Affordability, Not Ideology: What the 2025 New York City Election Might Be Really Saying

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

I find it easy, given my own anti-socialist and anti-communist persuasion, to dismiss the recent New York City election as another swing toward unsustainable government expansion. Yet, setting that aside for a moment, can I look at the undercurrents and learn something? It is with that tone that I ask the reader to do the same.


1. Beneath the Headlines

The surface story was political: a progressive candidate, Zohran Mamdani, wins the mayor’s office on a platform of rent freezes and expanded public services. The deeper story, however, may have little to do with ideology and everything to do with survival.

By mid-2025, Manhattan’s median rent had climbed above $5,000. Outer-borough rents rose by double digits. Nearly one-third of New York households spent more than 30 % of their income on housing. Real wages, adjusted for inflation, stagnated. Even a two-income household found itself slipping behind.

So, when voters filled out their ballots, were they embracing socialism—or simply trying to breathe? Never underestimate the mind of one gasping for air.


2. The Language of Livability

Affordability has quietly replaced ideology as the true dividing line in American cities. Once, debates centered on party and policy; today, they revolve around whether an ordinary worker can stay in the place they serve. It’s not “left” or “right”—it’s whether the math still works.

When groceries, utilities, childcare, and transportation rise faster than wages, the question becomes practical, not philosophical: How long can I keep this up?

And while official inflation may appear calm at 2–3 %, that number hides what many households actually feel—what I call “personal inflation.” It’s the unmeasured rise in daily living costs that comes from housing, insurance, food, and utilities outpacing wages year after year. (See Appendix A.)


3. Misreading the Message

Some national voices called the election a socialist surge. Perhaps that’s a comforting narrative for those who like clean storylines. But what if it was instead a referendum on affordability itself—a protest against unlivable economics, not capitalism?

People who can no longer afford their city don’t vote for theory; they vote for relief. To interpret that desperation as a political movement risks missing the lesson entirely.


4. A Mirror for Other States

It is no secret that Texas has been one of the largest beneficiaries of the affordability exodus from both New York and California. Companies, families, and entire industries have moved to Texas in search of lower taxes, less regulation, and a livable cost structure. That success is worth celebrating—but it should also serve as a warning.

When infrastructure begins to wear out, when roads, power grids, and water systems reach their limits, and when taxes inevitably rise to repair them, the same logic that drew businesses here could just as easily justify their departure. If our cost of living rises unchecked, Texas could become tomorrow’s cautionary tale.

Economic migration obeys no loyalty. It follows cost, opportunity, and predictability.


5. The Numbers Behind the Feeling

Nationwide indicators tell the same story:

  • The United States faces a housing shortfall of roughly 4.5 million homes.
  • Nearly half of renters are now “cost-burdened,” spending over 30 % of income on housing.
  • Real wage growth since the pandemic lags inflation by about one percentage point per year.
  • In large metros, home-price-to-income ratios have hit historic highs, locking out first-time buyers.

These are not partisan statistics. They describe a system under strain. The vote in New York, then, may have been less about political faith than about financial fatigue—and compounded by the gap between official and personal inflation.


6. What a Professional Reader Might Conclude

A city—or a state—cannot sustain endless cost escalation without losing its workforce and its investors. The “affordability signal” from New York should not alarm us ideologically but alert us practically. It says: If you neglect cost control, people and capital will find somewhere else to go.

For policymakers, that means:

  • Treat affordability as infrastructure—as essential to maintain as highways or water lines.
  • Encourage balanced housing growth, removing unnecessary zoning friction while preserving standards.
  • Manage public debt and taxation with restraint, so long-term costs don’t erode the very advantage that drew new residents and firms.
  • Invest in maintenance before crisis, since deferred repairs always cost more later.

These aren’t partisan remedies; they’re managerial ones.


7. Asking Instead of Declaring

Still, the most productive posture may not be to prescribe but to ponder. What if the real issue beneath New York’s vote was not belief but endurance? What if the new political currency isn’t ideology but livability? Could affordability, quietly, be the next great civic value—the measure of whether a city still works for the people who build it?

If so, the warning is clear and shared: when living becomes unaffordable, no philosophy can hold a city together.


