I've alwayse liked Mike

I've always liked Michael Bloomberg. He sees things in terms of a double-entry ledger and he is straight with his constituents. I've always admired his basic philosophy, "We can raise taxes or cut services. Which do you want?"

Generally I believe there are three ways to pay off credit (at a Federal level): 1) Mint more money 2) Cut benefits 3) Raise taxes. I invariable believe in raising taxes as an investment in our future. Printing more money may pay off the credit debt but it causes inflation, thus putting us all back in the same place in terms of buying power while it devalues the dollar. Any true fiscal conservative should be able to understand this. Cutting benefits leads to cuts in education, healthcare and crime and thus higher crime rates and a lower standards of living. This is a simply poor planning in terms of a long-term solution. How can the US ever move ahead if our education system continues to falter and inner cities are simply holding tanks for people destined for prison? Raising taxes pays off the deficit while keeping the value of the dollar and social standards high and crime low. It hurts upfront but it alleviates the long-term problems of debt and social injustice. This always seemed to me to be the way Mike Bloomberg presented his management of New York Ciy and I believe the city is in a better place now than it was a few years ago.

The following is Mayor Bloomberg's letter to the Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28mike.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

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.