Mayor Bloomberg may claim he’s not breaking any promises in renewing his call for a commuter tax on suburbanites working in the city but we doubt anyone believes him. In the first mayoral debate Mr. Bloomberg said “I would think for the next fiscal year, starting next July 1, if we focus on trying to do a little more with less, with the expansion of the economy, we will get through that year without any tax increases or fee increase.” It certainly sounded to us like a “Read my lips: No new taxes.”

But like the first Bush to be president, the mayor is breaking his no new taxes promise. He did the same in his first term where he raised taxes despite promises not to do so in the campaign. The mayor’s office denied Mr. Bloomberg’s reiteration of his support for a commuter tax – he tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade Albany to introduce it in 2003 – was a violation of his campaign promise. An official tried to explain that the mayor’s promise not to raise taxes or fees referred to using them to pay for new spending programs he had announced in campaign. The commuter tax, however, would pay for old programs.

Now that is some wriggle, even for a politician. On those grounds it means the mayor would have no qualms with raising property, sales, and income taxes and claim all the increases are to fund existing programs. The old revenue, meantime, would fund new programs. How gullible does the mayor think New Yorkers are? They’re not, and they’re no doubt outraged that after electing a businessman claiming to be a pro-growth mayor over a tax-and-spend Democratic Party opponent, Fernando Ferrer, they’ve ended up with a tax-and-spend mayor.

The mayor justified his support of a commuter tax, as he has done previously, by arguing suburbanites use the city’s services and so should contribute toward them. It is true that non-city residents who frequent the city benefit from the city’s finest ensuring their safety, having the streets cleaned and the roads cleared, and so on. So do tourists as well. Does the mayor support taxing their incomes, too? The fact is that taxing tourists would drive them to other cheaper destinations, damaging the economy. The same is true with suburbanites who work in the city – only more so.

Another argument heard in favor of the commuter tax is that the city already subsidizes the state, because the city pays much more in taxes to Albany than it receives back in subsidizes. The commuter tax therefore would be a way of equalizing out this indifference. This difference, however, is a part of the progressive tax system of this country. It’s the same in the city. The rich pay more and subsidize the services the poorer folks receive. We don’t hear any commuter tax proponents demanding a reduction in the progressivity of the tax code.

The Conservative Party’s candidate for mayor, Thomas Ognibene, told The New York Sun that he “always thought” the commuter tax “was a good idea.” It’s a sad thing for the city that none of the candidates any party could offer is able to draw the Laffer Curve. The tax debate in this city and state needs to be not about revenues but about incentives. The good news for New Yorkers is that the commuter tax has little chance of implementation. It was rejected by Albany when the mayor tried to introduce it in 2003,and all the same opponents are still in positions of power. But the mayor’s renewal of support for the commuter tax indicates he lacks the stomach to take on New York’s real problems and, after a historic campaign, may squander his political capital, not to mention his good name for keeping promises.