The recession has led to belt-tightening all around, including tax increases and spending cuts to balance state and local budgets.

Further, the City of New York, under the leadership of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has done a pretty good job closing its budget deficit, while maintaining essential public services.

This post is part of our feature on Money Winners of 2008. See them all.

In Michael Bloomberg, you're dealing not just with a person, but with a brand.

Bloomberg, of course, in 1982 founded what is now Bloomberg LLP, the firm that runs Bloomberg News, a financial news service that competes with Reuters, Dow Jones, and News Corp. (NYSE: NWS) to provide breaking news, features, data, and analytics, among other products, to financial players worldwide.

Bloomberg ingeniously developed a product that essentially aggregated, summarized, and presented financial market data at a time when financial institutions -- particularly bond market participants -- were ripe for such a product, and along with editor and former Wall Street Journal reporter Matt Winkler, built a financial news empire known for its speed, accuracy, and comprehensive coverage of the markets.

Bloomberg's reward for the above, in monetary terms? About $20 billion in estimated net worth, good for eighth place on Forbes magazine's 400 Richest Americans list.

One of the few things that Barack Obama and John McCain agreed on during last night's televised debate was that billionaire Warren Buffett would make a good Secretary of the Treasury.

Odds are that the universally respected Buffett won't take the job. Why does he need the headache at this point in his life? Besides, he may not be the type of government official investors would like. Much to the horror of political conservatives, the Oracle of Omaha is backing Obama. He has come out against such bedrock Republican principles as abolishing the so-called death tax on inherited wealth. The financial disclosure requirements alone probably are enough to scare Buffett away from government service.

To counter Obama's Buffett card, McCain said that former eBay Inc. (NASDAQ: EBAY) CEO Meg Whitman might be the right person for the job. I guess no one mentioned to the Arizona senator the massive layoffs planned by the online auctioneer. Interesting how another McCain supporter, ex-Hewlett Packard Co. (NASDAQ: HPQ) Chief Executive Carly Fiorina, did not merit consideration. Given her disastrous tenure, it's no wonder.

Another good potential Treasury Secretary neither brought up is Michael Bloomberg. The founder of Bloomberg LP (where I worked for seven years) clearly knows the markets. He's rich and has shown savvy in navigating New York City's political landmines that Washington should be a walk in the park. Too bad he's got his heart set on a third time as mayor.

Want a classic example of how the real estate slump is affecting not only the construction industry and home owners, but also states and municipalities, as well?

Consider the plight of the nation's largest city, the City of New York.

Wall Street's mortgage losses have ballooned to such a degree that some firms may pay small or no taxes for years, Bloomberg News reported. That's right: no taxes for years.

Rising tax revenues, no more

For much of the current decade, indeed for much of the 1990s as well, the city could count on rising tax revenue from Wall Street firms -- based on increased securities industry business -- as a starting point for the city's budget. Not now: the city, which derives about 20% of its revenue from Wall Street businesses, is projecting a decline in revenue from Wall Street firms -- a contraction that is expected to widen the this year's $1.5 budget deficit in fiscal 2009 to $2.3 billion next year, fiscal 2010, and then to $5.96 billion in fiscal 2011 budget deficit, Bloomberg News reported. The city's budget for fiscal 2009 is $59.1 billion.

The Wall Street recession has put the social service goals of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on hold, for the most part. Bloomberg has already asked city department and agency heads to implement a 6.4% spending cut; he will likely ask department heads to identify other cost savings of up to 3%, should revenues continue to come in below projections.

As expected, New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg's blind trust is interested in buying Merrill Lynch & Co. (NYSE: MER)'s 20% stake in Bloomberg LP for between $4.5 billion and $5 billion, according to The New York Post.

The acquisition would give Bloomberg total control over his namesake media company and my employer for seven years. Merrill, of course, also is looking to unload its 49% stake in Blackrock Inc. (NYSE: BLK) to shore up its balance sheet. No word on potential buyers there.

As I posted yesterday, Mike Bloomberg is a logical buyer for the Merrill stake in his company. Bloomberg has the right of first refusal of the sale as well, which probably scared away the few other potential buyers that were out there. Bloomberg LP also prides itself on being a private company that marches to the beat of its own idiosyncratic drummer.

Merrill shareholders, including a close relative, have not had too much to smile about lately. Shares of the New York-based investment bank are down more than 41% this year. Obviously, it's selling its assets from a position of weakness. The New York mayor will gain control over his media empire at a bargain that would have been unimaginable a few years ago.

Merrill Lynch & Co. (NYSE: MER) may wind up selling its 20% stake in Bloomberg L.P., the parent of Bloomberg News, to Mike Bloomberg.

Bloomberg, whose personal fortune is estimated by Forbes magazine at $5 billion, can easily afford the buy back the 20% stake in his company that he does not already own. Given its financial condition, Merrill better hope that the New York mayor is willing to open his check book. Other media companies are not going to shell out big bucks for a minority stake in the company where I worked for seven years. This is especially true given that many of Bloomberg's biggest customers in Wall Street are cutting spending given the uncertainties in the world's financial markets.

Maybe the private equity players would be willing to pay up provided that they could see an exit strategy through an IPO. I don't see that happening either. Bloomberg, which the Wall Street Journal says has the right of first refusal for the sale, likes being a private company because it enables it to march to the beat of its own drummer. That was especially true when Mike Bloomberg ran the show.

