Despite a $7.1 billion hole,Mayor Zohran Mamdani has pushed back against any serious cuts to his budget and instead wants to delay required payments to city pension funds.
That’s precisely the kind of tactics that brought the city to the brink of bankruptcy in the ’70s.
For the moment, the city is on track to meet its long-term pension funding obligations by its 2032 deadline.
Yet to help close his budget hole, Mamdani would push $1 billion worth of payments into the 2040s.
That would be both costly and risky.
It would leave the fund less sound as it strives to cover future pension payments to municipal retirees (which by law are backed by taxpayers).
And it would saddle future city budgets with added costs.
As the Citizens Budget Commission’s Andrew Rein warns, such a move would force “our children [to] pay even more of our bills.”
Meanwhile, Hizzoner’s budget clocks in at a whopping $127 billion. Budget hawks might call that a target-rich environment.
The mayor has promised to find $1.7 billion in savings from his agencies; if Albany allows a delay of its class size mandate, saving $1.4 billion, and the city is able to spend less on housing vouchers, representing another $1.3 billion, that would cover some of the shortfall.
Those are bigifs, but it’s a start. And there’s surely plenty more that can andshouldbe cut before resorting to financial gimmicks, like delaying pension payments.
Again, the city used just that kind of move for years — spending more than City Hall raked in in revenue — until it nearly went broke, with no one rushing to bail it out.
Mamdani needs to learn from that lesson, play by the rules and stop thinking about how to spend more than he’s got.
For all his socialist dreams, he still needs to deal with reality. Or the city will pay the price.
Republicans may soon need to write a thank-you note to Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy.
By convincing American business that a Democrat-controlled government is an existential threat, Murphy could be the guy who wins the midterms for the GOP.
The senator posted his latest anti-business broadside on X the other day, targeting Paramount head David Ellison by name.
“Ellison and the information oligarchs should enjoy it while they can,” he sneered, “because when Democrats win power we are going to break these anti-consumer, anti-free speech media conglomerates into pieces.”
This is rich: Murphy’s objection isn’t to information oligarchs, and it’s not in favor of free speech.
It’s to information oligarchs who aren’t controlled by the Democrats.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) speaks alongside Senate Democrats at a press conference on the Iran war powers resolution.Getty Images When Facebook and virtually the entire media apparat of this nation collaborated to swing the 2020 election against Donald Trump — evencensoring truthful reports, starting with The Post’s, about Hunter Biden’s laptop — Murphy sided with the conglomerates.
He called anyone spreading the story — which again turned out to be true — a “Russian asset.”
He wasn’t calling for breakups then, when virtually the entire US media apparat closed ranks to silence the story before the election.
Nor did he squawk when Google sent Republican Party emails to users’ spam folders, or when it and Meta silenced and demonetized conservative online outlets.
Now he is, along with other loudmouthed leftist senators like Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reuben Gallego (D-Ariz.), who are making similar threats.
I’m sure it’s playing well with the Democratic peanut gallery — but what the information oligarchs are hearing is that a Democrat-controlled government is a deadly threat to their very existence.
If I were they, I’d be thinking hard about how to do to the Democrats what was done to Trump in 2020: Make sure the other side wins.
Because this time, I think the Democrats are dead serious about their post-victory plans.
For decades, Democrats have been amping up their verbal attacks on “the rich” and “big business” — even as their support came increasingly from, well, the rich and big business.
Their rich supporters basically discounted that rhetoric, assuming it was all pablum for the peasantry.
And it was — then.
But now, big business must have noticed that Democrats’ attacks are no longer hypocritical.
Around the country, Democrats who are in power are going for the throats of their former allies.
In California, state legislators are killing the goose that laid their state’s golden eggs, mercilessly launching punitive taxes aimed at the very tech tycoons who have boosted California’s economy — and Sacramento’s revenues.
Many of those billionaires are leaving, and Democrats are responding by trying to figure out ways to keep taxing them even when they’re gone.
In the Big Apple, Zohran Mamdani has told us that “capitalism is theft,” and has called for “the end of the free market” and “seizing the means of production.”
Especially because Mamdani is no “parlor pink”: He’s backing up his words with (destructive) action in New York City, painting a target on billionaire Ken Griffin’s back while gloating over new taxes on the hedge funder’s expensive Manhattan apartment.
Mamdani calls corporations and businesses “predatory,” has waged war on landlords and is launching an attack on grocery stores that’s more likely to harm small bodegas than big chains.
(He hates business, you see, but he doesn’t understand business.)
And of course, Democrats across the nation are treating alleged CEO-killer Luigi Mangione like a hero, cheering the multiple assassination attempts on Trump and threatening to jail or silence their political opponents by force the moment they have the ability to do so.
Rich guys may have thought they could ignore all this noisemaking in the past, but the Democrats’ increasingly crazy constituents have become a violent threat.
And the increasingly crazy Democratic machine is a major legal and regulatory and fiscal threat, to boot.
Ironically, I’m actually in favor of antitrust action in certain areas.
When media and online businesses can be corralled by a political party as they were in 2020, it’s a sign they are too concentrated and wield way too much power.
But Murphy’s problem isn’t really that these industries are too concentrated — it’s that he and his party don’t entirely control them.
Look how upset Democrats were, and how damaged they’ve been, by Elon Musk’s purchase of just one platform (Twitter, now X) they once controlled.
Well, I may not be a billionaire, but when somebody says he plans to destroy me if he wins back power, I’m going to do my best to make sure he never gets the chance.
