You don't have to like the tax the rich dress, I certainly don't think it was the right way to get anything done. But to ignore the sentiment behind that movement and act like policy is the only thing that matters to people is a mistake.
True. I admit to a bias against "cults of personality," for lack of a better term. I think Mamdani's appeal is largely his confidence, that he has a solution to a complex problem and he is the right person to implement it. (I also think people who say his win is a referendum on the establishment aren't wrong). I think this dynamic at least partially explains the popularity of both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. People like easy answers, though the proposed solutions are often easy to say but not to implement. Personally, I prefer the nerds, but I guess I've been the one boring everyone at parties.
The nerds always have a good plan, but they need to be paired with a visionary who can also dream big. It's like the book "Crossing the Chasm" that says every startup needs two people: A hippie and a nerd—the visionary with a bold idea, and the nerd who can actually make it work on paper. Unfortunately, in politics, we get either the visionary or the nerd, when what we really need is both in one person.
I appreciate your analysis, and this is the second rational piece I’ve seen lately that the two latter archetypes have something valuable to offer.
This is beside your scope here, but I want to vent regardless: that tweet you cite contains, in a nutshell, what gets in the way of the two camps collaborating. The social-democrat wing already distrusts the motives of the abundance wing and sees them as “third-way” cuomo democrats rebranded in an attempt to cling to power, and dripping condescension like his (not to mention straight up bigoted insinuations I’ve seen from others) don’t help.
I feel like this is a problem of mediation and repairing trust more than of policy disagreement.
Right, it's a weird place to be. Basically the wealthy keep propping up the Cuomo trad democrats (even though no one wants them), and then the rest of the democrats are fighting over whether the abundance or social democrats should be the future. It's unfortunate because the "critical thinkers" are all going for the abundance democrats because they like their policies better, but the general population wants the more progressive future the social democrats should give them. The obvious choice to me is to marry the two together, but the abundance side are too frightened of the social side, and keep labeling them as "radicals" which will just make them lose in the end.
The tax base for abundance policies only makes sense if Putin/Trump/Mogilevich have their way and the US fractures into culturally distinct regions that are more self governable.
Get behind it! (And we don’t really have a choice, anyway.)
Vote for me! I promise to give you whatever you want. Absolutely anything. Has Mamdani promised that much? No, he has not. Therefore, I am the better candidate, because I have promised more free stuff.
And I'll have rich people pay all your bills. Nirvana! Please, just don't ask yourself why the most socialist cities are also the most expensive to live in. Pay no attention to Chicago and San Francisco which, as they become more and more socialist, become more and more expensive to live in, but less and less desirable to live in. Think instead of how it is in your imagination. Pay no attention to reality.
This is why I’m saying we need to marry social democracy with abundance democracy. This is not a hard thing to do and they shouldn’t be opposed. Social democracies work well all over the world.
Have you read the Abundance book? It's a combination of private and public sector. (But with the public sector making it easier for the private sector to get involved.)
I agree that the US needs more Mamdani types to shake things up. Establishment Dems have lost the plot, and the Abundance types have the right policies, but aren't electable.
I only wish we could get Mamdani types without the heaping doses of anti-semitism and failed progressive policies like rent freezes.
Fully agree!!! But this is the takeaway Dems should be having: Find a Mamdani type with good policies. Instead they are focusing on burying the Mamdani types and putting forward policy wonks.
I'm with you -- with every word of this amazing article. And especially with your well-worded peroration:
" . . . we’re heading into the climax. The audience is restless, the stakes are sky-high, and the country isn’t waiting for a policy wonk with a white paper—it’s waiting for a protagonist with a vision. Someone who can step into the spotlight and rewrite the story of what this country can be.
"We need the abundance Democrat who’s going to create are more effective government—absolutely! But we also need the social Democrat with a bold plan to rebuild our country from the ground up."
Thank you for the links that take us back to your essays that flesh out your points.
If democrats want to win, they need an authentic person indeed. But that is where the common sense in this article ends. Mamdani's policies are beyond childish. His support for a global intifada is not compatible with any sort of society. Support for the woke and jihadi death cults is a sure path to self-destruction. With Mamdami at the helm, Democrats will send themselves into the dust bin.
Definitely do not support all of his views. But if Democrats don't look at the larger picture, that people are voting for him because they want a social democracy, they won't be prepared for future elections. We can find social democrats with better policies!
