anywhere close to $1 million. If a 2% millionaires' tax helps these young professionals to afford to stay and thrive in NYC, then good for them and "better" for NYC.
New Yorkers CANNOT imagine life elsewhere !!
Actually, you are mistaken, As a New Yorker of forty years, I can give you numerous examples from my personal experience, but I suspect that most of us are marked by living here. We have high expectations for education, medical care and the arts. We tend to be less racially and culturally biased because of our experience. We occupy less physical space per person than the average American, and we are far more likely to use public transportation. If we complain about the absence of these experiences, it's not a lack of imagination but a wish that they could be more widespread.
my point was not to annoy NEW Yorkers, but to point out not much chance of huge numbers of them moving out of the city for ANY reason possible exception of King Kong
I am not mistaken...grew up in NJ
Where do YOU live? How do you know who is not paying their taxes? Do you live in NYC? Let's stop making blanket statements about who lives here, what they earn and what they pay? You see those tall skinny buildings that have infested our Manhattan skyline in that photo? On "Billionaire's Row?. Those horrible monstrosities that cut off the sun, are so poorly built, that sway in the wind, are mostly empty, lawsuits against the builders, probably all foreign money, and don't pay taxes? How about going after them FIRST? I am not a millionaire but I worked my entire life for what I have. I pay every single dime, including an " extra" income tax just for us lucky dwellers in NYC (where people think it only means Manhattan when it is 5 BOROUGHS). What happens if a few New Yorkers move out? LOL. Guess you don't know this city was decimated by covid and has never recovered. Where is he going to get the money from? Maybe he can start by selling his mother's $2 million apt downtown. She's a well known director who made one of my favorite movies, Mississippi Masala", but let's get real here.
how many times have you thought about moving out of NYC ? I get it, it's a great place...you can't even imagine yourselves living in upstate NY, anywhere in NJ, much less Kansas
I'm a NYr my entire life except for school. Grew up in a suburb with real trees and grass lol., but I am a NYC lover. I like a city. I've also lived in a place.long enough not to die, to actually see it change, in my time, like history. I have relatives or friends/family iàn all 5 boroughs, and this affects us all. It does not affect other NYrs out of NYC. I have family and friends all over the state and out...even in Kansas. . 3 dear friends live in 3 totally different areas of upstate NY.and spread out. Upstate is big. No, I could never live there. (Love going to visit, love coming home).I spent summers in my youth upstate. I'm not a country, outdoorsy type, but I've visited a lot. I have never thought about moving and I could have, but chose not to. I always wanted to grow old here, and now, I have, LOL. I have family and friends in NJ, and other states. Strap yourself in. Iowa and Idaho too.. Really, people wind up in unexpected destinations.
So you know what I'm talkin' about !
grew up in NJ, school in Philly, now in VA
Mamdani is New York's Zelensky
Maybe if they were taxed properly, we wouldn’t need their donations
The greatest anti poverty program of all time is Social Security.
Threats of “bankruptcy” of the two Social Security Trust funds abound in the media, and Trump Administration budgets have cut operational funding. There is reason to worry.
If Social Security is sliding toward a "default" it is because Congress and a succession of presidents would sell their families for a few votes. The default of Trust Funds is supposed to apex in 2033 due to the increase of birth rates of baby boomers. After 2033, birth rates of later generations flatten and the funds can be solvent.
Social Security protects workers, widow(er)s, orphans and disabled people and is a major investment for many of us.
Please donate to create an endowment to slow down the rate.
https://www.ssa.gov/agency/donations.html
All that needs to be done is to raise the income ceiling on annual FICA contribution. The 2025 ceiling is $176,100. Once that income ceiling is hit no one making more than that will contribute a penny more. Eliminate the ceiling and Social Security will be solvent forever.
Never in this Congress.
You are 100% correct. I should have included a caveat that it will not happen as long as any congress is controlled by those making more than the annual FICA ceiling which is like all of them.
Remove the income cap and SS will be funded in perpetuity. The reasons SS is in trouble are a declining worker population and tax dodging by the rich, as usual.
Actually it was all about the Boomer generation. After 2033, regression to the mean. I.E. fewer recipients.
curious that there is no mention of Mamdani in these replies?
One thing Rubin doesn't mention is the real reason Mamdani is being so vilified - that he is a Muslim immigrant. It's that simple. His progressive economics only make that worse.
