Ken Garcia's cutsBy Tim Redmond
Okay, this is the sort of thing that really, really annoys me. Ken Garcia is against a June election, which is fine if he thinks no tax measures will pass and thus it's a waste of money.
But then he says this:
The City doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. It spends wildly on public health programs and hospitals that most cities long ago curbed, and its health care costs and pension benefits spike around 25 percent each year.So what the board must do, which it hasn’t to any formidable degree, is start cutting into the bloated bureaucracy our fearless leaders have created during the past 20 years, while the mayor tries to renegotiate labor contracts that always seem to sail through during election years.
And then cut. And then cut some more.
When people bloviate about bureacracy and cuts like this, I think they have a responsibility to tell us all, specifically, what they want to cut. It's easy to talk about spending "wildly and public health programs," but it's another thing to say which programs, serving which people, ought to be eliminated.
I asked Garcia what his proposals were and he said he had no comment but would make some suggestions soon.
Frankly, this is horseshit. Half a billion dollars is a lot of money, and while I agree there's waste at City Hall, there's not anywhere near half a billion dollars worth of waste. If you don't want to raise taxes, fine -- tell us what you'll cut instead. Or shut up.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (3)
Shouldnt there be some disclosure here that some of the "bloat" which should be cut is money to non profits that are the bread and butter of poverty Inc - which you are a member of?
Posted by David Nevich | February 4, 2009 02:38 PM
Again: Let's not call names, let's talk about services. What is it that nonprofits do that you would like to see eliminated?
Posted by Tim Redmond | February 4, 2009 03:28 PM
Tim:
You asked "What services by non-profits could be eliminated without hurting anyone?". I can't save $500 million dollars annually, but I can save almost $100,000. Currently when a low income tenant is behind on rent, RADCO, the Eviction Defense Collaborative, hires an attorney to fight the unlawful detainer. Many times low income tenants fall into drug/alcohol addiction and they are in comlete denial about this disease. Fighting the eviction costs RADCO money, and it puts an eviction on the tenants' credit report. If the Eviction Defense Collaborative didn't answer the unlawful detainer, and instead encouraged the addicted tenant to seek help, RADCO would save tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, and the tenant would not have an eviction on their credit report when they get out of re-hab, and need to find a place to live.
Posted by Mitch B | February 4, 2009 10:48 PM