Cynical Nation

You didn't like his Pigovian traffic fee?

I thought it was a pretty good idea built on sound economic principles. And it was one of the few things that Spitzer and Bruno agreed upon (in favor of the fee).

I don't like his gun control policies either, but that doesn't mean everything idea he comes up with is bad.

And with his trademark goodwill at acknowledging the defeat, this transpired:

In a tense meeting on Monday, testy exchanges erupted between the mayor and the Democratic state senators he was trying to win over. At one point, according to several people present, Mr. Bloomberg told the senators that his administration had sent plenty of information about his plan in the mail, and that it was not his fault if they had not read it.

“If the mayor came in with one vote, he left with none,” said Senator Kevin S. Parker, a Brooklyn Democrat.

“His posture was not ingratiating,” he said. “He says he doesn’t know politics, and he certainly bore that out by the way he behaved.”

Understand, this is a multi-billionaire who is used to getting what he wants - every time.

Imagine him as president?

I surely cannot.

Exactly. Like most of his kind, he has zero patience for those who are not as "enlightened" as he, and nothing but exasperation for those who are too ignorant to see what's "best."

"Mr. Bloomberg told the senators that his administration had sent plenty of information about his plan in the mail, and that it was not his fault if they had not read it."


You know, it's actually amazing (stupifying actually) that this guy's a billionaire!

See, most really wealthy people are excellent communicators, in fact, they're usually extraordinary salespeople who can sell almost ANYthing to ANYone, but Bloomy's most noticable communicative trait is his trademark whine.

Maybe he made his fortune in one of those businesses where you don't have to interface much with other people....you know, like stuffing bodies into the trunks of cars.

Although.....I really don't think there's all that much money in that....hmmmmmm, UNLESS, of course, you're stuffing the right bodies, but I'd guess that just goes without saying, doesn't it?

Bloomberg was not the real reason that the congestion fee bill did not reach the floor:

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9476058

I'm sorry to hear that the measure failed--I'm with CRB; the traffic fee is by far the best way to combat heavy congestion. I wish we'd do it down here in the DC area, all we have are stupid HOV lanes that don't even give me the option of using certain roads/lanes during certain hours. At least a traffic fee lets those willing to pay the price use the road.

Well, here's the populist reason I oppose "congestion pricing."

While I realize that its MOSTLY well-off people live in Manhattan below 96th Street, in fact, I'd probably say, "If you're not very well-off, you probably shouldn't live there," BUT there are many people who aren't that well-off who live there - people who share apartments, etc. to get by and they already pay a large "convenience tax/fee" for the goods and services they buy due to the very high rents the businesses in that borough must pass on.

This added fee ("congestion pricing") that would apply to all shippers would also have to be passed onto Manhattan consumers, in the way of even higher prices!

OK, maybe only "the rich" SHOULD live in Manhattan below 96th, BUT should all those poor and working people be forced to pay even more for everything from groceries to electronics because the people shipping to those area businesses must pass on this tax/fee to the area retailers, who in turn, must pas it onto their consumers?

JMK, the congestion fee is $21 per truck. If you spread that cost out among all the items in the truck, we are talking about an increase of a few pennies per item.

And that doesn't include the reduced shipping costs associated with less congestion. My guess is that the time and fuel saved through faster deliveries would more than make up for the $21 toll.

A deal was reached in Albany yesterday, so Bloomberg's plan is back on track.

This added fee ("congestion pricing") that would apply to all shippers would also have to be passed onto Manhattan consumers, in the way of even higher prices!

You need to look at this in terms of trade-offs between fees incurred and time saved.

In the absence of a fee, the number of trips that can be made in a single day by a single supplier become more limited. In the presence of a fee that is too high, the number of trips that a single supplier can afford to make becomes more limited.

Obviously every procedure experiences a point of diminishing returns. But if you aim at the low end of that threshold, everyone can be made better off by the time saved as a result. After all, less time on the road means that more products can be transported in a single day; a greater supply means lower prices.

I realize that the problem with government is that it has difficulty, once it has chosen a fee that is too high, adjusting itself the way that a business would be forced to do in a competitive marketplace. But I think that even a small fee would be better than no fee at all; and it would certainly be more viable politically.

Bloomberg is a big government, big spending Republican, like Bush. Really, the two are almost exactly alike. Bloomberg will tell you what you can eat, and Bush will monitor your phone calls and sneak into your house to go through your stuff and make sure you aren't doing anything he doesn't approve of: all without a warrant or any oversight whatsoever.

Big government, intrusive, big spending Republicans.

Here comes the new boss, just the same as the old boss ...