My issue is Mamdani is neither even if he pretends to be. He's not post woke, he's cut from the same divisive cloth of the ZIRP era, only with a Sepia filter. If he wins, I hope the millennials in east village like waiting in bread lines for their avacado toast
Together we can continue to build America into a shining city on a hill. This guy is not the way
It sounds like city grocery stores will only be in food deserts, so not sure why there would be lines for avo toast. Though I agree that his policies there are not the best ones. In an ideal world, we’d have a firebrand with good policies. But good policies alone won’t win any elections, at least not in this climate.
Food deserts only exist in places where it's not profitable to run a low margin business because the crime rate is too high. And this guy wants to defund the police.
Mamdani doesn't plan to defund the police, that's a smear campaign from the Cuomo camp. BUT, again, even if city-run grocery stores isn't the best idea, to focus on that is to miss the point that many people want to see America become more of a social democracy.
He has said that "violence is an artificial construction" when taking about breaking and entering. He wants more social safety nets and less police. They tried this in SF. It didn't work.
This is what I'm talking about that his policies contradict themselves.
If the point is that more people want social democracy, then the meta point is we need a more educated electorate
Socialism has failed every time it's been tried.
High tax capitalism (like the Nordic states of Europe) only works because:
1) they are highly homeogenus
2) they are rich in oil and natural resources
3) their defense is subsidized by the United States
Just because people want things to be "free" doesnt mean that the laws of supply and demand and the basic incentive structure that govern human behavior suddenly stop functioning
To be clear, I want an effective left. The left and right keep each other in check. I'm interested in the ideas proposed by Ezra Klein for example.
This is not an effective left. This is an embarrassing movement that apparently hadn't hit rock bottom yet before they course correct back toward the middle
"A more educated electorate" — one way you could achieve that is with socialized higher education. Are you ok with that?
Socialism (the economy owned by the government) has always failed, agreed. But social democracy (high tax, high service economies) work in many places apart from the Nordic countries, like nearly every country in Europe, Japan, and even Singapore—which is less of a democracy, but still has widely successful social programs—all without homogeneous populations and oil-rich countries.
I'm interested in Ezra's ideas too, and agree with nearly all of them. But alone, they won't provide enough of a change in America for Americans to be happy. An America that builds more and deregulates won't be enough to solve all of our other, many, problems.
Sounds like we agree on most things, and the things we don't agree on, we agree with the goals just not the means.
For example, you put forward the idea of socialized education. We already have that and it's terrible
Public education is tax funded socialized education and its a disaster. The average high schooler reads at a 7th grade level and only 25% are proficient in math through Algebra II according to NEAT. That's embarrassing considering we spend much more per pupil than Sweden or Norway who is top of the list (I wrote an article about why if you're interested)
The cost of Secondary education has skyrocketed due to government subsidized student loans while the value of a diploma, even in fields like computer science, have dropped drastically
Socialism is not the solution to education.
Competition, deregulation, and consumer choice are. Things that Ezra puts forward in his new book
In order words, capitalism is the answer. Not bigger government. Bigger government caused the problem
It’s going to be interesting to see what happens. I live in California and in my experience, the less government interference, the better. Also, NYC and other cities have tried rent freezes in the past and all it typically does is feed further into the housing crisis because insurance and property taxes go up every year, while the rent stays low. People who own the buildings begin to lose money so then they start pulling out of the rental market. I don’t blame them, if I’m not making money on something, then it’s going to the wayside.
Again, I’ve been following the race because I’m curious to see what happens, but I know in California, I’m sick to death of being taxed and having nothing to show for it. I have friends and family in NYC and they have similar feelings about their circumstances. I think no matter the outcome, it’ll send a message.
I definitely don’t think rent freezes are the way to go, and I agree with that criticism. And I hear you on taxes. It’s unfortunate that raising them doesn’t come with the benefits other countries get. But at some point we’ll have to push for that. Because we can’t even afford our current bill (hence the deficit).
The challenge for any office holder is that they have to be willing to fight someone in their own coalition. Abundance is great, but some of NYC’s unions make it really difficult to make any meaningful changes. Is Mamdani willing to take them on?
