Washington and Albany, more dollarsnto be put in the reach of outright crooksnand incompetents.nIncompetents, the very word to describenJohn Vliet Lindsay and AbrahamnD. Beame, the two mayors who presidednover New York’s demise. Lindsay, thenbright hope of 1960s liberalism, wasnaptly described by Robert Moses when hensaid: “If you elect a matinee idol mayor,nyou’re going to get a musical comedynadministration.” Beame was a patheticnfigure, small in all manner of statures,nvacant and baleful in appearance. Innsome ways they were antipodal figures,nbut they both reflected the liberal fiscalnpolicies that New York voters expected—fightingnwelfare reform, fatteningnup city employees, pledgingnmoney for all sorts of grandiose projects.nEven Newfield and DuBrul can’t defendnthese two—but they can’t reallynbring themselves to attack them for thenright reasons either. So they lay thenblame at the doorstep of the banks andnthe insurance companies and the big badncorporate interests.nOver and over again the big moneyncrowd is to blame. Now, I do not doubtnthat businessmen’s motives are sometimesnsullied, but to hold either thenMafia or the ruling machine politiciansnless morally repugnant than major businessninterests (as Newfield and DuBrulndo) is absurd. “It was the bankers whondid the hoodwinking—lying to thousandsnof helpless investors, to the press,nand even to the City Hall sharpies …”nthey claim melodramatically, “The truenstory has taken almost three years tonemerge: New York didn’t jump; it wasnpushed.”nBy this travesty of logic, it was thenbondholders and brokers who were atnfault for New York’s drunken-sailorneconomy. They were the manipulators,neven though the nation’s investors lostn112 billion in the aftermath of NewnYork’s semi-default, and hundreds ofnbanks were on the verge of collapse.nYet this is not enough for the authors.nThey suggest that the bondholdersnmight have forgiven the interest on thendebt or stretched the loan out furthern(how this would encourage furtherncredit for the City or cause it to reformnitself is not explained).nThis mentality is not too surprisingnbecause the entire analysis is transparentlynMarxist. The city’s crisis is notnits fault (although only a few otherncities like Yonkers or Cleveland havenfallen to such straits) it was part of an”national and international crisis affectingnthe entire capitalist system.”nThey excoriate “those academics whonhave grown rich preaching the disappearancen… of the class struggle.” Theynurge a state-run bank, a City take-overnof Con Ed, more public housing, greaternprogressive taxation, and job creationnby the federal government “becausenonly the national government has thenmoney to create millions of jobs.”nBut this is precisely the same blueprintnof government that created thenmess known as New York City. It wouldnmultiply the existing possibilities fornwaste and graft. Inexplicably, Newfieldnand DuBrul cannot see this. They arenable to recognize that private “monopoliesnare inherently inefficient; therenare no market forces to punish eitherngreed or poor judgment.” Yet theyncannot admit that the same forces arenat work in the state monopolies they sonfrantically urge.nX here are a lot of truly major factorsninvolved in the City’s fall whichnNewfield and DuBrul largely ignore,nfactors which caused 200,000 jobs tonflee over the course of two decades—an”soak-the-rich” tax philosophy thatncaused New York to be tabbed as havingnthe nation’s worst business climate.nNew York’s whole tax structure is notnmentioned, its state progressive incomentax which soared up to a 15 7o rate whilenneighboring states took a one or twonpercent flat rate, its eight percent statenand city sales tax, or the whole seriesnof rules and regulations designed tonstrangle initiative left among NewnnnYork’s business community.nAnd what had the taxpayer beennsqueezed/or.” To provide a level of welfarenbenefits not only generous in comparisonnto those of penurious Southernnstates but also by the standards of nearbynindustrial states; billions in Medicaidnfraud; a once-proud city university systemnthat degenerated into the swampnof open-admissions idiocy; padded bureaucraciesnwith exorbitant pay scalesnand unbelievable pension plans; a primarynand secondary school system thatnhas become a jungle; and a liberalmindedncourt system with the heart ofna social worker and the brain of a gnatnthat turns vicious muggers and murderersnout onto the street time and timenagain.nIn the course of each week I meetnwith typical New Yorkers around thenCity’s five boroughs, not just in the rarefiednatmosphere of Manhattan, but innthe middle-class neighborhoods ofnQueens and Staten Island, and in thendecaying slums of Brooklyn and thenBronx. When they speak of their frustrationsn(and they volunteer them quitenfreely). New Yorkers now speak ofntheir disillusionment with liberal government—withncrime and fear, withngiveaway programs that breed hostilitynand ingratitude, with guilt trips laidnon them by liberal pundits who findnsomething wrong in their having earnedna decent living for themselves and theirnfamilies, with federal programs thatncost more than they are worth.nYes, these are the things New Yorkersnare afraid of—muggers not bankers,ntaxes not Wall Street, unemploymentnnot corporate profit. For a long timenNew Yorkers bought the expensivensnake-oil panaceas of big government.nNow they are beginning to know better,nbut if their leaders follow the urgingsnof head-in-the-sand analysts likenNewfield and DuBrul they will nevernlearn the lessons of the recent past.nThey will order up more of the selfsamenpolicies that brought New Yorknto its knees. They will wreck what isnleft of the greatest city on earth. Dnil9nChronicles of Culturen