Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Open Invitation to Council Candidates: 2010 Budget
Cincinnati's leaders will have an even more difficult job setting the 2010 budget than previously thought. Council was informed today that if spending and revenue were maintained at the 2009 level, the City will spend $51 million more than it receives in 2010. This means that the City must find new sources of revenue, cut spending, or both.
The 2010 budget will most likely be the newly constituted Council's first item of business. Most of the current campaign vitriol is about the budget.
So I offer an open invitation to Council candidates--both incumbents and challengers--to tell us what they'd do about the budget. If any candidate wishes, I'll post their proposal here, unedited. But here are the rules (they're simple):
1. Be specific. In other words, I'll not publish a platitude such as "public safety must come first." If your budget solution is cuts, tell us what program you'll cut and how much money it would eliminate from the budget. If your solution is more revenue, tell us which tax or fee you'll increase, and how much money it will generate.
2. Don't mention any of your opponents or their plans or suggestions.
I'm not asking for a line-by-line budget, or even a proposal that entirely closes the projected $51 million gap (though I'd post either if any candidate sent one). Even a partial (specific) plan, though, will help voters understand your priorities.
Most of the people on or running for Council are sincere, well-meaning people who desire the best for the City. Most have given prolonged thought to the budget and how they'd fix it. We don't seem to be hearing about specifics in the traditional media, though.
Any Council candidate who wishes to take me up on this offer should email me. I'll post your proposal within 48 hours and without my own comments or editing (I can make no promises as to what the blog's commenters will do, though).
The 2010 budget will most likely be the newly constituted Council's first item of business. Most of the current campaign vitriol is about the budget.
So I offer an open invitation to Council candidates--both incumbents and challengers--to tell us what they'd do about the budget. If any candidate wishes, I'll post their proposal here, unedited. But here are the rules (they're simple):
1. Be specific. In other words, I'll not publish a platitude such as "public safety must come first." If your budget solution is cuts, tell us what program you'll cut and how much money it would eliminate from the budget. If your solution is more revenue, tell us which tax or fee you'll increase, and how much money it will generate.
2. Don't mention any of your opponents or their plans or suggestions.
I'm not asking for a line-by-line budget, or even a proposal that entirely closes the projected $51 million gap (though I'd post either if any candidate sent one). Even a partial (specific) plan, though, will help voters understand your priorities.
Most of the people on or running for Council are sincere, well-meaning people who desire the best for the City. Most have given prolonged thought to the budget and how they'd fix it. We don't seem to be hearing about specifics in the traditional media, though.
Any Council candidate who wishes to take me up on this offer should email me. I'll post your proposal within 48 hours and without my own comments or editing (I can make no promises as to what the blog's commenters will do, though).
COAST Hates Public Libraries
COAST wants the Library Levy to Fail. Why? Based on COAST's plan they want the library to charge for use of its materials. So, not only does COAST hate government and want it fail, they also don't want poor people to gain knowledge. Under a COAST society there is no government, the wealthy retain all the power, and the poor just stay poor...or die. We did this during the Middle Ages and it failed. We did this during the 19th Century Industrial Robber Baron Era, and it failed. We tried to do this under Reagan, and thankfully it failed. Vote for Knowledge for all, vote for the Library Levy, Issue 7.
Roxanne Qualls Responds to Ruby
Jeff Ruby could have saved himself some embarrassment if instead of listening to one member of the FOP recite the incorrect talking points, he would have asked Council Member Roxanne Qualls. Jeff didn't do any research at all, therefore his ignorance is exposed with this point by point response to his letter in Sunday's Enquirer Sports Section.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Does He Need This Much Attention?
I understand that Chris Smitherman, President of the local NAACP, need attention. I understand that he will say and do a lot to get the press to write about him. Does anyone else think that camping out to vote just goes over the line?
Also, I hope Joe Deter is there to Check Smitherman's ID and then sends an investigator to validate Smitherman lives where he claims. We need to make sure he's not faking it. We had plenty of money last year to spend from the county budget, so I am sure we can afford it this year. (Cough, Cough)
Also, I hope Joe Deter is there to Check Smitherman's ID and then sends an investigator to validate Smitherman lives where he claims. We need to make sure he's not faking it. We had plenty of money last year to spend from the county budget, so I am sure we can afford it this year. (Cough, Cough)
Ignorant and Careless Action By Ruby
Jane Prendergast has the follow-up on Jeff Ruby's Political newspaper advertisement in the sports section.
In an interview about the ad, Jane reports that Ruby wrote it based on talking to one police officer who obviously had read the talking points from the FOP. So Ruby likely got a copy of the talking points and wrote about them without any validation or analysis of their obvious inaccuracies.
It is too bad that Ruby can't tell the difference between false rhetoric and fact. It is good, however, that he's not going to reach a lot of voters who were on the fence on who to vote for. The sport section is a suburban man's front page, so the bang for the buck was lost, unless the GOP is planning on lots of voter fraud. I mean Joe Deters was all over that last year, and didn't find a wave of crime at the polls, but I am sure he'll be checking this year.
In an interview about the ad, Jane reports that Ruby wrote it based on talking to one police officer who obviously had read the talking points from the FOP. So Ruby likely got a copy of the talking points and wrote about them without any validation or analysis of their obvious inaccuracies.
It is too bad that Ruby can't tell the difference between false rhetoric and fact. It is good, however, that he's not going to reach a lot of voters who were on the fence on who to vote for. The sport section is a suburban man's front page, so the bang for the buck was lost, unless the GOP is planning on lots of voter fraud. I mean Joe Deters was all over that last year, and didn't find a wave of crime at the polls, but I am sure he'll be checking this year.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Face to Face Politicking a Waste Of Time?
Is pressing the flesh becoming a waste of time as some political operatives are suggesting in this Howard Wilkinson article?
Are political campaigns just giving up on reaching people face to face? Have we stooped to such a level? I think candidates that avoid getting out and meeting their voters are making a mistake. You don't always need the candidate there, but you need volunteers. You need a presence. If people care about a candidate and can speak to other about it, that personal connection goes farther than a TV commercial. It is hard to do for local elections, since building enthusiasm for a council candidate is difficult. How does one get a team of dedicated volunteers who can communicate one on one with voters, in a positive way?
If on a local level we run campaigns like a presidential race, we further erode the few strands of respect people have for politicians. Face to Face political activity is key to an engaged public. This puts us on a path to politics by proxy, where why have a real person, why not just outsource it to a corporation to act on your political behalf?
Are political campaigns just giving up on reaching people face to face? Have we stooped to such a level? I think candidates that avoid getting out and meeting their voters are making a mistake. You don't always need the candidate there, but you need volunteers. You need a presence. If people care about a candidate and can speak to other about it, that personal connection goes farther than a TV commercial. It is hard to do for local elections, since building enthusiasm for a council candidate is difficult. How does one get a team of dedicated volunteers who can communicate one on one with voters, in a positive way?
If on a local level we run campaigns like a presidential race, we further erode the few strands of respect people have for politicians. Face to Face political activity is key to an engaged public. This puts us on a path to politics by proxy, where why have a real person, why not just outsource it to a corporation to act on your political behalf?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)