I don’t know, but I’d rather not see the party fight but unify. And behind someone with a rallying cry. Policy alone isn’t enough. That said, I’d like to see employee ownership edge out unions.
I don't mean they should fight now. But once in office a leader has to make tough decisions with the understanding that every policy choice involves tradeoffs. Otherwise nothing changes.
If not, could you ask the human who made them why I can’t discern one black face in the crowds supporting the potential candidates? Seems rather strange to me...
Love this piece. I haven't been following the NYC mayoral race really at all, and this was super engaging and educational. It's cool to see the ideas from the Elysian, which are usually discussed in relation to faraway places/politics, being applied to a moment happening here in the US. Personally I'd love to see more of this style!
Great article, Elle. I ranked four "abundance " candidates and with sadness put Cuomo fifth. Now that Mamdani won, I assume he will be the mayor and as such I hope he does a great job.
I agree that we need vibes and charisma to push and pull us closer to the Scandinavian model. And we need higher taxes to pay for it.
NYC competes with Florida and other places for the wealthy. I personally think it's absurd for people who earn enough to worry about their marginal tax rate to move for tax reasons. But wealthy people are just as irrational as any other economic class and perhaps more paranoid. So to me it's a question of whether a higher tax rate will mean greater tax revenues assuming there is some flight. In any event, the state sets taxes and the Gov. has already said no to the tax raises.
The state vs, state competition for businesses and residents is why I think federal taxes are the best mechanism to raise more revenue to fulfill an abundance agenda. But unfortunately we're right now moving in the wrong direction.
I know, I read a lot about the idea that the wealthy would just leave New York, and ultimately concluded that I don't think that will happen. That might happen with a lot of cities, but I think New York is one of the cities least vulnerable to that effect. I'm also sympathetic to the "let them leave" idea. Why couldn't NYC become a place for the youth, with good policies that attract a new generation of people? It doesn't have to be a city by the wealthy for the wealthy.
2% over $1 mm should not make a very wealthy person decide to leave the city. But my POV is from someone who has all and a lot their family here. So leaving is not an option for me even if I wanted to. I think the real fear, which is I hope and I believe is unwarranted is that the quality of life will go down.
I would vote for madani over Adams. Adams is a disgrace. Man, I wish Kathryn Garcia had won four years ago. She came close and she had my vote.
David, you’re older than most Zohran voters. Do tell about your reaction to his support for Infitada -he backed off defund police, but not that—you’re a thoughtful guy, just wondering
Yeah, I hope you’re right. I’m sure there are better people for the job, but they would have to be a real force like Mamdani is. For better or for worse, we’re in a phase of populism now and no one short of that will do.
Full disclosure. I’m an independent who’s tired about neither political party listening at all to the middle electorate (60-80%of us by definition with the majority being independents) and instead giving us money corrupted candidates shoving BS platforms down our throats they think we need.
What if one of the parties fielded an actual visionary leader as their presidential candidate who would fully support all humanity, stop military support of Israel, fully support Ukraine, stop gun violence by reducing gun access, balance the federal budget & pay down our national debt over time, enact 10 year term limits for politicians at each level and 18 years for SCOTUS, enact mandatory retirement age of 75 for all politicians and judges, properly source immigration to enable processing of all applicants under 30 days & provide a path to citizenship for all undocumented immigrants, ended mass incarceration & funnel all saved money back to drug rehabilitation and preventative education, simplify taxes significantly so affluent (and corporations) would always pay more as a percentage of total income (of operating income) regardless of income source, enact fair estate taxes so affluent wouldn’t be able to pass on > $25M, enact market based universal healthcare, provide more affordable housing, provide affordable child care for all, stop subsidizing the fossil fuel & other industries producing goods which are harmful to us?! Just saying…this is not rocket science.
The "tax the rich" dress was practically a Trump ad. It was self-parody, and pointed out everything wrong with champagne socialism. That was during Covid, and she was surrounded by masked servants kneeling at her feet. Here's what Glenn Greenwald said at the time: https://open.substack.com/pub/greenwald/p/the-masking-of-the-servant-class?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1zlqu
You don't have to like the tax the rich dress, I certainly don't think it was the right way to get anything done. But to ignore the sentiment behind that movement and act like policy is the only thing that matters to people is a mistake.
