On May 18, 2005, at 10:12 AM, Greg Abbott wrote:
On May 18, 2005, at 7:53 AM, Joseph Barisonzi wrote:
a seasoned political
veteran who has yet to articulate how he would be a step forward rather then
a step backward.
I'm curious about why Joe thinks that Peter is the candidate with unanswered questions, and not R.T. R.T. has given no indication of any major items for a second term agenda.
Greg, first I agree that RT's speech was vague. I thought Peter blew him off the stage, focus and passion-wise.
However, the city — thanks to RT and the Council — has a five-year budget plan that plausibly can be called a second-term agenda. I haven't reviewed it in depth recently, but even though we will spend more money on police, fire and public safety, we'll still have to cut services because labor costs (mostly benefits) are projected to rise faster than revenue — even with the 8 percent overall property tax cap going out as far as the eye can see.
It's a fairly sobering platform — but that was the flaming bag of you-know-what RT and the current Council was left by the last administration. As others have noted, paying off past debt sucks up a lot of the new tax revenue that could otherwise reduce or eliminate those cuts.
Peter's platform is more police and fire and permanent NRP funding. It's MUCH more exciting than R.T.'s — but the problem for this voter is that I still can't figure out how he can pay for it. All I've heard is a reliance on a one-time, $25 million pension plan that is dead, dead, dead at the legislature — and besides, as Mark Snyder astutely noted, the concept only pushes out the pension debt, where it gets bigger, rather than paying it off.
So from this vantage point, financially at least, it looks like Peter's overpromising on spending and running up the credit card rather than paying off the balance. There's a case that can be made for that in light of public safety concerns — but Peter hasn't owned up to the financial tradeoffs. RT, on the other hand, has had to endorse a specific plan with real numbers. It's perfectly fine to attack those priorities, but I need an alternative that's as financially credible as the one to be overthrown. I haven't seen it yet, and I wonder if I will during this campaign — it's tough to talk about fiscal realities when you're trying to win a race.
I don't mean to dismiss Peter's larger arguments. If RT hasn't worked effectively with labor, or neighborhood/NRP activists, or screwed up in creating CPED, those are fine things to settle in an election.
No candidate is perfect, but at least with Peter what you see is what you get.
I don't think that's yet true on budget and financial matters. I hope that will change as the campaign continues.
David Brauer Kingfield
REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
