Thursday, February 07, 2008

City Council Budget Cut Redux - Part 2

The reason the new council had to retroactively change the budget is because the previous council irresponsibly cut taxes without cutting spending. At the time I felt like this was a decision driven by election year politics and not sound rational judgment. I should point out that I was not the only one at that meeting that felt the council went too far but I did speak out against it so as promised here is the video of my comments after last year's budget hearing

2 comments:

dan said...

Yes they do need to look at spending. Yes, the Council is not increasing spending now with the State Legislature still wrestling. But the focus on cutting spending needs to be broadened.

Every comment made publicly equates cutting spending with cutting "core services." Not true yet it's the perception and so it must be true. The vision needs to expand into the big ticket item--employee compensation and that means yes indeed--time to look at the pension benefits of public employees. GM did it. IBM did it. You name it in the private sector and yes they did do it. Why should only public sector employees continue to enjoy a 100% employer-paid program when the private sector employees are either without a company program or are contributing into it and in some cases on a dollar for dollar match with the employer. This may be sacred and untouchable territory, but if it's time to be serious about spending and reducing spending without cutting core services, it's time to look at this.

bobett said...

Well spoken Dan,

I just wish we could not extend this untouchable pay increase always given to the state\federal employees as well. What's the fear in cutting back services?
Let's at least prioritze what
services are needed and what we can do without.

It seems to me we the people should vote on whether "they" meaning all of our local, state, and federal taxing REPRESENTATIVES should or should not receive an adjusted standard of living pay increase.