It is funny though, that the same people that call him a terrorist loving jihadist will also call him an ultra woke radical who will communize everything..
Agree. If his last name was Smith or Jones, I doubt we would see the overblown outcry that is occuring. A Muslim? Oh, the horror! I hope New Yorkers see past this in the general.
One thing I really, really, wish would happen is that non-Muslim people would recognize that Islam is no more a monolith than Christianity is. I suppose that the theoretical 'Muslim' people fear is the Islamic equivalent of Right-Wing Evangelical (white, patriarchal supremacist) Christian. There are such Muslims, typically less educated people who similarly lean toward authoritarian framing for their religious beliefs, and find things in the Koran to justify them, just as Christian Evangelicals find similar justifications for their beliefs in the Bible. Both groups are way off base in terms of mainstream or liberal interpretations of their faith. IMO as someone familiar with both faith traditions.
London has had a Muslim mayor, Sadiq Khan, since 2016. I think it’s still standing, and obscenely wealthy people still live there.
We don't see this group parting with their money willingly unless it in some way benefits them. As they already have theirs, feeding the hungry and housing the homeless is the farthest thing from their (collective) minds. Greed and charity do not go together.
"Greed and charity do not go together."
Many charities are run by and for Republicans as a branch of the Republican spoils system. Many of the more famous were established as tax shelters when tax rates were high.
And then there was Trump, who robbed his own charity to the point that it was determined not to be charitable (except to him, of course).
Indeed the question of our time. Am I the only one discovering a craving for all of those Dickens books so dutifully plowed through in college? "Dead, your Majesty. Dead, my lords and gentlemen. Dead, Right Reverends and Wrong Reverends of every order. Dead, men and women, born with Heavenly compassion in your hearts. And dying thus around us every day."
Dickens was a genius.
The charitable giving does not provide the desired return on investment .
Like the first Mrs Bezos is doing...
Ms. Rubin, would you please pen an essay that explains whether or not Congress has the authority to subpoena the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to appear before Congress to testify about important things occurring at the Court, e.g. 6/3, 6/3, 6/3 decisions ad nauseum, shadow dockets, perceived partisanship, etc. I think this would be MOST helpful to readers.
That's funny. The Contrarian posts about The Supreme Court literally every day,. while this has been the first full piece focused on Zohran Mamdani and his unprecedented win.
That recently oft-quoted statement by the late Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis, comes immediately to mind: "You can have democracy or you can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but you cannot have both." Clearly, "great wealth" is looking to continue its winning streak. DON'T LET THEM, NYC !!!
Don't worry, they won't!
Cuomo and his cashed up backers spent over 30 million in the primary, ad unprecedented amount of money for a NYC mayoral primary.
In return, Cuomo lost by 12 points in a landslide, and Mamdani won more votes than any other mayoral candidate in NYC primary history.
Progressive voters here are incredibly fired up after this astounding win. It's gratifying to see actual grassroots people power, positive and creative ideas, and old fashioned in-person campaigning win a big one over massive cash and racially tinged attacks.
Fingers crossed that you.re correct !
ha mine are crossed too, but I am very hopeful. The election results were a welcome surprise....many of us thought he could win, but few of us foresaw the massive landslide win he received.
It's welcome, and long overdue, for Jennifer Rubin to write a piece with some focus on Zohran Mamdani.
She could mention also that Mamdani didn't simply win the primary. He won with the single biggest number of votes in any Democratic primary in NYC history. He didn't squeak by with a win after several rounds of ranked choice voting tallies as Adams did in 2021, he won in a landslide vote in the first round, and then only gained more as the ranked choices were calculated.
Still, Rubin, being Rubin, she had to mention that Mamdani should 'respond to legitimate concerns about anti-Semitism'.
For one, he responds to these false charges, constantly, all the time, to the extent that it is the main question he is asked. You can see the instances of 'Israel' and 'antisemitism' in coverage of Mamdani just dwarfs mentions of anything else about him or his platform. There hasn't been a single day in months when Mamdani has not affirmed that he is firmly and emphatically against antisemitism.
The most prominent Jewish elected official in New York City, Brad Lander, has not only endorsed Mamdani but has been vigorously campaigning for him. He has been endorsed by Jerry Nadler, Bernie Sanders, and many other Jewish Democrats, as well as many Jewish organizations.
Rubin is right when she writes 'the mayor of New York is not a foreign policy position' but it is about more than that. As it is so often, the charge of antisemitism is to give cover to the real issue, that Mamdani has dared to criticize Israel's nonstop violations of international law.
