Mamdani Can't Get His Budget, So He'll Take Your Pension Instead

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is frustrated. Albany won't let him enact the extortive taxes on high earners that he wants, and he can't find enough money to balance the city's existing budget -- let alone finance his wish list of entitlements and "grand experiments." To construct "affordable housing" alone, Mamdani promised to spend $100 billion over his tenure.

If only there were a giant pile of money sitting around that Mamdani could tap for social spending that New Yorkers aren't willing to pay for . . .

Oh, wait a second! From the New York Times today: "The city has five separate pension funds, totaling around $320 billion in assets. In addition to investing in real estate across the city and around the world, the funds invest in stocks, bonds and private equity." These accounts are supposed to "provide retirement benefits for the city’s police officers, teachers, firefighters and more."

Say, here's an idea: What if city officials raided those funds to finance quasi-government spending that can't be approved democratically?

Now, the funds are set to invest more than $4 billion in affordable developments over the next four years, the city comptroller, Mark Levine, will announce on Thursday.
The significant infusion of money, which will more than double the funds’ current real estate portfolio, could help build or rehabilitate thousands of homes in and around the city, Mr. Levine said.
“It’s a pretty dramatic expansion in investment of housing in New York City — far beyond what we’ve been able to do historically,” said Mr. Levine, who is the legal custodian of the funds.

Is it now? Is it "far beyond what we've been able to do historically"? Might that be because previous officials had scruples about raiding people's pensions to pay for other people's housing?

Maybe I'm being unfair. After all, "affordable housing" projects in New York City might just happen to be really solid investments.

It has traditionally been harder to drum up investments for affordable housing, in part because tenants pay lower rents and investors are unlikely to receive returns as high as they would from market-rate projects.

Ah, not such great investments then. At least pension operators are only required by federal law to prioritize beneficiaries' financial interests over all other concerns. No big deal.

I can hear the progressives now. "Don't you think people should have housing?" Yes, I do. I would prefer to liberalize land-use regulations rather than subsidize developers, but the latter is a perfectly legitimate policy choice. But if you want to pursue that option, you need to convince the voters whose money you're using to do it. You cannot steal the money that you were entrusted to manage for someone else.

That's what this is: stealing. Socialism is the same as it ever was.