True. I admit to a bias against "cults of personality," for lack of a better term. I think Mamdani's appeal is largely his confidence, that he has a solution to a complex problem and he is the right person to implement it. (I also think people who say his win is a referendum on the establishment aren't wrong). I think this dynamic at least partially explains the popularity of both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. People like easy answers, though the proposed solutions are often easy to say but not to implement. Personally, I prefer the nerds, but I guess I've been the one boring everyone at parties.
The nerds always have a good plan, but they need to be paired with a visionary who can also dream big. It's like the book "Crossing the Chasm" that says every startup needs two people: A hippie and a nerd—the visionary with a bold idea, and the nerd who can actually make it work on paper. Unfortunately, in politics, we get either the visionary or the nerd, when what we really need is both in one person.
And on the rare occasions where that happens, the establishment sabotages them. . .
Yep!
I appreciate your analysis, and this is the second rational piece I’ve seen lately that the two latter archetypes have something valuable to offer.
This is beside your scope here, but I want to vent regardless: that tweet you cite contains, in a nutshell, what gets in the way of the two camps collaborating. The social-democrat wing already distrusts the motives of the abundance wing and sees them as “third-way” cuomo democrats rebranded in an attempt to cling to power, and dripping condescension like his (not to mention straight up bigoted insinuations I’ve seen from others) don’t help.
I feel like this is a problem of mediation and repairing trust more than of policy disagreement.
Right, it's a weird place to be. Basically the wealthy keep propping up the Cuomo trad democrats (even though no one wants them), and then the rest of the democrats are fighting over whether the abundance or social democrats should be the future. It's unfortunate because the "critical thinkers" are all going for the abundance democrats because they like their policies better, but the general population wants the more progressive future the social democrats should give them. The obvious choice to me is to marry the two together, but the abundance side are too frightened of the social side, and keep labeling them as "radicals" which will just make them lose in the end.
The tax base for abundance policies only makes sense if Putin/Trump/Mogilevich have their way and the US fractures into culturally distinct regions that are more self governable.
Get behind it! (And we don’t really have a choice, anyway.)
Vote for me! I promise to give you whatever you want. Absolutely anything. Has Mamdani promised that much? No, he has not. Therefore, I am the better candidate, because I have promised more free stuff.
And I'll have rich people pay all your bills. Nirvana! Please, just don't ask yourself why the most socialist cities are also the most expensive to live in. Pay no attention to Chicago and San Francisco which, as they become more and more socialist, become more and more expensive to live in, but less and less desirable to live in. Think instead of how it is in your imagination. Pay no attention to reality.
Chicago is awesome
It has its good points. I lived there for two years, years ago. It was crooked as hell then, it's far worse now.
This is why I’m saying we need to marry social democracy with abundance democracy. This is not a hard thing to do and they shouldn’t be opposed. Social democracies work well all over the world.
Who is it that will be producing this abundance? I'm guessing tht few people who post here produce anything at all.
Have you read the Abundance book? It's a combination of private and public sector. (But with the public sector making it easier for the private sector to get involved.)
No, I haven't read it. I've been too busy working.
I agree that the US needs more Mamdani types to shake things up. Establishment Dems have lost the plot, and the Abundance types have the right policies, but aren't electable.
I only wish we could get Mamdani types without the heaping doses of anti-semitism and failed progressive policies like rent freezes.
Fully agree!!! But this is the takeaway Dems should be having: Find a Mamdani type with good policies. Instead they are focusing on burying the Mamdani types and putting forward policy wonks.
I'm with you -- with every word of this amazing article. And especially with your well-worded peroration:
" . . . we’re heading into the climax. The audience is restless, the stakes are sky-high, and the country isn’t waiting for a policy wonk with a white paper—it’s waiting for a protagonist with a vision. Someone who can step into the spotlight and rewrite the story of what this country can be.
"We need the abundance Democrat who’s going to create are more effective government—absolutely! But we also need the social Democrat with a bold plan to rebuild our country from the ground up."
Thank you for the links that take us back to your essays that flesh out your points.
To all of this: Yes!
If democrats want to win, they need an authentic person indeed. But that is where the common sense in this article ends. Mamdani's policies are beyond childish. His support for a global intifada is not compatible with any sort of society. Support for the woke and jihadi death cults is a sure path to self-destruction. With Mamdami at the helm, Democrats will send themselves into the dust bin.