Criticism of Israel is not antisemitism. Period. Israel is a state, and a state that is committing unspeakable horrors every day against not only the trapped and starving population of Gaza, but against the people trapped under apartheid in the West Bank, and all with US support.
It is past time Rubin addresses the ongoing and crucial support for Israel's war crimes by the US.
Still, I am glad to read this, finally, in The Contrarian:
"One wonders why anyone should trust the judgment of political backers who stood behind either of those two (Adams and Cuomo). Frankly, in light of the freak-out from the uber-rich, the clueless members of the New York state Democratic Party, and the “New Yorkers for a Better Future Mayor 25,” Mamdani might start to grow on previously skeptical voters."
Yes...and YES!
Criticism of Israel is not antisemitism. Period. Full stop!
"Criticism of Israel is not antisemitism. Period." LIKE x TEN THOUSAND.
Is it really still true that people confuse anti-semitism with anti Zionist fascism and/or war crimes against humanity? Really hard to understand. It seems as if some people equate anti-Islamism with anti-semitism. But, Islam is not a religion limited by ethnicity, and never has been. There are muslims of every race and nationality--around a billion and a half of them, worldwide, hardly any of them so-called Jihadists. And Mohammad himself thought the the Jews of his time would be his first and most sincere converts, as the Jewish faith was so similar to Islam, and extended an invitation to them. Blows my mind.
(actually, Jennifer Rubin basically does that here, in an indirect, passive way..she claims Mamdani needs to address charges of antisemitism (which he does constantly) while not mentioning anything at all about his criticism of Israel's war crimes and the US support for those war crimes. Mamdani has never said a word against the Jewish people. )
I don't think many truly confuse the two..I think much more often when regarding Israel, the charge of antisemitism is intentionally used to shut down protest or criticism or even discussion of Israel's crimes. I would wager many who engage in this bad faith argument are well aware of what they are doing.
It's also some next level hypocrisy when this comes from Republicans, who harbor so many openly antisemitic members in its ranks.
I have been following this from Massachusetts. While not the same kind of person as Mamdani in heritage or experience, a couple of his proposals, like free bus rides, have been implemented in Boston by Mayor Wu without the sky falling. So rich people, be not afraid!
I was in Beantown for a few days last month and spending even 5 minutes watching any random local TV station will show you that the billionaire class up there has her in their sights. I'm curious to see how it will end up.
(him) - don't worry, Mamdani is going to win, again!
I don’t live in Boston proper, but I’ve listened to Mayor Wu and I think she’s terrific. And we have a set of billionaires here I know, but I’ll have to look into whether they’re ganging up on her like they are on Mamdani.
Ha ha. Their 'fear of falling' is a well-documented sociological phenomenon. Might have something to do with the parable of the rich man being as likely to fit through the eye of a needle as through the gates of heaven. Something about an enlarged sense of self, I'd say.
Yes, "better" has become a code word for "what the people in power want." Any proposal or candidate that could reduce their power and ever-growing wealth is by definition "worse."
Another word that does a lot of heavy lifting in the Trump administration is "beautiful." His every move promises "beautiful" results. This one is downright Orwellian. I have yet to see anything coming out of this administration that isn't incredibly ugly.
Hear hear! In the current world where up is down, beautiful means just the opposite. Just look at how it is used and to what it is applied.
Mamdani may be young and [relatively] inexperienced, but NYC voters seem willing to take a chance on him. And that scares the daylights out of certain people. But look at the alternatives they've put up against him: a re-tread like Andrew Cuomo with a long, ugly history of abusing women and his office, who left hundreds of nursing home residents to die during COVID; and Eric Adams, an indicted criminal who got off by making a corrupt deal with Donald Trump.
The monied class and the establishment NY Democrats have a lot of explaining to do, especially people who thought Cuomo's short time in the political wilderness erased all his crimes against women and the elderly. If those people are freaking out because New Yorkers prefer a young, energetic and talented newcomer, maybe the rich and the NY Dems should be asking THEMSELVES why.
I guess that to the ultra-rich, electing an individual of questionable integrity like Adams or Cuomo is infinitely better than electing a principled fella who wants to make the city more functional even for those without many zeros behind the number describing their net worth. How are the rich supposed to get richer without the help of the leaders they purchase? Who else can be trusted to look after their interests?
See example A: Convicted felon, serial liar, multiple-time cheater, failed businessman, TACO.
