2011 Omaha Budget = Tax Increase

[joeglow]

instead, they want to grandstand on the radio from 7 am to 11 am and from 4 pm to 7 pm.

Really?  Wow.....

Because they don't agree with bankrupting the city, they are grandstanding?  Nice.

I don't know that grandstanding would be the word I use (that's reserved for tools like Stothert, Thompson and Nabity) however they're solutions range from illogical (disband OPD and let the Sheriffs handle it) to impossible (declare bankruptcy) and downright illegal (fire all the cops, hire non-union ones).

In short, it's a bunch of people who don't know what the |expletive| they're talking about, taking to the safe haven of AM talk radio.

About the only thing I have heard is they want an audit of the fire-fighters budget and annual expenses.  Seems pretty common sense to me.

[HskrFanMike]

instead, they want to grandstand on the radio from 7 am to 11 am and from 4 pm to 7 pm.

Really?  Wow.....

Because they don't agree with bankrupting the city, they are grandstanding?  Nice.

They are not "bankrupting" the city.  Even mentioning bankruptcy is a textbook example of grandstanding.

The suggestion of an audit isn't necessarily a bad idea, but I'd have a lot more respect for Ms. Stothert if she had taken up the mayor's offer to actually participate in the negotiations.

[Bosco55David]

instead, they want to grandstand on the radio from 7 am to 11 am and from 4 pm to 7 pm.

Really?  Wow.....

Because they don't agree with bankrupting the city, they are grandstanding?  Nice.

I don't know that grandstanding would be the word I use (that's reserved for tools like Stothert, Thompson and Nabity) however they're solutions range from illogical (disband OPD and let the Sheriffs handle it) to impossible (declare bankruptcy) and downright illegal (fire all the cops, hire non-union ones).

In short, it's a bunch of people who don't know what the |expletive| they're talking about, taking to the safe haven of AM talk radio.

About the only thing I have heard is they want an audit of the fire-fighters budget and annual expenses.  Seems pretty common sense to me.

I don't know much about what is actually said over the air as I only listen to Becka's podcasts on issues that interest me, but I follow his facebook page pretty closely. I've seen Becka himself express support for contracting with DCSO and filing bankruptcy, while several of his listeners have expressed their desire to fire/ban public service unions.

[joeglow]

instead, they want to grandstand on the radio from 7 am to 11 am and from 4 pm to 7 pm.

Really?  Wow.....

Because they don't agree with bankrupting the city, they are grandstanding?  Nice.

I don't know that grandstanding would be the word I use (that's reserved for tools like Stothert, Thompson and Nabity) however they're solutions range from illogical (disband OPD and let the Sheriffs handle it) to impossible (declare bankruptcy) and downright illegal (fire all the cops, hire non-union ones).

In short, it's a bunch of people who don't know what the |expletive| they're talking about, taking to the safe haven of AM talk radio.

About the only thing I have heard is they want an audit of the fire-fighters budget and annual expenses.  Seems pretty common sense to me.

I don't know much about what is actually said over the air as I only listen to Becka's podcasts on issues that interest me, but I follow his facebook page pretty closely. I've seen Becka himself express support for contracting with DCSO and filing bankruptcy, while several of his listeners have expressed their desire to fire/ban public service unions.

He has questioned how cities as big as Minneapolis can get by with 3 on a truck, but the Union says we must want citizens to die by the thousands if we support that over 4 to a truck.  Again, pretty common sense to me.

[joeglow]

Even mentioning bankruptcy is a textbook example of grandstanding.

Sure.  Provided you think basic math is grandstanding.  Many companies have been driven to bankruptcy because of union and their pensions (see GM).  It flat out is NOT sustainable.

[Bosco55David]

He has questioned how cities as big as Minneapolis can get by with 3 on a truck, but the Union says we must want citizens to die by the thousands if we support that over 4 to a truck.  Again, pretty common sense to me.

Yeah, and that's an issue that's been solved already. If Minneapolis wants to go against the industry standard, I guess that's their deal. It won't be happening in Omaha.

Sure.  Provided you think basic math is grandstanding.  Many companies have been driven to bankruptcy because of union and their pensions (see GM).  It flat out is NOT sustainable.

Nice job with the completely false right wing talking point/bogeyman there.  :;):

As far as Omaha goes, the law (to my understanding) will NOT allow a municipality to declare bankruptcy unless it's tax levy is maxed out. Omaha's is far from that. Despite what Tom Becka and his mindless followers believe, bankruptcy isn't there simply to run away from deals you don't like.