Definitely do not support all of his views. But if Democrats don't look at the larger picture, that people are voting for him because they want a social democracy, they won't be prepared for future elections. We can find social democrats with better policies!
Abundance democrats 🤝🏼techno optimist conservatives
My issue is Mamdani is neither even if he pretends to be. He's not post woke, he's cut from the same divisive cloth of the ZIRP era, only with a Sepia filter. If he wins, I hope the millennials in east village like waiting in bread lines for their avacado toast
Together we can continue to build America into a shining city on a hill. This guy is not the way
It sounds like city grocery stores will only be in food deserts, so not sure why there would be lines for avo toast. Though I agree that his policies there are not the best ones. In an ideal world, we’d have a firebrand with good policies. But good policies alone won’t win any elections, at least not in this climate.
Food deserts only exist in places where it's not profitable to run a low margin business because the crime rate is too high. And this guy wants to defund the police.
Mamdani doesn't plan to defund the police, that's a smear campaign from the Cuomo camp. BUT, again, even if city-run grocery stores isn't the best idea, to focus on that is to miss the point that many people want to see America become more of a social democracy.
He has said that "violence is an artificial construction" when taking about breaking and entering. He wants more social safety nets and less police. They tried this in SF. It didn't work.
This is what I'm talking about that his policies contradict themselves.
If the point is that more people want social democracy, then the meta point is we need a more educated electorate
Socialism has failed every time it's been tried.
High tax capitalism (like the Nordic states of Europe) only works because:
1) they are highly homeogenus
2) they are rich in oil and natural resources
3) their defense is subsidized by the United States
Just because people want things to be "free" doesnt mean that the laws of supply and demand and the basic incentive structure that govern human behavior suddenly stop functioning
To be clear, I want an effective left. The left and right keep each other in check. I'm interested in the ideas proposed by Ezra Klein for example.
This is not an effective left. This is an embarrassing movement that apparently hadn't hit rock bottom yet before they course correct back toward the middle
"A more educated electorate" — one way you could achieve that is with socialized higher education. Are you ok with that?
Socialism (the economy owned by the government) has always failed, agreed. But social democracy (high tax, high service economies) work in many places apart from the Nordic countries, like nearly every country in Europe, Japan, and even Singapore—which is less of a democracy, but still has widely successful social programs—all without homogeneous populations and oil-rich countries.
I'm interested in Ezra's ideas too, and agree with nearly all of them. But alone, they won't provide enough of a change in America for Americans to be happy. An America that builds more and deregulates won't be enough to solve all of our other, many, problems.
Sounds like we agree on most things, and the things we don't agree on, we agree with the goals just not the means.
For example, you put forward the idea of socialized education. We already have that and it's terrible
Public education is tax funded socialized education and its a disaster. The average high schooler reads at a 7th grade level and only 25% are proficient in math through Algebra II according to NEAT. That's embarrassing considering we spend much more per pupil than Sweden or Norway who is top of the list (I wrote an article about why if you're interested)
The cost of Secondary education has skyrocketed due to government subsidized student loans while the value of a diploma, even in fields like computer science, have dropped drastically
Socialism is not the solution to education.
Competition, deregulation, and consumer choice are. Things that Ezra puts forward in his new book
In order words, capitalism is the answer. Not bigger government. Bigger government caused the problem
Also, worth noting that I agree with you that San Francisco is run horribly.
It’s going to be interesting to see what happens. I live in California and in my experience, the less government interference, the better. Also, NYC and other cities have tried rent freezes in the past and all it typically does is feed further into the housing crisis because insurance and property taxes go up every year, while the rent stays low. People who own the buildings begin to lose money so then they start pulling out of the rental market. I don’t blame them, if I’m not making money on something, then it’s going to the wayside.
Again, I’ve been following the race because I’m curious to see what happens, but I know in California, I’m sick to death of being taxed and having nothing to show for it. I have friends and family in NYC and they have similar feelings about their circumstances. I think no matter the outcome, it’ll send a message.
I definitely don’t think rent freezes are the way to go, and I agree with that criticism. And I hear you on taxes. It’s unfortunate that raising them doesn’t come with the benefits other countries get. But at some point we’ll have to push for that. Because we can’t even afford our current bill (hence the deficit).