Okay, I'm filing this under "things you get to do if you have more money than God."

On Thursday, Mike Bloomberg, mad genius, obscenely rich guy, and mayor of New York, announced that he would not be pursuing an independent Presidential run in 2008. The next day, he followed that up with a statement that he is considering backing another Presidential candidate ("Backing," in this context, translates into "roughly a billion dollars in campaign funding"). While everyone has assumed that he is planning on helping one of the three current front-runners, his vague wording opens up another possibility.

You see, when Bloomberg announced that he had decided not to run, he stated that an independent candidate "could win the race," but that it wouldn't be him. This makes perfect sense: the relatively poor showing of previous independents, coupled with the fact that being perceived as a "spoiler" tends to make one incredibly unpopular, convinced the big B that he didn't want to wreck his career on a failed candidacy. However, just because he doesn't want to be 2008's Ralph Nader doesn't mean that he is willing to completely turn his back on the White House. After all, why should he risk his neck when there are so many other people willing to put themselves out there?

Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER) Chief Executive Stan O'Neal, who is holding onto his job by a thread, likely will sell the Wall Street firm's 20% stake in my old employer, Bloomberg LP, to shore up his company's bottom line. Heck, O'Neal's successor probably will sell it as well.

If I was a betting man, I would bet that company founder and current New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg will probably buy out Merrill. Maybe a private equity player would buy the Merrill interest, reportedly valued at $20 billion, that Fortune values at least $4 billion. The magazine says Bloomberg LP is worth at least $20 billion. But I'm not sure Bloomberg would be willing to cede any management control to an outside investor. The same goes for a huge media company such as News Corp (NYSE: NWS) or Time Warner (NYSE: TWX).

What was obvious to even the lowliest peons at Bloomberg -- including me -- is that the company really likes being private. Management was always willing to try almost anything to keep people glued to their Bloomberg terminals even if it didn't earn an immediate profit. Legend has it, one time Mike Bloomberg noticed that people were away from their Bloombergs and learned that a major sporting event was going on -- he decided on the spot that the company would provide sports news. I have no idea whether this story is true, but knowing the company's corporate culture, it sure seems to be on the mark.

It's been three weeks since our Money Face-Off feature ran here at BloggingStocks and on AOL, offering you the opportunity to share who you though had the financial edge in a series of twenty head-to-head match-ups. So I thought I'd take another look and see how things have worked out.

It's hard to pick just one big winner. In terms of the largest lead over a rival, Ivanka Trump easily beats Paris Hilton with 89% of the vote. Others holding big leads over their opponents include Tiger Woods, Warren Buffett, Steven Spielberg, and Rupert Murdoch.

In terms of receiving the most votes, the clear leader is the Oprah Winfrey vs. Martha Stewart match-up, with just short of 150,000 votes. Other big vote getters were Tiger Woods vs. David Beckham, Rudy Giuliani vs. Michael Bloomberg, and Bill Gates vs. Steve Jobs. In terms of the liveliest discussions in the comments, the winners are Oprah Winfrey vs. Martha Stewart, Erin Burnett vs. Maria Bartiromo, and Bono vs. Angelina Jolie. Also check out the comments for the J.K. Rowling vs. J.R.R Tolkien, Tiger Woods vs. David Beckham, and Ivanka Trump vs. Paris Hilton posts.

As for the face-off posts here that got the most attention, the clear winner is Erin Burnett vs. Maria Bartiromo, with more than 13,000 hits. Lindsay Lohan vs. Britney Spears and Oprah Winfrey vs. Martha Stewart also attracted lots of readers.

Results for all the face-offs follow below, but keep in mind that the voting is still open. It's not too late to add your vote or let us know what you think.

Thomson Corp. (NYSE: TOC) and Reuters Group Plc. (NASDAQ: RTRSY) joining forces to fight a common enemy: Bloomberg Plc. LP

The company founded by New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg -- and my former employer -- is the 1,000 pound gorilla in the business data market. It has gained marketshare at the expense of both Reuters and Dow Jones & Co. (NYSE: DJ) for years.

Bloomberg and Thomson were on friendly terms until fairly recently. Then, Thompson wouldn't answer questions from Bloomberg reporters about the company's earnings estimates. Eventually, Bloomberg decided to do its own polls of analysts.

The combined company may be able to erode Bloomberg's pricing power. When I first started with Bloomberg, it was a mark of status on Wall Street to have your own Bloomberg terminal. Most users that I see now share a Bloomberg to save money.

Nonetheless, Thomson and Reuters have a tough challenge. In addition to Bloomberg, there's the potential that a Rupert Murdoch-owned Dow Jones can pour money into digital publishing products that compete against offerings of the merged company. The Bloomberg threat isn't theoretical.

Though the Bloomberg terminals aren't cheap and aren't very user friendly for the untrained, it's tough to beat their functionality. Many companies have tried and failed to develop a "Bloomberg killer" over the years. Bloomberg terminals even have survived the Internet age.

But it's going to take more than just data for the combined Thomson-Reuters to thrive. More and more financial data is available on the Internet for free. Most individual investors don't need the proprietary data that these companies offer. To survive, they will need compelling content, which in the old days was called news.