[joeglow]

Yeah, and that's an issue that's been solved already. If Minneapolis wants to go against the industry standard, I guess that's their deal. It won't be happening in Omaha.

MANY other cities go "against the standard" and manage to operate at the same level of efficiency for much less cost.

Nice job with the completely false right wing talking point/bogeyman there.  :;):

As far as Omaha goes, the law (to my understanding) will NOT allow a municipality to declare bankruptcy unless it's tax levy is maxed out. Omaha's is far from that. Despite what Tom Becka and his mindless followers believe, bankruptcy isn't there simply to run away from deals you don't like.

By all means, explain why Virginia is doing so well.  Bankruptcy will not happen overnight.  However, in just the last couple months, we have seriously planned/considered a restaurant tax, increased property taxes, increased sales taxes, instituting sales taxes on food and other taxes.  You honestly think people will continue to willingly pay these taxes when they can go a few miles further and get the same product for less.  It WILL snowball and those employing the completely false left wing talking points want to explain away the problem until it is waaaay to big to reverse.

I seriously question how you can justify pensions of six figures, while these same people work in their same profession in another city.  I question how you can justify someone working for 20 years and getting a guaranteed salary for 60-80 years.  And how you can believe this is sustainable is beyond me.

How do you think paying ONE person 2.6 MILLION dollars in pension payments is sustainable?

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100323/N ... 3239872/-1

[DeWalt]

I seriously question how you can justify pensions of six figures, while these same people work in their same profession in another city.  I question how you can justify someone working for 20 years and getting a guaranteed salary for 60-80 years.  And how you can believe this is sustainable is beyond me.

How do you think paying ONE person 2.6 MILLION dollars in pension payments is sustainable?

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100323/N ... 3239872/-1

THIS is the epitome of what is wrong with these asinine OFD contracts!

The guy is 47 years old, and will have an annual pension of almost $90,000 per year for the rest of his life.

This would be no big deal if it was his own money, or a private company.  But this is a municipality - and he is being paid this absurd pension by TAXPAYER MONEY.


No wonder Omaha is broke.

[Bosco55David]

MANY other cities go "against the standard" and manage to operate at the same level of efficiency for much less cost.

Really? What are these "many cities"?

By all means, explain why Virginia is doing so well.  Bankruptcy will not happen overnight.  However, in just the last couple months, we have seriously planned/considered a restaurant tax, increased property taxes, increased sales taxes, instituting sales taxes on food and other taxes.  You honestly think people will continue to willingly pay these taxes when they can go a few miles further and get the same product for less.  It WILL snowball and those employing the completely false left wing talking points want to explain away the problem until it is waaaay to big to reverse.

All of that is irrelevant. Until the tax levy has reached it's maximum point, bankruptcy is not an option. Period.

I seriously question how you can justify pensions of six figures, while these same people work in their same profession in another city.  I question how you can justify someone working for 20 years and getting a guaranteed salary for 60-80 years.  And how you can believe this is sustainable is beyond me.

How do you think paying ONE person 2.6 MILLION dollars in pension payments is sustainable?

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100323/N ... 3239872/-1

I have six posts in this thread and not a single one of them mentions the pension payouts, so I have to ask where the |expletive| you're coming up with this |expletive|.

[DeWalt]

I have six posts in this thread and not a single one of them mentions the pension payouts, so I have to ask where the |expletive| you're coming up with this |expletive|.

The issue is simple.  When a city is facing a budget crisis, all income and expenditures MUST be looked at.  And it doesn't take a genius to see that financial mismanagement like this is the epitome of why Omaha is in this predicament.

It doesn't take very many $90,000 per year retirees to add up to $1 million per year.

[joeglow]

Really? What are these "many cities"?

Lincoln.  Des Moines.  Oklahoma City.

All of that is irrelevant. Until the tax levy has reached it's maximum point, bankruptcy is not an option. Period.

And this is EXACTLY what is wrong with America today.  We live in an immediate gratification society and if something is not slammed in their face four or five times, they are incapable of seeing it.  We do NOT have to wait until we hit the ceiling before we rocognize the path we are on.  It is somewhat beneficial to identify that when you can still do something about it.  However, they typical fat, lazy American would rather put it out of mind and enjoy the moment before the sh*t hits the fans.  Screw all future generations, so long as they got their 15 years of apathy.

I have six posts in this thread and not a single one of them mentions the pension payouts, so I have to ask where the |expletive| you're coming up with this |expletive|.

