Tag: news

New York City is already one of the most expensive places to live in the United States, but residents should brace themselves to pay even more for housing if the city’s budget deficit persists.

On Tuesday, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced that the city was facing a budget deficit of $5.4 billion over the next two years. If the state or city does not raise income taxes to balance the budget, as is required by the city’s charter, Mamdani says he will raise property taxes on over 3 million residential units and 100,000 commercial buildings by 9.5 percent. 

The city’s impending fiscal crisis became impossible to ignore when New York City Comptroller Brad Lander released the city’s annual financial report in December. In the report, Lander predicted budget gaps of $2.18 billion and $10.41 billion for FY 2026 and FY 2027, respectively. A month later, Mamdani blamed former Mayor Eric Adams’ “staggering fiscal mismanagement [for leaving] a $12 billion hole in NYC budget for the next two fiscal years.”

Lander, Adams’ comptroller, noted “a recurring pattern of decisions that defer difficult budget choices rather than address them” and identified “the expiration of Federal pandemic aid and the surge in asylum seekers seeking shelter from the City,” the latter of which cost the city over $8 billion from 2023 to 2025 and is projected to cost another $3.6 billion through 2029, according to the New York State Comptroller’s asylum seeker spending report.

New York City’s total expenditures increased from $106 billion in FY 2022 to over $117.5 billion in FY 2025 under Adams. While the budget will increase by $4.5 billion in FY 2026 and $9.5 billion in FY 2027 compared to 2025 levels, 96 percent of this $14 billion in new spending is to cover underfunded programs implemented by Adams, not Mamdani. 

Mamdani reduced the two-year, $12 billion deficit to $7 billion “by deploying in-year reserves, committing to an agency savings plan and incorporating higher-than-expected revenues,” according to a Monday press release. (Mamdani’s savings plan requires the Chief Savings Officers, which he instituted at every city agency in late January, to identify savings through “program consolidation and insourcing, and by eliminating/sunsetting programs” by March 20.)  

To further reduce the deficit, Mamdani wants more state tax revenue to go to the city.

At a late January press conference, Mamdani lamented how “New Yorkers contribute 54.5 percent of state revenue and receive only 40.5 percent back.” The irony here, City Journal’s Adam Lehodey notes, is that Mamdani is essentially objecting to progressive taxation—giving out less in benefits to those who contribute more in revenue—between the city and state, while advocating for such taxation within the city. 

Luckily for New Yorkers, Mamdani’s inconsistency did not compromise his appeal to Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul. 

On Monday, one day before the city’s budget deadline, the governor agreed to allocate $1.5 billion from state coffers to help address the city’s funding. Still, a roughly $5.4 billion deficit remains. To eliminate this remainder, Mamdani called on Albany to raise income tax rates on the 33,000 New Yorkers making over $1 million a year and to raise “corporate taxes on the most profitable corporations.”

New York State already taxes corporate income at a base rate of 6.5 percent, which rises to 7.25 percent on income over $5 million. Meanwhile, New York’s top marginal individual income tax rate—10.9 percent on earnings over $25 million—is the third highest in the nation. 

Compounding this tax burden, New York City has its own corporate income tax of up to 9 percent for businesses that make over $1.1 million in revenue. The city also taxes individual incomes at a rate of around 3.1 percent, which increases to about 3.9 percent on income over $50,000 for single filers. 

If revenues can’t be raised by increasing these rates, Mamdani will take nearly $1 billion out of the city’s Rainy Day Fund, over $200 million from the Retiree Health Benefits Trust, and jack up property taxes as “a last resort.” These taxes already stand at around 20 percent for family homes, 12 percent for apartment buildings, and 11 percent for commercial properties. 

Before realizing his multibillion-dollar promises of new spending, Mamdani is going to have to address the profligacy of his predecessor, most likely through “a tax on working- and middle-class New Yorkers.” So much for “the warmth of collectivism.”

The post Mamdani To Increase NYC Property Taxes by 9.5 Percent To Balance Budget if Income Taxes Are Not Raised appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/hxPpz7J
via IFTTT

Do you remember Judge Robert Pratt from the Southern District of Ohio? Probably not. In December 2020, he made headlines by giving an interview with the Associated Press about President Trump’s pardons:

“It’s not surprising that a criminal like Trump pardons other criminals,” senior U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt of the Southern District of Iowa told The Associated Press in a brief phone interview Monday. In a bit of humor, he said: “But apparently to get a pardon, one has to be either a Republican, a convicted child murderer or a turkey.”

As I noted at the time, Pratt also made a gratuitous comment about the Emoluments Clauses–an issue that was then-pending before the Supreme Court:

He noted that the framers of the U.S. constitution sought to stop U.S. officials from “enriching themselves” while in office by banning gifts and payments from foreign powers. Ongoing lawsuits have accused Trump of illegally profiting off the presidency through his luxury Washington hotel. A White House spokesman declined comment on Pratt’s remarks.

