Well, I reckon 'ol EastdistEnded is right 'bout that there 'spensive unbreller for Knobbany -- ah mean, sheeet, whassthat EPPA up there in Wasshuntun know 'bout our storm water here 'n Tuckiana, that this here cheap paper umbrellie can't handle?
Thirdysix dollars a hole YEAR! Hellazpoppin, my elderlee friend 'ol mizzus Smith, well, she could buy 3, or 7, maybe 37 ... sheeet, she can get a whole buncha Big Bufords for all that! But donchaknow, thassjus my 'Pinion ...
4 comments:
Am I not correct that many of the same citizens protesting this $3 fee are also saying that we should pay $5+ to salvage the sanitation dept. and the union jobs.
Not commenting on the right or wrong of either proposal, just the rationalization of $3 is too much for people on fixed incomes but $5 is OK.
Before I am called anti-union let me state that nothing could be more incorrect. I just don't believe that it is the city's purpose to provide civic jobs. It is to provide services in the most effecient way possible. If that means private--OK. If civic jobs--OK.
You are correct. In fact, the general theme has been to spend whatever it takes to rescue the sanitation department as currently operated, through the higher user fees you mention, and by emasculating economic development, without which the status quo is maintained (but they're against the status quo for people and things they don't like, while remaiing for it for those that they do).
Confusing?
Not to mention "Fuzzy" Zoeller, also a Miller Lite drinker.
But I digress.
I think this is a perfect example of a job that legislators are elected to perform. The decisions are tough but ones that have to be made in a fiscally responsible manner.
I am an advocate of paying legislators more for their service and then limiting terms so we do not have decisions made out of favoritism to get re-elected.
If they only had one lengthier term and no chance to be re-elected, I think they might "do what is right" more often.
Post a Comment