8. Closing Reflection

So, before we dismiss the New York outcome as a drift toward socialism, we might instead see it as a flare on the economic horizon. It reminds us that affordability—whether in New York, Los Angeles, Austin, or Dallas—is not a slogan but a threshold. Cross it, and even the most loyal residents and businesses will leave.

The lesson is not political; it is operational. Affordability is the quiet foundation on which every ideology, every enterprise, and every community must stand.


Appendix A: Personal Inflation — The Hidden Multiplier of the Affordability Crisis

Every few weeks a headline reassures us that inflation is “under control,” that the national rate has settled near 2 % or 3 %. Yet nearly everyone you meet feels poorer, not richer. The explanation is both simple and unsettling: the inflation that matters most is personal, not official.


1. The Illusion of Average

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) measures national averages across hundreds of goods and services. It was never designed to mirror the reality of any one household. It’s the economic equivalent of averaging the temperatures of Alaska and Arizona and calling it a mild day.

The CPI basket assigns weights based on the average U.S. household—an imaginary blend that includes homeowners, renters, retirees, students, and high earners alike. But your household’s spending profile—your personal basket—is unique. When your largest costs are housing, insurance, utilities, and groceries, the “average” CPI number becomes almost meaningless.


2. The Real Basket Most Families Carry

Consider two households:

  • Household A, a retired couple with no mortgage and stable investments, spends mainly on travel, entertainment, and medical care.
  • Household B, a working family renting a home, paying for childcare, commuting daily, and carrying health and auto insurance.

Both face an “official” inflation rate of 2 %, yet Household B experiences cost increases closer to 8 – 10 %. Why? Because its essentials—housing, food, energy, and insurance—rise far faster than the discretionary goods that dominate CPI weightings. Economists call this the distributional effect of inflation: the same average conceals drastically different outcomes depending on what you buy.


3. Lagged Housing, Hidden Pain

Housing is the largest single cost in most budgets, yet it enters the CPI through a lagged and diluted formula called Owner’s Equivalent Rent. The index assumes homeowners “rent to themselves” and spreads changes over twelve months, muting spikes in real rents and mortgages.

By the time the official numbers catch up, renters have already moved, landlords have already raised rates, and affordability has already deteriorated. This delay creates a comforting illusion of stability while real budgets collapse.


4. Substitution and Shrinkflation

The CPI assumes that when prices rise, consumers substitute cheaper goods—switching from steak to chicken, name brands to generics. On paper, that keeps inflation low. In reality, it disguises a decline in living quality.

Shrinkflation compounds the deception: packages get smaller, ingredients cheaper, and value erodes while prices stay “flat.” Statistically, that looks stable. To families, it feels like theft by a thousand cuts.


5. The Arithmetic of Erosion

Even modest inflation compounds powerfully. A 4 % annual rise in essential costs over five years represents a 22 % real loss in purchasing power. If wages rise only 2 %, the gap widens relentlessly. The result is what we now see in every major city: households squeezed not by recession but by attrition—the slow bleed of paychecks that never quite stretch to the end of the month.

This is why polls show that even as official inflation cools, more than 70 % of Americans still feel the cost of living is worsening. Their perception is mathematically valid: their personal inflation truly is higher.


6. The Broader Consequence

When policymakers rely solely on headline inflation, they misread the economy’s pressure points. The data may suggest calm while households experience crisis. That false sense of stability delays corrective policy and allows affordability to deteriorate invisibly until it erupts as political unrest or migration.

This is the quiet multiplier behind the affordability crisis. Personal inflation erodes stability one paycheck at a time, magnifying every other vulnerability—housing shortages, wage stagnation, and public frustration. By the time the official metrics confirm distress, the damage is already systemic.


7. Texas and the Next Test

Texas currently enjoys the reputation of affordability that New York and California have lost. But the same arithmetic applies. Housing in major Texas metros has risen more than 40 % since 2019, property taxes are climbing faster than wages, and infrastructure maintenance is overdue. If local cost pressures continue unchecked, the same personal inflation that hollowed out coastal states could quietly take root here as well.

Economic migration follows cost mathematics, not state pride.