Which is why it is VERY difficult to understand any argument you could possibly be making beyond "I work in the government sector and want to anally rape you as well, so I will try to tell you it is really a loving embrace."  THIS is what will bankrupt us, so you have ZERO credibility in discussing the financial picture if you refuse to address the cause of it all.

[Bosco55David]

Lincoln.  Des Moines.  Oklahoma City.

That's it? Not exactly a compelling argument if you ask me.

And this is EXACTLY what is wrong with America today.  We live in an immediate gratification society and if something is not slammed in their face four or five times, they are incapable of seeing it.  We do NOT have to wait until we hit the ceiling before we rocognize the path we are on.  It is somewhat beneficial to identify that when you can still do something about it.  However, they typical fat, lazy American would rather put it out of mind and enjoy the moment before the sh*t hits the fans.  Screw all future generations, so long as they got their 15 years of apathy.

There you go flying off on another tangent that really, makes no sense here. None of what you said has anything to do with the legal fact that until our tax levy is maxed out so arguing for bankruptcy now is, in fact, grandstanding.

Which is why it is VERY difficult to understand any argument you could possibly be making beyond "I work in the government sector and want to anally rape you as well, so I will try to tell you it is really a loving embrace."  THIS is what will bankrupt us, so you have ZERO credibility in discussing the financial picture if you refuse to address the cause of it all.

So where do you get the idea that I've supported the pension spiking? I supported the police contract that eliminated spiking and was voted down by the city council. I support the currently proposed contract even though it comes with ridiculous concessions.

Did you support these contracts? [/quote]

[joeglow]

That's it? Not exactly a compelling argument if you ask me.

What is an acceptable number?

And this is EXACTLY what is wrong with America today.  We live in an immediate gratification society and if something is not slammed in their face four or five times, they are incapable of seeing it.  We do NOT have to wait until we hit the ceiling before we rocognize the path we are on.  It is somewhat beneficial to identify that when you can still do something about it.  However, they typical fat, lazy American would rather put it out of mind and enjoy the moment before the sh*t hits the fans.  Screw all future generations, so long as they got their 15 years of apathy.

There you go flying off on another tangent that really, makes no sense here. None of what you said has anything to do with the legal fact that until our tax levy is maxed out so arguing for bankruptcy now is, in fact, grandstanding.

-Nobody is saying the CAN right now.  We are saying that the Laffer Curve DOES exist and being at the top end of all taxes available is NOT a means to maximize revenues, nor is it sustainable.

So where do you get the idea that I've supported the pension spiking? I supported the police contract that eliminated spiking and was voted down by the city council. I support the currently proposed contract even though it comes with ridiculous concessions.

Did you support these contracts?

-First, I oppose pensions.  There is no way anyone can know what the future of the investment markets will look like and guaranteeing a lifetime payout with taxpayers money is unsustainable.  Do like the rest of us do - give them a plan where both the city and the employee contribute and the employee takes responsibility on how the money is invested.  

If we refuse to follow common sense, then I support not allowing them to collect until they are 65.  With people living well into their 90's, it is equally unsustainable to have someone work for 25 years and then collect another FIFTY years of pay.

[joeglow]

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?sectio ... id=7154202

[Bosco55David]

First, I oppose pensions.  There is no way anyone can know what the future of the investment markets will look like and guaranteeing a lifetime payout with taxpayers money is unsustainable.  Do like the rest of us do - give them a plan where both the city and the employee contribute and the employee takes responsibility on how the money is invested.  

If we refuse to follow common sense, then I support not allowing them to collect until they are 65.  With people living well into their 90's, it is equally unsustainable to have someone work for 25 years and then collect another FIFTY years of pay.

I don't care how you feel about pensions (they're not going anywhere). I'm asking whether you supported the proposed contracts.

[joeglow]

First, I oppose pensions.  There is no way anyone can know what the future of the investment markets will look like and guaranteeing a lifetime payout with taxpayers money is unsustainable.  Do like the rest of us do - give them a plan where both the city and the employee contribute and the employee takes responsibility on how the money is invested.  

If we refuse to follow common sense, then I support not allowing them to collect until they are 65.  With people living well into their 90's, it is equally unsustainable to have someone work for 25 years and then collect another FIFTY years of pay.

I don't care how you feel about pensions (they're not going anywhere). I'm asking whether you supported the proposed contracts.

No, because it has a pension still in it.

[Bosco55David]

No, because it has a pension still in it.

Fair enough. I respect your opinion on the matter, no matter how irrational it is.

