Is the claim that Zohran Mamdani reduced a 12 Billion Deficit to zero without cutting any social services actually true, and what does it mean in the long run? Any sideaffects? And if it is, could the same strategies applied be used to fix the financial situations of other states and/or countries?
Is the claim that Zohran Mamdani reduced a 12 Billion Deficit to zero without cutting any social services actually true, and what does it mean in the long run? Any sideaffects? And if it is, could the same strategies applied be used to fix the financial situations of other states and/or countries?
byu/Bidoofus24 inAskEconomics
Posted by Bidoofus24
3 Comments
It is straightforwardly false.
A significant amount of the savings came from Mandami directing various agencies to find savings, and counting those efforts as successful in advance.
They may or may not be successful, but if they save over a bill and a half, it will be by not spending that money on those programs.
The remainder is nearly all one time subsidies from the state. Someone giving you billions of dollars is handy, but it doesn’t generalize well. It doesn’t even generalize to NYCs future, when it will still have a deficit unless the spending/revenue gap is closed on a long term basis.
[Banking on yet to be determined revenue-raising gimmicks and identifying fake savings are not wins](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mamdani-brags-he-eliminated-nycs-12-billion-budget-deficit-but-then-a-new-york-outlet-dug-into-the-numbers/ar-AA235f1t)
[they have already need to ask the state for money which is the main issue. He](https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2026/05/governor-hochul-and-mayor-mamdani-announce-additional-aid-and-st) can say that the city won’t run a deficit because it’ll be given state funds.
Yes and no.
A large fraction of money is coming from Albany ($4 billion), due to good relationships between Hochul and Mamdani. Historically, however, these have not been long lasting, so this is likely to be considered a one time payment.
There has been reneging on some campaign promises (reduced class size), vague allusions to savings and efficiencies (reminds me of DOGE), and the tax on second homes above $5 million (dramatically overstates the likely revenues). Those come up with a substantial portion (school size is $1 billion, efficiencies is $1.75 billion, tax is $500 million).
The rest is deferring the due date for unfunded pension liabilities, from 2032 to 2037. I’m not a fan of pushing consequences to future generations, and that’s what this does.
So, yeah, it’s likely (if this is adopted), they get “close” to a balanced budget, but it relies on some gimmicks, one time payments, and overly optimistic revenue projections.