... to all the "belt tighteners" who spent a good portion of yesterday assailing Mayor England for pointing out that the loss of revenue created by the proposed property tax plan would lead to spending cuts.
For all the knee-jerk "get used to it" reactions, not a single one of the critics in different forums offered even an inkling as to what they would cut, how their cuts would be better for the city than those mentioned by the mayor, or how they would replace the revenue lost if they haven't developed their own cost cutting plan and accompanying justifications.
They may or may not have thought about it. They certainly didn't write about it.
The magic number is $377,000. Now's their chance to shine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Just think how much money and energy will be saved, what with not having to respond to unwarranted complaints at every whipstitch.
I have already mentioned my disdain for the $200,000 in annual salaries that the mayor said he would not need - as a campaign promise. Now we're down to what, $130,000 left? How about blockades at the intersections? People will surely give to a good cause. Glad you read my page Roger.
Daniel, I browse through many pages.
Look above and you will see this: "Posted by Bluegill,"
This means that Jeff wrote the article in question, not I.
Strictly speaking, your happiness at being read should be directed to Jeff, whose sentiments I share, although I can't take credit for writing them in this instance.
BTW, my solution to raising more revenue is to aggressively and relentlessly close taxation loopholes on churches that involve themselves with politics.
My apologies. Thanks for reading Gill.
I hope our tax base increases because we stop handing out tax abatements and all other corporate welfare locally. We've seen the civic benevolence of our economic elite here. A certain segment of our citizens have made out like bandits over the last few generations and I see very few feel any obligation to give back, except to their churches.
My other observation regards the new positions and salaries Mayor England needed before even getting started. That seemed backward to me. Shouldn't we see a better "balance sheet" at city hall before adding more expenses?
You're welcome, Daniel, but it's hardly just you.
By the way, the mayor said he wouldn't need an economic development position. We can all argue semantics but, in the end, that amounts to what the former economic development director was making, around $40K.
We already had a deputy mayor/city operations manager and a redevelopment director, so deduct those preexisting amounts from your "new" salaries.
The person in the redevelopment position is now being paid to oversee TIF area projects with TIF funds, so the property-tax funded general budget isn't negatively impacted as those monies must be spent in TIF areas.
The same is true of the proposed new code enforcement inspector, who will be paid from CDBG funds, which legally cannot be used for general operating expenses anyway. That's another $35K from your total.
A cemetery position was cut as well, to offset the other salary expense so it doesn't count towards your "new" total either.
And, with John Wilcox resigning, you can't use that salary in your calculations until someone else is hired, if they are.
The $200 - $250K bandied about online and in a letter to the editor was inaccurate to begin with and has actually decreased further since originally written.
The silly roadblock notion, unfortunately, isn't surprising.
Hopefully, you'll have something more accurate and better reasoned to offer soon.
Jeff, I concede your point on the roadblocks. We would have to pay people to hold the buckets and that's not what we're looking for here. We need a gift - something without sacrifice. Wait a minute, I've got it! Let's get Baron Hill to drop in a nice, big earmark on one of those silly little bills up on the Hill. Nobody will notice. Heck, Berkley gets 2 million a year for school lunches. I know Mr. Hill can find just half a million to prop up this bloated local budget for a while.
Jeff wrote: "Hopefully, you'll (Daniel) have something more accurate and better reasoned to offer soon."
Daniel replied: "Heck, Berkley gets 2 million a year for school lunches."
Jeff, your expectations are waaaay to high.
One would think a person would get used to the seemingly inevitable disappointment, but you just don't.
The thing I find interesting about Daniel's responses, as well as the overall tone of the "Hoosierpundit" blog from the young fellow in Corydon, is the striking lack of originality.
One parroted response and vicious attack after another, as though having cut and pasted from Rush and the conservative blogging corps that has done so much to lower the level of discourse.
But hey; whatever. Throw the rancid meat out to the animals, and see what comes back.
$370,000 budget cut on a such a tight budget to begin with will be extremely challenging. I agree while it is easy to armchair professional the fiscal management involved in creating such savings the considerations that must be atken into account are overwhelming.
I do not envy the administration in coming up with the numbers needed to satisfy this decrease.
Again, it would appear to me that the most vocal people in support of changing the property taxation system (cough, gop, cough, cough), are the more wealthy in the first place, whom depend less on government sources in the first place.
They live in generally nicer neighborhoods, which need less law enforcement services, so they would not have a problem with cuts there.
If we are to be faced with a $370k, the first place we could look to replace the missing money would be the fees associated with obtaining an rental property permit, increased inspections, and enforcement on shanty houses, more forceful collection of such fines.
If the Harrisonites wish to force us all into this mess, let them bare the brunt of the burden to make up for the loss of revenue.
A one time rental permit or real estate transfer fee has been proposed - by Mike Sodrel. Again we hear the class and religion warfare speech that is reminiscent of Mondale, Dukakis and Clinton. We heard this on the stump from John Edwards and now he is on the sidelines. Roger, you know I do not agree with Rush on many things - e.g. I support McCain, do not believe in deporting every last Mexican we scrounge up and do not believe Huckabee would split the party. I have even blogged about the Rush kool-aid drinkers. I am simply a spending hawk. If my personal budget is tight, I can't go to the boss and ask for a raise. I make cuts, and I don't make them in my security like my home and utility bills. This is your tax money being wasted as much as it is mine. When is enough simply enough. Pay as you go - if you don't have it don't spend it and don't count on it being there several years down the road. Raising taxes is not the answer. Answering for how the tax money is spent is a good first step.
That's a better answer than the first time.
But when the first response is an incoherent swipe at Baron Hill, then perhaps you understand why I wrote what I did.
In my humble and INDEPENDENT opinion, this whole property tax issue is about social classes. the Haves want it gone, while not caring how it will effect the have nots.
Also this is not a presidential campaign issue. This is an issue which will decimate local budgets, & school budgets.
We hear repeatedly how unfair, unjust and inefficient the property tax system is, but what we do not hear from the bull horns is a strong feasible way to replace the loss of revenue.
Then we here elected officials being chided and blasted for suggestions of how to save the hundreds of thousands of dollars that will be potentially be lost.
And strangely enough, the same people screaming about the proposals are the same people who support the tax change.
So much for shining...
One thing I agree with Governor Daniels about regarding this tax situation is that we need to seriously examine what we spend and why we spend it.
Like the Highwayman, I think the current plan is a matter of cart preceding horse. Unfortunately, most of the screaming is about paying, not spending, and proposed state level solutions (and support for them) reflect that.
Daniel's "local governments spend too much" is an easy out for state government and centralizes control at the state level, rather than working in partnership with local authorities to actually identify problematic spending patterns and their root causes.
When and if causal examination actually begins, I have a feeling the screamers tune might change as real solutions will require substantial changes in their own behavior that most of them aren't even considering as of yet.
Post a Comment