I observed:

What is wrong with federal judges? Trump derangement syndrome has permeated Article III. Judge Pratt should follow the lead of Judge Adelman, and apologize before he is sanctioned.

I suppose the one plus side of this incident is that only one judge–so far–was willing to talk to the press. I hope there are not more. Judges should never, ever, talk to reporters.

Well, he would not apologize on his own. Chief Judge Lavenski Smith found there was “cognizable misconduct.” Pratt accepted that finding, and apologized for his “inappropriate partisan statements.”

I largely forgot about Judge Pratt, until I noticed this story about his obituary.

An obituary for Pratt, who was born May 3, 1947, described him as a man who “championed the underdog and the uncelebrated” throughout his career in public service.

Obituaries are usually written by family and friends who might not be tuned into the nuances of judicial ethics. Then again, Judge Pratt demonstrated through his own comments such a lack of discretion.

Should we celebrate judges for championing underdogs and uncelebrated? Is that their job? I am not a fan of the phrase “equal justice under law,” but it at least gets the point across that lady justice wears a blindfold. Everyone should get a fair shake before the court. Still, much of the caselaw from the Warren Court requires putting a thumb on the scale in favor of the “underdog.” The entire point of the Footnote 4 dictum from Carolene Products is that courts can reinforce the representation of groups that lack access to the political channels. Yet another reason to get rid of Footnote 4 altogether. I hope the Court does not reaffirm it any further in Hecox, the transgender cases.

I recently re-watched Justice Thurgood Marshall’s farewell press conference after he announced his retirement. I included this excerpt in my Civitas column on the SCOTUS NDA:

 In 1991, Justice Thurgood Marshall held an infamous press conference after he announced his retirement. At the time, the conservative Judge Clarence Thomas was viewed as a potential replacement for the liberal Marshall. A reporter asked Marshall if President George H.W. Bush had an obligation to name a minority justice. Marshall replied that “I don’t think that should be used as an excuse” for “picking the wrong negro.”

Well, that part was a bit cringey. But other parts were light-hearted, and even refrehsing. Another reporter asked if Marshall worried that his replacement would undermine the Justice’s civil rights legacy. Marshall’s answer (I am paraphrasing) was that when he became a federal judge, he was no longer an advocate, and no longer represented any clients or cause. He simply decided the cases. Therefore, Marshall said, it wasn’t his concern what would happen to his legacy. I was touched by Marshall’s comments, which I thought were exactly right. Justice Ginsburg took a very different approach with her final words. She said, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

The post Should A Federal Judge Be Remembered For "Champion[ing] the Underdog and the Uncelebrated"? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/vOqZR03
via IFTTT

This week, guest host Zach Weissmueller is joined by Fardad Farahzad, a prominent Iranian journalist and the primetime anchor of 24 with Fardad Farahzad, a nightly news program on Iran International, a Persian-language channel based in London that broadcasts into Iran via satellite. Farahzad discusses what it’s like working for a media outlet that the Islamic Republic has labeled a terrorist organization, and the personal risks that come with reporting on Iran from exile.

Farahzad and Weissmueller talk about how Iranians access uncensored news despite the regime’s efforts to block satellite television, jam signals, and restrict the internet. They also discuss the state of Iran’s protest movement, how the regime has responded to dissent, and why Farahzad believes the Islamic Republic is facing deeper internal challenges than in past cycles of unrest.

The conversation explores the prospects for regime change, the declining appeal of Islamist ideology among younger Iranians, and the growing prominence of Reza Pahlavi as a unifying opposition figure. Farahzad also weighs in on U.S. policy toward Iran, including President Donald Trump’s rhetoric about military pressure, and whether the legacy of the Iraq War should caution against American intervention in Iran.

 

0:00—Intro

1:07—How Iranians watch censored newscasts

9:49—Government accusations against Iran International

14:39—Covering Iran from exile

16:51—Failings in U.S. media coverage of Iran

20:05—Protester casualties in Iran

27:53—Reza Pahlavi

34:09—Trump’s threats of military action

41:12—Was it a mistake to abandon the Iran nuclear deal?

43:49—Difference in U.S. reaction to Gaza vs. Iran

50:33—Islam as a political force in Iran

53:09—What options does the Islamic Republic have left?

• Producer: Paul Alexander
• Audio Mixer: Ian Keyser

The post Can Iran's Protest Movement Topple the Regime? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/Zq3QYz8
via IFTTT

This week, Stephen Colbert—host of CBS’ The Late Show—interviewed Texas state Rep. James Talarico, a candidate in the state’s Democratic Senate primary on March 3.