There's nothing "questionable" about Adams' or Cuomo's integrity. It's pretty obvious that they have none and don't even bother to hide that fact.
trump frequently bashes Sadiq Khan for being the worst mayor London ever had, simply because he's Muslim. I am furious that he is "welcomed" for another state visit to the UK and can imagine the discomfort with his meddling in the affairs of other countries, and for the Epstein files which could get Prince Andrew in trouble again. What a nightmare for King Charles who has had this foisted upon him! At least trump won't get to address Parliament.
I hope that Mamdani wins by a landslide. New Yorkers need someone "better" than they've had, certainly not Adams or Cuomo.
I too am shocked that this president will be given another state visit by the UK. Why King Charles' advisors couldn't think of a reason to decline Keir Starmer's request is beyond me. The president stains and stinks every place he steps foot in. I'm still hoping something will intervene to make this visit impossible.
In the true meaning of the word better.
I'm not a New Yorker so I have no skin in the game, nor have I followed the politics closely. However, my sense is that one thing working in Mamdani's favor is that the 2 other leading candidates were a pair of slimeballs. Heck, each one was sleazier than the other. When you contrast that with Mamdani's approach (young, photogenic, optimistic, energetic, great with people) it's easy to see how he could win regardless of what his politics were.
And let's not forget that when billionaires try to put the thumb on the scale it can blow up in their faces. A living example is when Musk sunk 9 figures of money into the Wisconsin Supreme Court race-- it didn't help the candidate and succeeded only in making Musk, one of the most hated people in the country, into a campaign issue.
I suspect that Mamdani will use the billionaire money as a campaign advantage, and again it will backfire on the billionaires.
He is 'young, photogenic, optimistic, energetic, great with people'....but people are also excited about his innovative and creative ideas that directly address the city's biggest problems.
Certainly backing a disgraced sexual predator didn't help, and really has done lasting damage to 'centrist' Democrat's credibility in the city, as Rubin mentions here.
I think there is a lesson for the party in general. Mamdani's politics might not "play in Peoria" but his approach to campaigning definitely will. The party needs to field more candidates like him, across the political spectrum that the Democrats cover, depending on the state/city/district.
yeah, I saw a similar comment in I think New York magazine, to the effect of 'Mamdani the candidate may not work everywhere, but the Mamdani campaign strategy can'.
"The party" doesn't have a say in who runs in the primaries. State, County, and Precinct committees are supposed to be neutral during contested primaries.... They can look for and encourage candidates to run, but have no say in who can be running in primary contests.
I'm not one to be concerned with NYC politics save for the fact that the rich are backing folks that will make them richer. I'm a Vet, living in a retirement home on the income of two small retirements and SS for the grand total of $25 K, and 90% of that goes to the "Home". Anyone that can't live on $400 K and pay taxes (15%) on the amount above has no sympathy from me AT ALL.
This made me LOL:
'“[T]he anti-Mamdani bulwark lacks a positive message. And a candidate,” the Wall Street Journal reports. “And enough voters to win.” '
Exactly - meaning, Mamdani does have 'a positive message' and is supported by an overwhelming number of voting Democrats.
His support will only. increase as more people hear from him. The NY Democratic Party machine has never looked so feckless and hapless.
I suspect that Adams and Cuomo will be competing for the same slice of the electorate. So having both of them in there may well help Mamdani.
For sure, plus that other independent guy ...they are working hard to try to consolidate the votes to the leading candidate...but Adams and Cuomo both have such big egos, and both their campaigns are so driven by personal interests, that's hard to see happening.
I think that's a fair assessment. I also suspect each of them sees the other's flaws very clearly but is totally blind to their own. That's why they can't reach an agreement for only 1 of them to run. It'd be terrible if the electorate got so fractional that somehow Curtis Sliwa managed to eke out a win.
In the second graf, you make reference to the "clueless oligarchy." Excuse me, but the oligarchy is anything but clueless if you're referring to its goals. It knows those goals (more money, more power, less regulation), it is working to achieve them, and it collectively doesn't give a rodent's posterior about the ordinary citizens who are harmed by its actions.
Having said that, it's true that the oligarchy may be "clueless" in a limited sense -- in that it does not collectively understand the extent to which candidates like Mamdani connect with the real concerns of those ordinary citizens.
