Dave Rubin recently shared a private DM clip that exposes the hollow center of Zohran Mamdani’s headline-grabbing promise to make New York City buses free. In the clip Mamdani flails when pressed on the dollars-and-cents of his proposal, a revealing moment that shows good intentions can’t paper over basic budget math. The exchange proves what conservatives have been saying for years: bold slogans are easy, funding them is not.
Mamdani has made “fast and free buses” a centerpiece of his platform, painting it as common-sense relief for struggling commuters and a symbol of progressive compassion. Yet even sympathetic outlets note the real price tag — roughly seven hundred million dollars a year to wipe out bus fares across the city — a number that should sober anyone who isn’t running on wishful thinking. Voters deserve leaders who can both promise and account for the money, not campaign theater.
So how does Mamdani propose to pay for it? His campaign sites and interviews point to raising the corporate tax rate to New Jersey levels and imposing a new surcharge on millionaires, ideas that sound popular at a cocktail party but run headlong into legal and political barriers. Those revenue claims are the linchpin of his plan, and if they don’t materialize — because Albany says no or businesses flee — the free-bus promise collapses into yet another unfunded municipal fantasy.
The political realities are brutal: any major tax change would need state legislative approval and cooperation from the governor, who has already signaled skepticism about tax hikes. This isn’t a problem you fix from behind a lectern in Brooklyn; it’s a fight in Albany with real consequences for jobs and investment. Conservatives don’t relish higher taxes, but we do value blunt truth — and the truth is Mamdani’s plan depends on political outcomes he may not control.
Beyond the fundraising fantasy, there are practical downsides citizens should fear: when government promises “free” services, quality and accountability often follow a downward spiral. Free fares can encourage fare evasion, higher crowding, and a loss of political will to actually improve service reliability, because voters stop connecting what they pay for with what they receive. If the goal is better transit, there are fiscally responsible reforms that prioritize speed and reliability without bankrupting essential city services.
Even some transit advocates are split on whether blanket fare elimination is the right tool, noting mixed results in other cities and pilots that didn’t produce universal wins. A cautious approach — targeted subsidies for low-income riders, investment in bus lanes and enforcement, and transparent cost-benefit analysis — would help the city actually move people where they need to go without inventing a permanent budget hole. New Yorkers deserve practical solutions, not ideological vanity projects.
At the end of the day this episode should remind every voter to be skeptical of candidates who treat government like a shopping list and taxes like a magic wand. Conservatives stand for common-sense stewardship: prioritize public safety, cut waste, reform services to be more efficient, and only expand programs when the math is clear and sustainable. If Mamdani wants to win over skeptical taxpayers, he should stop hiding behind slogans and start presenting a real plan with real numbers and real trade-offs.