But it didn’t air. As Colbert explained, CBS declined to broadcast the interview as a result of recent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines relating to the equal-time rule. If anything, the incident just provided further proof that the rule should be abolished.

“[Talarico] was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast,” Colbert told his audience, who booed in reply.

According to Colbert, the network cited the equal opportunities requirement, better known as the equal-time rule. Stemming from the era when the limited broadcast spectrum was the only way to transmit radio or television, the equal-time rule says if a “legally qualified” candidate for public office appears on broadcast TV in the weeks before their election, the network must “afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office.”

In a statement posted to X by CNN’s Brian Stelter, CBS said it did not keep Colbert from airing the Talarico interview, but it “provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule…and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled.“

Talarico is one of three candidates running in the state’s Democratic Senate primary, plus eight Republican candidates; under the equal-time rule, if CBS aired Colbert’s interview with Talarico, it could be required to offer equivalent airtime to each of the other 10 candidates. CBS would only be required to make the offer, though any candidates that accepted would then mean the network must coordinate long-form interviews to air in the two weeks before the primary. (In its statement, CBS noted only that airing Talarico’s interview could include equal-time considerations for his two fellow Democratic candidates, U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett and businessman Ahmad Hassan.)

The equal-time rule allows exceptions for “bona fide” news coverage, and for decades, this was understood to include interviews. Richard Nixon appeared on The Jack Paar Show in 1960 and on Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In in 1968, each time just weeks before an election in which he was competing. During the 1992 presidential primaries, Bill Clinton endeared himself to younger voters by playing the saxophone on The Arsenio Hall Show.

But in a January directive, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr sought to upend that interpretation.

Carr advised that going forward, “a program that is motivated by partisan purposes” would not qualify as “bona fide” news coverage exempt from the equal-time rule.

What qualifies as “partisan” motivation, as opposed to just catering to your overwhelmingly liberal audience? That’s apparently in the eye of the beholder. As a result, networks are less likely to book liberal guests and risk running afoul of an FCC chair who apparently relishes his reputation as President Donald Trump’s “media pit bull.”

But even in the face of the equal-time rule, Colbert still did the interview. The full 14-minute video is available on the show’s YouTube page, as well as on Paramount+, the streaming service of CBS’ parent company. YouTube and streamers are both beyond the reach of the FCC’s equal-time rule.

So, for that matter, is cable news: After he leaves CBS in May, Colbert could host a show on the left-of-center cable news channel MS NOW (formerly MSNBC), on which he only interviews Democrats, and the FCC would have no purview to complain.

That, ultimately, is the takeaway from this bit of jawboning—not that Carr is protecting the public’s precious airwaves, but that there is little reason for them to be protected in the first place.

Last week, Colbert’s broadcast averaged 2.45 million viewers; his interview with Talarico eclipsed that total within 24 hours of hitting YouTube. That’s not to mention the number of people who watch it on streaming, or on social media platforms like Instagram or TikTok.

The equal-time rule originated in the era when radio was the only form of broadcast; it later expanded to include television, but for decades, that only included the major broadcast networks. Now, most Americans get their information online, either eschewing broadcast TV altogether or just catching it on streaming services or YouTube.

The equal-time rule even makes little sense in practice. On Wednesday, Colbert is set to interview Sen. Jon Ossoff (D–Ga.), a declared candidate in the 2026 midterm elections. But since Georgia’s candidate qualification period does not begin until March 2, and the primary itself is not until May 19, Ossoff is not yet a “legally qualified” candidate as defined under federal law, putting him outside the equal-time rule’s qualifications.

Clearly, for whatever merit the equal-time rule had when Congress first drafted it nearly a century ago, it has only become more unnecessary and onerous with time. Even when applied with some level of logic and fairness, it still constitutes a top-down federal mandate that a broadcast network air certain content, at a time when it has never been easier for consumers to find any content they want.

“Brendan Carr’s FCC is continuing its streak of naked partisanship by wielding the agency’s power in new and laughable ways,” Robert Corn-Revere, chief counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said in a statement. “Candidate interviews have long been exempt from ‘equal time’ rules for good reason. It would be wrong if a Democratic administration demanded conservative talk radio hosts give equal airtime when they interview candidates, and it’s wrong for the Trump administration to demand the same of late night talk show hosts.” In fact, as Colbert noted during his broadcast, Carr said last month that he would not be targeting conservative talk radio with his new directive.

“By putting pressure on late night talk shows critical of the Trump administration while openly admitting that conservative talk radio is immune from the FCC’s ire,” Corn-Revere added, “[Carr is] making himself the poster boy for big government putting its thumb on the scale of political debate.”

The post Stephen Colbert Says CBS Killed an Interview Because of FCC Equal-Time Rule appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/sgNB0G5
via IFTTT