The challenge for any office holder is that they have to be willing to fight someone in their own coalition. Abundance is great, but some of NYC’s unions make it really difficult to make any meaningful changes. Is Mamdani willing to take them on?
I don’t know, but I’d rather not see the party fight but unify. And behind someone with a rallying cry. Policy alone isn’t enough. That said, I’d like to see employee ownership edge out unions.
I don't mean they should fight now. But once in office a leader has to make tough decisions with the understanding that every policy choice involves tradeoffs. Otherwise nothing changes.
Very well argued.
Were the three illustrations designed by an AI?
If not, could you ask the human who made them why I can’t discern one black face in the crowds supporting the potential candidates? Seems rather strange to me...
It’s definitely AI, and it was tricky to get them to even this spot!
Love this piece. I haven't been following the NYC mayoral race really at all, and this was super engaging and educational. It's cool to see the ideas from the Elysian, which are usually discussed in relation to faraway places/politics, being applied to a moment happening here in the US. Personally I'd love to see more of this style!
Ha!!! Ok ok, I can engage more with the present moment, and very much appreciate the feedback. 🥰 What do you want my take on?
Great article, Elle. I ranked four "abundance " candidates and with sadness put Cuomo fifth. Now that Mamdani won, I assume he will be the mayor and as such I hope he does a great job.
I agree that we need vibes and charisma to push and pull us closer to the Scandinavian model. And we need higher taxes to pay for it.
NYC competes with Florida and other places for the wealthy. I personally think it's absurd for people who earn enough to worry about their marginal tax rate to move for tax reasons. But wealthy people are just as irrational as any other economic class and perhaps more paranoid. So to me it's a question of whether a higher tax rate will mean greater tax revenues assuming there is some flight. In any event, the state sets taxes and the Gov. has already said no to the tax raises.
The state vs, state competition for businesses and residents is why I think federal taxes are the best mechanism to raise more revenue to fulfill an abundance agenda. But unfortunately we're right now moving in the wrong direction.
I know, I read a lot about the idea that the wealthy would just leave New York, and ultimately concluded that I don't think that will happen. That might happen with a lot of cities, but I think New York is one of the cities least vulnerable to that effect. I'm also sympathetic to the "let them leave" idea. Why couldn't NYC become a place for the youth, with good policies that attract a new generation of people? It doesn't have to be a city by the wealthy for the wealthy.
2% over $1 mm should not make a very wealthy person decide to leave the city. But my POV is from someone who has all and a lot their family here. So leaving is not an option for me even if I wanted to. I think the real fear, which is I hope and I believe is unwarranted is that the quality of life will go down.
I would vote for madani over Adams. Adams is a disgrace. Man, I wish Kathryn Garcia had won four years ago. She came close and she had my vote.
David, you’re older than most Zohran voters. Do tell about your reaction to his support for Infitada -he backed off defund police, but not that—you’re a thoughtful guy, just wondering
I think it's an awful view, stupid and adolescent. But Adams has no chance to be a decent mayor. Mamdani has a chance.
Yeah, I hope you’re right. I’m sure there are better people for the job, but they would have to be a real force like Mamdani is. For better or for worse, we’re in a phase of populism now and no one short of that will do.
Full disclosure. I’m an independent who’s tired about neither political party listening at all to the middle electorate (60-80%of us by definition with the majority being independents) and instead giving us money corrupted candidates shoving BS platforms down our throats they think we need.
What if one of the parties fielded an actual visionary leader as their presidential candidate who would fully support all humanity, stop military support of Israel, fully support Ukraine, stop gun violence by reducing gun access, balance the federal budget & pay down our national debt over time, enact 10 year term limits for politicians at each level and 18 years for SCOTUS, enact mandatory retirement age of 75 for all politicians and judges, properly source immigration to enable processing of all applicants under 30 days & provide a path to citizenship for all undocumented immigrants, ended mass incarceration & funnel all saved money back to drug rehabilitation and preventative education, simplify taxes significantly so affluent (and corporations) would always pay more as a percentage of total income (of operating income) regardless of income source, enact fair estate taxes so affluent wouldn’t be able to pass on > $25M, enact market based universal healthcare, provide more affordable housing, provide affordable child care for all, stop subsidizing the fossil fuel & other industries producing goods which are harmful to us?! Just saying…this is not rocket science.
This is why really we should be voting for a plan and a budget, not a politician!