Now, when it comes to the N.Y. Democrats, your reference to the "clueless members of the New York State Democratic Party" is much more à propos, in my view. But you paint that "cluelessness" as a bad thing that led to Mamdani's emergence as the presumptive mayoral candidate. Why? Because there are potentially better candidates out there who are white? Whose name doesn't conjure images of Iranian religious fanatics?
Maybe NYC politics -- and state Democratic politics -- needs a real kick in the @$$, and it might just be that Mamdani is the one to deliver that kick.
You make a good point here. It is misleading to say that the 'centrist' NYC Democrats and their billionaire backers were 'clueless' about supporting Cuomo. They just held their noses and supported him, knowing full well who he is, simply because of how much they hate and fear Mamdani.
There are some notable exceptions to this- but this is the single biggest source of his support...a combo of being friendly with establishment Dems, and being ok with the scion of one of New York's most powerful political dynasties...while hating everything about Mamdani..he's Muslim, he's progressive, he won't kowtow to bad faith antisemitism charges,...and worst of all, he doesn't need them.
you are right on with this comment:
'the oligarchy may be "clueless" in a limited sense -- in that it does not collectively understand the extent to which candidates like Mamdani connect with the real concerns of those ordinary citizens'
Thanks, Jen. Excellent post! I love this:
“The degree of panic evidenced by the super-rich underscores their anxiety that ordinary voters have had enough of condescending oligarchs.”
YES!!! 👏🏼👏🏽👏🏾
Agree completely. The Democrats need a refresh from the corruption and arrogance of people like Cuomo and Adams. It would send a message that we are little different from Trump to elect either of them. Mamdani is maybe unrealistic with his proposals, but at least he has proposals, unlike Trump who said he would bring down prices and had no proposals, and (surprise) prices have gone up. Mamdani can call himself whatever he wants, but he's sincerely addressing real people's issues and I am rooting for him.
Re Bloomberg -- he hadn't held public office but he had built and managed a substantial, groundbreaking business. NYC has a $116 billion budget and hundreds of thousands employees of all sorts. Four years as a junior members of the state legislature is unlikely to have prepared Mamdani for the managerial challenges of being Mayor. I'm not arguing for Adams or Cuomo, neither of whom I support, but you shouldn't be dismissive of either Bloomberg's leadership credentials or the inadequacy of Mamdani's management experience. Btw I would group Bloomberg with FDR and Buffett as wealthy men who acted in civic duty.
Obama had no managerial experience and a thin legislative resume when he first ran for pres. He did a great job. Go Mamdani!
Being a big businessman is not the same as being a mayor.
Bloomberg won largely because he switched from being a Democrat to Republican and took the easy nomination with Giuliani's endorsement, back in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when Giuliani was still (bafflingly) loved and considered 'America's mayor'. He was then able to keep himself in office largely by massive funding from his own billionaire pockets. He spent $100 million of his own money just on the 2009 election.
Housing costs skyrocketed under his tenure, as well as police abuses, and then he extended his power by pushing through the permission of a third term...Everyone who lives here was flooded with full color glossy garbage in the mailboxes every time he ran.
(Ps- Giuliani has also never held an elected office before becoming mayor.)
Thank you Carol. I agree about Bloomberg and about Mamdani's lack of qualifications. Too many people are swayed by his smile, youth and energy and promises of free this and that.
I don't think Mamdani's aim is to provide "free this and that." It's to reduce the neediness of poor New Yorkers, and in some cases doing this means providing some free services and goods. It's an important distinction.
I'm looking at this election in terms of national outcomes. If Americans feel/see that left of center candidates are what Democrats put forth, then I fear GOP will continue to be reelected. We need center candidates who would appeal to a broad swath of American voters in upcoming elections.
right, like Hillary Clinton.,..or Kamala Harris...even Joe Biden really only squeaked in a win despite Trump's massive mishandling of the pandemic and endless scandals.
Mamdani did appeal to a 'broad swath of voters'. NYC is not Portland or Berkeley. Dems here are by and large pretty moderate. It needs to be repeated that Mamdani won the most votes of any NYC mayoral primary candidate in the city's history.
'Centrist' Charles Schumer is about the least popular figure in American politics right now, with worse approval ratings that even Trump...while AOC and Sanders continue to get high approval ratings and pull massive crowds.
I am really hoping AOC challenges Schumer for Senate...he needs to go, badly.
Why are left of center candidates more threatening than right of center candidates? Let candidates be clear about their priorities, without attaching labels, then let voters make their choices.