8. The Real Lesson

Maybe the story of the 2020s isn’t about whether the Federal Reserve hits its 2 % target, but about whether ordinary citizens can still afford to live with dignity. The charts may show victory, yet the grocery carts tell another story. Personal inflation—unseen, unmeasured, but deeply felt—is how an affordability problem becomes a societal one.

Until policymakers, employers, and communities account for this hidden inflation, they will continue to mistake quiet erosion for progress. Affordability will keep slipping, not because prices explode, but because the numbers that define “normal” no longer describe reality.

The Socialist Experiment in New York City: Vision Meets Fiscal Reality

A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI

Introduction

The election of a mayor in New York City who identifies as a democratic socialist signals a dramatic shift in the city’s political narrative. Proposals such as fare-free public transit, universal childcare, city-run grocery stores, and rent freezes have energized supporters who see them as necessary correctives to inequality and high living costs.

Yet beneath that enthusiasm lies a more sobering arithmetic: the city’s finances are already tight, its labor and pension obligations immense, and its economy increasingly dependent on a shrinking number of high-income taxpayers. The balance between compassion and solvency — between vision and viability — will determine whether this new era becomes an urban renewal or a fiscal unraveling.


I. New York City’s Financial Context

The latest Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (FY 2025) shows that the city closed the year with revenues of $117.66 billion and expenditures of $117.69 billion — essentially a balanced budget achieved by drawing modestly from restricted funds. After adjustments, a small $5 million surplus was credited to the Rainy Day Fund, raising it to $1.97 billion.

This appears healthy until one examines the trend lines. The City Comptroller and State Comptroller both forecast out-year deficits of $2.6 billion in FY 2026, widening to $7–10 billion by FY 2028–29. Pension obligations remain enormous despite an 89 percent funded ratio, labor costs are escalating, and COVID-era federal funds have largely expired.

In other words, New York is balancing its budget in a good year with almost no margin for error. A downturn, a real-estate correction, or an over-ambitious spending spree could easily tip it back into the red.


II. The Socialist Policy Agenda

The mayor’s policy wish-list targets affordability at its roots:

  • Free or low-cost mass transit
  • Universal childcare and pre-K
  • City-operated grocery stores in food deserts
  • Expanded tenant protections and rent freezes
  • Greater municipal ownership of infrastructure

Each of these goals carries moral appeal. But together, they represent billions of dollars in recurring obligations that will persist long after political enthusiasm fades. Implementing even half of these programs without new recurring revenues would expand the city’s structural deficit dramatically.


III. Revenue, Tax Base, and Business Climate

The proposed funding approach — raising taxes on high-income residents, large corporations, and real-estate speculation — will face both political and economic resistance.

  • Political resistance: Many of these measures require approval from Albany, where state lawmakers must balance suburban and upstate constituencies less receptive to urban redistribution.
  • Economic resistance: Roughly 1 percent of taxpayers provide nearly 40 percent of personal income-tax revenue in NYC. Even modest out-migration among high earners or firms could erase the expected gains from new tax rates.
  • Market perception: Wall Street, real-estate developers, and major employers watch credit outlooks closely. Higher taxes and heavy regulation could depress hiring, slow construction, and weaken commercial-property values — already under pressure from remote work and high vacancies.

These effects don’t occur overnight, but over several budget cycles they can hollow out the very tax base needed to sustain social programs.


IV. Bond Ratings and Borrowing Capacity

At present, New York City’s credit ratings remain high — Aa2 from Moody’s, AA from S&P, and AA from Fitch — all with stable outlooks. These ratings assume continued budget discipline, strong tax collections, and access to credit markets.

Should the city run persistent multi-billion-dollar deficits or fund recurring programs with one-time revenues, that stability could erode. Even a single-notch downgrade would increase borrowing costs by tens of millions of dollars per issuance. Plus, rating changes usually apply to all outstanding issues, meaning the largest consistency for all governments will get equally stiffed. Given the city’s dependence on annual borrowing of $12–14 billion for capital projects, that would quickly compound into hundreds of millions in added interest.


V. Legal Liabilities and Operational Costs

The city already pays roughly $1.4–1.5 billion annually in legal claims — police misconduct, labor disputes, civil-rights cases, and infrastructure accidents. A socialist administration likely to push faster hiring, expanded benefits, and new regulations may unintentionally increase exposure to lawsuits and administrative complexity.

