Unchecked Arrogance at 200 E. Washington
Before I begin, let me apologize for the double post. I have been bottled up in the bar exam for two days and have been raring to go on these two stories for that entire time.
On Tuesday, the City-County Council voted to raise the county income tax 65%. The vote was 15-13 in favor of the proposal which was requested by Mayor Bart Peterson in order to increase “public safety”. As a matter of housekeeping before I launch into a screed against this, I should note that 13 of the pro votes came from Democrats on the Council (the two “Republicans” were Scott Keller and Lance Langsford - remember them in the next election for City Council) and 11 Republicans voted against the measure (the two Democrats were Sherron Franklin and Dane Mahern - remember them or not in the next election).
As I mentioned before, the tax hike was spurred by the need for increased funding for public safety according to the mayor. However, I seem to remember that Mr. Peterson stated that the consolidation of the Indianapolis Police Department with the Marion County Sheriff would result in significant savings to the taxpayer. This was the primary reason (supposedly) that Mayor Peterson was pushing the consolidation. All of which leads one to ask: Why don’t we apply all those savings to the increased need for public safety? The answer, of course, is that there were no savings. In fact, it would seem that the city has incurred additional costs as a result of the consolidation. We have been socked by a 65% increase in our local income tax to pay for it.
Of course, this leads to three questions:
1. Was Mayor Bart Peterson mistaken about the effect of his ill-planned scheme?;
2. Was Mayor Bart Peterson lying about the savings in order to get the consolidation approved?; Or,
3. Was Mayor Bart Peterson right about the savings that could be realized, but he bungled the consolidation so as to waste the benefit?
It seems to me the best one could say of Mayor Peterson was that he was mistaken about the benefits that would accrue to the city. However, if that is so, should we trust his judgment in other things? It seems to me that if the best thing we can say about Mayor Peterson is that he doesn’t know the natural consequences of his decisions, that we should probably consider some other person as mayor of Indianapolis. The other conclusions are worse.
Posted: July 26th, 2007 under Dems Run-a-muck, Don't Tread on Me.
Comments: 1
Comments
Comment from Birdy
Time: 26 July 2007, 3:08 pm
Langsford is not running for reelection, so if you happen to live in his district, please consider voting for Ben Hunter. I know Ben and he’s a stand-up guy. Also, if you happen to live in Keller’s district, you’ll remember that he won by 3 votes. Not exactly a mandate, and the appelation “Republican,” as should be clear by now, does not mean “conservative.”
I’d go with #2 from your Peterson list, but that’s quibbling. The man is clearly incompetent. There are some people who lie, and there are some people who don’t know any better so they tell what turns out to be a falsehood. I rank him among the former. He seems to want to live up to the model of Bill Clinton and George Bush. One can say, “well, that’s politics.” What a shame.
Peterson campaigned at police stations with the words “if you elect me, none of you will ever have to work a part-time job again because you’ll get the kind of pay you deserve,” and “don’t ever let them [the city administration] tell you the money’s not there.” He included specific opposition to police consolidation in his Peterson Plans. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Let’s see. The scion of a family real-estate development company gives obscene tax abatements to giant hotel and sports corporations, spends millions frivolously on “cultural sidewalks,” new lampposts, flowers and trees, eminent domain farces which drive out legitimate business owners who employ actual Hoosiers, but says we can’t find the money to keep up with pension obligations for public safety, proper staffing of an already rattled police department (which, ironically, is under control of a sheriff who just happened to change his mind after getting a $50,000 raise and a promise of control of a consolidated department)…. Uh huh. O.K. But that $35 million in savings was supposed to prevent the need to raise taxes. Gotcha.
Ballard has a prime opportunity, but I think he’s going to miss it. Not entirely through his own fault, mind you — Tom John needs to come off with some damn money to fund a campaign (any campaign!), but Ballard has stepped on his crank by flipping and flopping. Still, Fall Creek is swollen with the political careers of those who thought they were unbeatable. Hope springs eternal. Peterson is (and none but the deep-insiders of the Dem machine understand the total rationale) at constant odds with the main body of the Marion County Democrat base. Ditto the Dem base of the state as a whole. Bauer and the others are more vociferous than the Republicans in denouncing the Mayor. (Especially if the rumor about how Bauer described Peterson in a candid moment is true, and I have reason to believe it is. It rhymes with “Mucking Nidiot.”) Coalitions have a notoriously long fall-apart-at-the-last-minute-when-it-counts rate.
Write a comment