Let’s see if the actual billionaires are equally smart.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and founder of the InstaPundit.com blog.
In a thread on X, Walz — the 2024 Democratic nominee for vice president — said he was putting criminals “on notice” and tried to take credit for the investigations.
“If you commit fraud in Minnesota you’re going to get caught — and that’s exactly what we saw today. We catch criminals when state and federal agencies share information. Joint investigations work, and securing justice depends on it,” he wrote.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz defended the FBI raids on Tuesday.Getty ImagesAn FBI Evidence Response Team agent enters The Original Childcare Center building in Minneapolis as DHS officials execute a search warrant on Tuesday, April 28, 2026.AP
“Today’s raids by state and federal law enforcement happened because our state agencies caught irregular behavior and reported it. That’s how the system is supposed to work, and our agencies will keep at it as long as there are fraudsters around to put behind bars,” he said in uncharacteristically full-throated support for the law enforcement action.
However, he also added a call to investigate the killing of two Minnesotans by federal immigration agents earlier this year.
“Now let’s work on a joint investigation into the killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good — instead of cherry-picking when we seek justice and when we turn a blind eye,” he said.
In January, Walz announced he would not seek a third term as governor after being accused of allowing mass fraud — largely among Somali immigrants — to fester under his watch.
This is a breaking story. Please check back for updates.
As efforts continue to revive talks with the United States, Iranian lawmakers and state-linked outlets are increasingly calling for secrecy around negotiations.
The growing calls for secrecy may reflect an effort to control the narrative as divisions emerge at home over how far Iran should go in any negotiations.
Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani, a member of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, told reporters on Monday that “not everything about the negotiations needs to be stated openly.”
He compared diplomacy to marriage negotiations, where each side conceals parts of its background until after an agreement is reached, insisting that secrecy does not contradict transparency with the public.
Iran used similar tactics at least twice in recent history: during the release of American hostages in January 1981 after 444 days in captivity, and in August 1988 when it accepted the ceasefire that ended the eight-year war with Iraq.
On Tuesday, ultraconservative lawmaker Amir Hossein Sabeti, a prominent anti-US figure, called for “nuclear ambiguity,” arguing that the United States and Israel would have used nuclear weapons against Iran had they known the exact location of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles.
His remarks coincided with similar statements from other lawmakers urging officials not to speak publicly about Iran’s positions on the nuclear issue or the Strait of Hormuz—two of the central obstacles in diplomatic efforts to break the deadlock in Iran-US relations.
US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that Tehran had told Washington it wanted the Strait of Hormuz reopened “as soon as possible,” suggesting efforts to revive talks may include discussions over shipping through the strategic waterway.
In a Truth Social post, Trump said Iran was in a “state of collapse” and was trying to resolve “their leadership situation,” though Tehran has not publicly commented on the claim.
In Tehran, conflicting public statements have underscored divisions within the political establishment over the talks.
Ultraconservative MP Ali Khezrian told state broadcaster that all doors of negotiation with the United States were shut down” adding that no messages were being exchanged through intermediaries.
Yet other lawmakers have acknowledged that talks are continuing, including Ardestani, who said, “we cannot stop negotiating … we have won the war, and we need to establish our victory in negotiations.”
Khezrian and Ardestani both said hardline cleric and lawmaker Mahmoud Nabavian—who accompanied the Iranian delegation to Islamabad during the first round of talks—was there only to brief parliament afterward.
Nabavian later said it had been “a mistake” to include the nuclear issue in the discussions.
In a report published on April 27, Khabar Online cited conservative commentator Mohammad Mohajeri criticizing lawmakers and some officials for making “uncalculated” statements on foreign-policy matters, including Iran’s position on the Strait of Hormuz.
According to the report, remarks about imposing taxes on shipping, proposing a “new legal regime” for the waterway, or using the term “closure of the strait” instead of “control” have raised concerns they could harm Iran’s national interests and create legal complications.
Khabar Online also warned lawmakers not to undermine the authority of the Supreme National Security Council, which coordinates national-security and foreign-policy positions.
An Iranian lawmaker accused the United Arab Emirates of preparing to support the United States in a potential renewed attack on Iran, warning that the country would be “taught a lesson” in any future conflict.
Ali Khezrian, a member of parliament’s national security committee, said Emirati citizens should be aware that the country will be "taught a lesson" if Abu Dhabi aligns with Washington.
Acting US Ambassador to Ukraine Julie Davis is expected to leave Kiev in the coming weeks, people familiar with the matter told the Financial Times (FT), potentially leaving a crucial diplomatic post vacant as Russia prepares a summer offensive and peace talks remain stalled.
Davis has served as temporary charge d'affaires at the US Embassy in Kiev since May 5, 2025. A three-decade career diplomat, she has grown frustrated by differences with US President Donald Trump over his declining support for Kiev, the FT reported.
Her planned departure follows Bridget Brink's resignation in April 2025 and comes amid broader turnover among Ukraine specialists.
Former FBI Director James Comey has been indicted on Tuesday for a second time over a social media post that officials said threatened United States President Donald Trump.
The indictment centers on an Instagram photo posted last May showing seashells forming "86 47," captioned "Cool shell formation on my beach walk," which critics said referred to removing or killing Trump.
Meanwhile, Comey said he "didn't realize some folks associate those numbers with violence" and added, "I oppose violence of any kind" after deleting the post, while he was later questioned by the Secret Service. The move marks a renewed push by the Justice Department after a previous case against Comey was dismissed.