These are not hypothetical: NYC’s risk portfolio is vast, and new programs create new compliance risks. Legal settlements and overtime overruns have quietly strained the budget for years — issues any mayor, socialist or not, must confront.


VI. The Broader Economic Setting

Even without policy shocks, New York’s economy is fragile in several sectors:

  • Office occupancy remains below pre-pandemic levels, reducing property-tax growth.
  • Hospitality and retail have recovered unevenly.
  • Finance and tech, the city’s fiscal engines, are cost-sensitive to regulatory or tax changes.

Layering aggressive redistribution atop those fragilities could dampen hiring or investment. While not catastrophic immediately, the cumulative effect would be slower growth, fewer jobs, and ultimately lower tax receipts — precisely when the city’s spending commitments rise.


VII. The National Ripple Effect

Other progressive cities — Chicago, Seattle, Boston, perhaps Austin — may watch New York closely. They will adopt pieces of this agenda (municipal grocery pilots, partial transit-fare relief) if results seem favorable. But few will gamble their bond ratings or business ecosystems on full replication.

In this sense, New York’s mayor becomes both pioneer and cautionary tale: admired for ambition, judged by execution.


VIII. The Realistic Risks Ahead

A sober appraisal must acknowledge what can realistically go wrong:

  1. Revenue Shortfall Spiral: If tax hikes trigger out-migration or weak compliance, revenues could decline even as spending rises. Once bond markets sense erosion of the tax base, borrowing costs climb and confidence wanes.
  2. Program Cost Overruns: City-run enterprises and free-service models are historically prone to inefficiency. Without strict oversight, projected costs could double, as seen in past housing and transit initiatives.
  3. Labor and Pension Escalation: Expanding public programs often means expanding payrolls. Each new civil-service position brings long-term pension liabilities the city cannot easily reverse.
  4. State Disputes: If Albany resists authorizing new taxes or programs, the city could face legal stalemates that delay funding while political promises remain unmet.
  5. Economic Shock: A recession, commercial real-estate correction, or major loss in Wall Street profits could instantly erase the city’s narrow surplus and expose the fragility of its social agenda. Recessions are not if but when the next one occurs.
  6. Credit Downgrade: Persistent deficits or fiscal gimmicks would lead rating agencies to shift outlooks to negative, forcing the city to cut spending, raise taxes further, or both — a cycle that can quickly turn populism into austerity. They are the only independent entity that cares not just about today but how the future bondholders are going to get paid.

IX. The Most Likely Scenario

The most realistic projection is a politically energized but fiscally constrained administration. The mayor will likely succeed in implementing a handful of visible programs — perhaps expanded childcare and targeted transit subsidies — but larger ambitions will stall amid budget shortfalls, business pushback, and credit scrutiny.

The public narrative may celebrate “bold change,” but the spreadsheets will show a city juggling rising obligations, marginal surpluses, and deepening long-term gaps.

In short: the dream will proceed, but only as far as the balance sheet allows.


X. The Black Swan Scenario — The Wrong Time for New York, the Right Time for Texas

While New York experiments with costly new commitments, Texas is quietly building the next great financial center. The Texas Stock Exchange (TXSE), headquartered in Dallas, is preparing to launch with backing from major investors such as BlackRock and Citadel Securities. Goldman Sachs is constructing a campus for 5,000 employees; JPMorgan Chase already employs more people in Texas than in New York; Nasdaq has announced a regional headquarters there.

If a black swan event hits — a financial-market crash, a sudden collapse in NYC commercial real-estate values, or a capital-gains exodus triggered by new taxation — the balance of power could shift rapidly. Texas, with no personal income tax, lower costs, abundant housing, and an open regulatory climate, would absorb the outflow of capital and talent. Texas could be the black swan event!

The timing could not be more opposite for the two states. New York is entering a period of fiscal experimentation with razor-thin margins, while Texas is in a period of economic expansion and institutional investment. A severe downturn would strike New York when it can least afford it — saddled with new spending and declining revenues — but it would strike Texas at a moment when it can capture opportunity.

