I hate it when Mayor Bloombertg does something right. Lucky for me, when, as here, he takes a positive step, he does it in a negative way. So the good news is also the bad news. As long hinted, Mayor Bloomberg has taken the useful, if somewhat technical, step or implementing for NYC planning purposes a somewhat more realistic definition of “poverty.” Announced by Deputy Mayor Linda Gibbs at the annual convention of the NAACP, the new formula will take into account some actual costs of living unlike the previous standard still used by the Federal Government (a jury-rigged, back-of-the envelope calculation accidentally frozen into federal law). The New York Times account is here , the Washington Post's is here and Gail Robinson's Gotham Gazette squib is here. The result of the Bloomberg rejiggering is that there are now, by NYC count, somewhat more poor people and somewhat fewer extremely poor people. (Why? Because the new model counts as income government benefits such as food stamps and Medicaid)The NY Post's amazing take after the jump. The bad news? As I see it, Mr. Bloomberg continues to fail and refuse to engage with the rest of us. This policy change (which I see as a step forward) has been carried out in typically high-handed Bloomberg-style: handed down as a finished thing without any among the rest of us. As we all know, the devil is in the details and the details of Mr. Bloomberg’s policy shift have not been the subject of public discussion . It’s as though he were our king. The NY Post railed against the new poverty measure, not because it viewed the method as inaccurate, but because it it didn't like the results the method produced:

The product was New York City's new poverty cut-off: $26,138 a year for a family of two adults and two children - up 27.9 percent from the official federal standard of $20,444. Fully 2 million people, or 23 percent of city residents, live at or below that figure - which includes the value of income from programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, supplemental feeding programs and housing vouchers. That's so many people that it would be scary - if the whole concept wasn't so utterly preposterous. Let's be clear: No family of four could survive for a year in New York City on a total income of $26,138.

The Post editorial writers certainly need a trip to the food pantry; they're the ones with no idea how many manage in NYC.