[joeglow]

No, because it has a pension still in it.

Fair enough. I respect your opinion on the matter, no matter how irrational it is.

I am interested in knowing why you think it is irrational.  I can cite example after example of local governments in dire financial straits because of pensions costs.  All I have ever seen you post are phrases like "Well everyone does them" and "they are not going away."  Nothing about how they are fiscally viable for taxpayers.

[Bosco55David]

I am interested in knowing why you think it is irrational.  I can cite example after example of local governments in dire financial straits because of pensions costs.  All I have ever seen you post are phrases like "Well everyone does them" and "they are not going away."  Nothing about how they are fiscally viable for taxpayers.

It's irrational because it's a permanent solution to a temporary problem that can be easily fixed with a much more moderate and reasonable method. In the end though, it's not really about pensions. It's about people needing someone to blame and in the case of many conservatives, throwing a |expletive| fit because this time they're on the losing end of capitalism.

[joeglow]

It's irrational because it's a permanent solution to a temporary problem that can be easily fixed with a much more moderate and reasonable method.

You honestly think all the local and state governments are facing pension crises and none of them have figured out this panacea?  Please enlighten us with what this simple solution is.

In the end though, it's not really about pensions. It's about people needing someone to blame and in the case of many conservatives, throwing a |expletive| fit because this time they're on the losing end of capitalism.

-I think you may need to refresh yourself on what capitalism is.  This is far from capitalism.

[Bosco55David]

You honestly think all the local and state governments are facing pension crises and none of them have figured out this panacea?  Please enlighten us with what this simple solution is.

It took Omaha mere months to figure out how to make the pension fund solvent again, now we just need to do it. This isn't |expletive| rocket science here. Increase the money going in, decrease the money going out.

-I think you may need to refresh yourself on what capitalism is.  This is far from capitalism.

Oh it isn't? Let me guess, socialism, right?

[DeWalt]

It took Omaha mere months to figure out how to make the pension fund solvent again, now we just need to do it. This isn't |expletive| rocket science here. Increase the money going in, decrease the money going out.

Let's be honest here.  The Suttle administration is NOT looking seriously at ways to "decrease money going out."  They're just out to increase revenue.

He pulled his "shock value" stunt last year of threatening to close libraries to cut staff costs.  What a crock!  Lay off a couple dozen employees that make little more than minimum wage, yet REFUSE to address the elephant in the room - that, specifically, being these absurd bloated OPD and OFD Pensions.

A case in point has already been cited:  A 47-year old Firefighter who is retiring, and will be getting paid almost $90,000 per year from the City for the rest of his life.  That's nothing short of extortion, and until that nonsense is brought under control I will NEVER put one ounce of faith in ANYTHING the Suttle administration says about the city's finances.

[Bosco55David]

Let's be honest here.  The Suttle administration is NOT looking seriously at ways to "decrease money going out."  They're just out to increase revenue.

I'm talking specifically about the pensions.

[cdub]

It took Omaha mere months to figure out how to make the pension fund solvent again, now we just need to do it. This isn't |expletive| rocket science here. Increase the money going in, decrease the money going out.

Let's be honest here.  The Suttle administration is NOT looking seriously at ways to "decrease money going out."  They're just out to increase revenue.

He pulled his "shock value" stunt last year of threatening to close libraries to cut staff costs.  What a crock!  Lay off a couple dozen employees that make little more than minimum wage, yet REFUSE to address the elephant in the room - that, specifically, being these absurd bloated OPD and OFD Pensions.

A case in point has already been cited:  A 47-year old Firefighter who is retiring, and will be getting paid almost $90,000 per year from the City for the rest of his life.  That's nothing short of extortion, and until that nonsense is brought under control I will NEVER put one ounce of faith in ANYTHING the Suttle administration says about the city's finances.

Stunt or not, the layoffs last year were for more than a couple dozen employees and one that I know lost his job made more than twice min. wage.  The civilian employees should be separated from any talk about how the police and fire are getting paid or retiring.

[DeWalt]

It took Omaha mere months to figure out how to make the pension fund solvent again, now we just need to do it. This isn't |expletive| rocket science here. Increase the money going in, decrease the money going out.

Let's be honest here.  The Suttle administration is NOT looking seriously at ways to "decrease money going out."  They're just out to increase revenue.

He pulled his "shock value" stunt last year of threatening to close libraries to cut staff costs.  What a crock!  Lay off a couple dozen employees that make little more than minimum wage, yet REFUSE to address the elephant in the room - that, specifically, being these absurd bloated OPD and OFD Pensions.