In that worst-case but plausible scenario:

  • Wall Street decentralizes as firms expand or relocate to Texas, eroding NYC’s tax base.
  • Bond markets lose confidence and demand higher yields on NYC debt.
  • Layoffs and migration accelerate, reducing both population and purchasing power.
  • Property values decline, cutting the city’s largest revenue source.
  • Austerity returns, undoing the very social ambitions that inspired the movement.

It would be, in essence, a black swan reversal of roles — Texas ascending as New York falters, the right place meeting the right time while the old capital of finance learns how quickly vision can collide with math.


Conclusion: Vision Without Solvency Defies Common Sense

New York City’s socialist experiment will test whether progressive ideals can coexist with fiscal realism. The mayor’s heart may be with the working poor, but numbers are stubborn things: every new entitlement must be paid for in perpetuity, not just proclaimed at a press conference.

Without disciplined budgeting, credible revenue streams, and cooperation from the state, even noble ambitions could accelerate the city toward financial distress. Remember 1975? The world’s financial capital cannot thrive if it loses the confidence of those who fund it, employ it, or lend to it.

History teaches that great cities fall not from bold ideas but from ignoring basic arithmetic. Unless ideology bends to economic gravity, the risk is not revolution — it is regression.

The Shutdown That Won’t End: How America’s Fiscal Stalemate Became a Test of Creditworthiness

And Why the Bond Rating Agencies May Hold the Only Key to Ending It

By Lewis F. McLain, Jr.


I. The Standoff That Never Ends

Another fiscal year, another government shutdown.
The United States now governs by brinkmanship — running on a series of temporary spending bills that barely prevent collapse but never deliver stability. Each new “continuing resolution” buys only weeks of political truce.

In Washington, they call it negotiation. Everywhere else, it looks like a nation living paycheck to paycheck. It is actually worse than that. The U.S. has gotten by only by putting most of its excess on a credit card to the tune of $35,598,000 or $324,100 per taxpayer!

These short-term fixes, designed to “keep the lights on,” have become the defining symbol of America’s fiscal dysfunction. Lawmakers boast of avoiding disaster while guaranteeing the next one. The cost is not measured in missed paychecks alone, but in lost credibility — both with citizens and with the global markets that finance the republic.


II. Why the “Big Beautiful Bill” Didn’t Fix the Problem

When Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) earlier this year, it was hailed as the long-awaited cure to America’s budget ills.
It was indeed a sweeping structural law — extending key tax cuts, revising welfare programs, and reshaping federal-state funding formulas.

But OBBBA was a policy framework, not an appropriations bill. It set the rules for how money could be spent but didn’t actually fund the government. The twelve annual spending bills that keep every agency running — from Defense to Education — remain incomplete.

Thus, the government shut down not because it lacked a vision, but because it lacked a functioning process. Even the worst person for financial management on planet earth could do better than the U.S. Government.


III. The Politics of Delay

Short-term CRs are not bureaucratic accidents; they are political strategy.

  1. They Preserve Leverage.
    A short CR allows each side to claim the next cliff as bargaining power.
  2. They Manufacture Urgency.
    By setting artificial deadlines, Congress ensures every debate becomes a crisis.
  3. They Diffuse Blame.
    Everyone claims partial credit for “keeping government open,” while no one takes responsibility for its paralysis.

This cycle — a patchwork of temporary lifelines — has become normalized. Yet in any other organization, such repeated failure to adopt a budget would be grounds for a downgrade, a leadership change, or both.


IV. The Rating Agencies: Watchful, But Timid

The major rating agencies — Fitch, Moody’s, and S&P — continue to issue cautious statements, but their restraint now borders on abdication. One must remember that they charge a fee to the governmental entity being rated, they represent the bondholders! The bondholders are the greatest constituency to be found. There are 350 billion U.S. citizens. Compare that to the $37 trillion “constituents” they represent.

  • Fitch warns that shutdowns “highlight governance challenges” but sees no immediate rating impact.
  • Moody’s, more decisive, already downgraded the U.S. from Aaa to Aa1 in May 2025, citing deficits and political dysfunction.
  • S&P notes that each week of shutdown could shave up to 0.2% from GDP growth but stops short of taking further action.
  • Scope Ratings in Europe calls the shutdowns a “negative signal of democratic decay.”

