The New York Times has a few ideas on how Bloomberg can balance the budget in New York City. It should serve as no surprise that their suggestions follow a very liberal ideology.

Mr. Bloomberg knows he must raise taxes and cut spending while trying not to heap too much of the burden on any one segment of the population. He should begin with those who are carrying less than their share now.

On the surface, this seems like an acceptable premise. But the actual suggestions the Times makes don't hit the mark. They don't even support their premise of taxing those that carry 'less than their share now.'

...the East River bridges should [not] continue to be toll-free.

A tax on commuters and city residents that live in the outer boroughs. That should help bring people back into New York.

The commuter tax, which was unconscionably repealed in 1999, should be revived.

I think it's funny that they use the word "unconscionable".

Miriam-Webster defines unconscionable: 1: not guided or controlled by conscience : UNSCRUPULOUS 2: a: EXCESSIVE, UNREASONABLE b: shockingly unfair or unjust.

It is very telling that the New York Times finds the lack of a commuter tax unconscionable. I'm surprised they didn't just call it 'terrorism'.

A surcharge on the personal income tax that is slanted to the wealthiest New Yorkers...

What happened to taxing those that are 'carrying less than their share now'? Are we to believe that NYC currently taxes the poor and lets the wealthy get off scott free? How is increasing taxes on the wealthy the least bit fair? The communist liberal socialist answer is to tax those that have the 'ability' to pay.

The city can do an Albany bypass with an across-the-board hike in the property tax

Bloomberg is already floating the number 25 percent around. That means he'll probably come in around 10 or 15 percent, and is using 25 percent just to soften the blow. At least the times says 'across the board'. I won't be surprised if the socialist jack up the exemption to ween the poor and middle class off the tax rolls. (Then again, are there really any poor property owners in NY?)

...absentee landlords currently taxed at the single-family rate should be reclassified as commercial property owners...

Who do they think pays property tax? Tenants, perhaps? Taxing 'absentee landlords' that rent out their property will only serve to raise rental rates. Unless of course, they intend to use rent control to stick it to the property owners. In that case, properties will start to go into disrepair, or just close down altogether. Either way, property values will decline. Landlords are not going to rent their property at a loss.

The suggestions made by the Times are typical of someone that knows nothing about how economics work. NYC already lost thousands of local firms and employees when they lost the World Trade Center. Raising tolls, property taxes, and commuter taxes is no way to attract business back to New York. Taking money out of the hands of property owners and making rental properties unprofitable will only serve to degrade their economic situation even further. These measures are almost as absurd as raising cigarette taxes to balance your budget, and then following it up with a smoking ban. (Oh wait, NYC already did that!)

So, Bloomberg, the Democratic City Council and the Times are trying to seriously screw up New York City. Why should we care, we don't live there? Well, you can bet that after they pass all these anti-capitalist measures and still have a budget problem, they'll be looking for federal bailout money. And guess who will be footing that bill?