They are not wrong — just toothless.

Bond rating agencies are worthless when they only rattle sabers, if that.
Warnings without enforcement invite complacency, not reform. If a sovereign borrower can repeatedly risk default on its own operations without consequence, the rating system itself becomes performative — an echo chamber of polite disapproval.


V. The Garland Precedent: When Ratings Spoke Loudly

There is precedent for courage I am aware of. In the 1970s, the bond rating agency visited the City of Garland, Texas in person — not to offer advice, but to deliver a direct warning message.

The message was simple: “Stop playing tough on fiscal decisions. Balance your budget responsibly or face a likely immediate downgrade.”

The City Council took the warning seriously. By the next meeting, they had adopted corrective measures, and the city’s fiscal health stabilized. The visit worked not because Garland Council feared markets, but because it respected accountability.

It’s a story quietly echoed in other cities of that era, I’m sure — times when rating agencies acted like stewards of discipline, not commentators on chaos.


VI. The Case for Action Now

If such resolve worked in a Texas city half a century ago, imagine its effect on Washington today.
Bond rating agencies have the authority — and arguably the duty — to intervene decisively.

They could collectively declare this message before October 1:

“The United States has two weeks to fully reopen and fund the government, or face a downgrade of more than one notch.”

That single sentence would do what months of posturing cannot. Markets would react within hours.
Treasury yields would rise, the White House and congressional leaders would receive immediate pressure from financial institutions and state treasurers, and public attention would snap to the true cost of dysfunction. By the way, do you know how much of the $37 trillion is owned by foreign investors? What happens if the day comes for their $9 trillion in holdings to mature, they take the money, and decide to invest elsewhere? Go to http://www.debtclock.org to appreciate how fast it takes to rack up another $1 trillion in debt!

It would no longer be a debate about ideology — but about national credit survival.


VII. Why This Matters

Bond markets are not emotional. They reward stability and punish delay.
The United States retains its privileged position — as issuer of the world’s reserve currency — largely because investors still believe in its reliability.
But belief is not infinite. Every short-term CR and every unending shutdown erodes the myth of American infallibility.

A bold, time-bound ultimatum from the rating agencies would instantly clarify what is at stake:
that U.S. governance, not solvency, is now the chief risk to U.S. credit.


VIII. The Moral of the Shutdown Era

The nation’s fiscal problem is not a shortage of dollars — it is a shortage of discipline.
The Treasury and Federal Reserve can print money; it cannot print credibility.

Congress treats shutdowns as leverage. Presidents treat them as bargaining stages.
And the bond market, by refusing to act, has become the enabler of dysfunction.

The rating agencies have a choice: to remain cautious chroniclers of decline, or to be the mirror that forces reform. Their ratings are not just financial metrics — they are moral verdicts on governance.


IX. Conclusion: The Rating That Could Save a Republic

“Credit,” wrote Alexander Hamilton, “is the soul of a nation’s economy.”
But in our age, it may also be the conscience of a government that has lost its will to govern.

The bond rating agencies can end this stalemate — not by writing reports, but by drawing a line.
Two weeks. No more delays.
Reopen the government fully or face a downgrade severe enough to awaken both Wall Street and Main Street.

If they have the courage to act — as they once did in Garland, Texas — they could remind America that accountability still matters.

Because credibility, once lost, cannot be borrowed back.


Lewis is a municipal finance expert living in McKinney, Texas. While semi-retired (after 52 years), he was once the Garland Budget Director, the Dallas County Budget Officer (first in Texas) and then a VP in Public Finance for First National Bank in Dallas (now Bank of America). After his first ten years, he started consulting for local governments (about 40).

He still consults with about 16 entities such as DART, Brazoria County and the cities of Denton, Groves, Highland Village, Killeen, Leander, McKinney, Midland, Pearland, Richardson, Southlake, Stafford, Victoria and Wichita Falls. He has written several hundred articles, essays and blogs, most of which can be found at citybaseblog.net. He has also given hundreds of presentations at workshops all over Texas and other states, including a training session for young bond rating analysts in NYC years ago.

He was the Executive Director for the Government Finance Officers of Texas years ago and had an Ethics Award created in his name.