A case in point has already been cited:  A 47-year old Firefighter who is retiring, and will be getting paid almost $90,000 per year from the City for the rest of his life.  That's nothing short of extortion, and until that nonsense is brought under control I will NEVER put one ounce of faith in ANYTHING the Suttle administration says about the city's finances.

Stunt or not, the layoffs last year were for more than a couple dozen employees and one that I know lost his job made more than twice min. wage.  The civilian employees should be separated from any talk about how the police and fire are getting paid or retiring.

Of course we have to separate the two.  I understand that.

But let's separate them even further.  Let's separate the OPD and the OFD.  For the most part, police officers put their lives on the line every single day.  Firefighters spend most of their time cooking chili and polishing chrome.  There is absolutely no good reason, and no excuse, for a 47-year old "firefighter" to be able to retire (20 years before most people do) and have almost $90,000 per year - for life - being paid by taxpayers.  THAT is the EPITOME of what is wrong with this.

And that's just 1 retired firefighter.  How many dozens (hundreds?) more are receiving this sort of ludicrous pension?  And how many million dollars per year is it costing Omaha taxpayers?

This is one of the reasons GM, Ford & Chrysler found themselves unable to compete in the automotive market.  Smothering overhead expenses, directly connected to pensions & other fringe benefits.
 

No mayoral administration can be taken seriously, when they simply refuse to lay all this on the table for honest discussion.

[Brad]

Just go this email from the Chamber

Greater Omaha Chamber Opposes Proposed 2011 City of Omaha Budget
Chamber Executive Committee Urges the Omaha City Council to  Take a More Business-like Approach

The Executive Committee of the Greater Omaha Chamber voted yesterday, Aug. 9, to oppose the 2011 City of Omaha budget as presented to the Omaha City Council by Mayor Jim Suttle.

The proposed budget increase would require increasing revenues by more than $32 million, an 11 percent increase over 2010.  This new revenue is to be generated with a 4.4 cent increase in the property tax and by imposing a four percent tax on businesses that serve food or drinks or provide catering services.  

The committee took this action on behalf of the Chamber's full board of directors and the organization's 3,300 members, approximately 81 percent of whom are small businesses with 50 or fewer employees.

Gary Gates, chairman of the Chamber's board of directors, said, "We are asking the Omaha City Council to take a more business-like approach to the 2011 Omaha budget, including a longer term view. An 11 percent increase in these uncertain economic times is unrealistic.

Rather than raising taxes, the Chamber urges the city to begin with a flat budget for 2011 and aggressively seek opportunities to make reductions where needed to balance the budget."

As the metro area economic development organization, the Chamber is concerned that tax increases as proposed will negatively impact Omaha's competitiveness for business growth and support practices that are unsustainable into the future.  

Over the last few years, metro area employers of all sizes have made very difficult decisions.  This has included flat or reduced budgets, reductions in staff and employee furloughs, decreases in pay and benefits, and the deferring of new investments.  While the Chamber recognizes the city is not a private business, the Chamber believes it is imperative for the city to implement similar measures.  

The economy is recovering, and in time, will result in increased city revenues.  The Chamber recommends that the city begin to plan for use of those revenues-prioritizing currently unaffordable programs in preparation for the time when they are affordable.

In summary, when revenues are not available, businesses cut budgets.  The Chamber urges the Omaha City Council to do the same.  The Greater Omaha Chamber cannot support the proposed 2011 City of Omaha budget as written.

[S33]

Cut your |expletive| liabilities and spread the tax burden around to ALL business. Christ, they are fuking morons...

Pete - "Hey, Gary?" Gary -  "Yes, Pete?" Pete -  "Looks like we are going to be 32 mil in the red this year, what shall we do?" Gary - "I don't know, let's just tax anyone who owns property or a business which serves food and drink?" Pete - "Good Idea Gary, what do you think Suttle will think?" Gary - "Suttle won't give a |expletive|, he'll just be happy he won't have to have an idea of his own."

I'm sure I could fit unions into my rant somewhere, but I don't even care enough because I don't pay Omaha taxes.

I also find it funny that in a climate where our federal government has decided to start buying up their own debt, which is a no-brainer hint of oncoming inflation, higher taxes and decreased consumer spending, that those idiot's assumptions are a better economy and increased consumer spending.

All of you who live in Omaha city limits, count on MUCH higher taxes in the near future.

[DeWalt]

So...  Despite the current budget crisis, Suttle is calling for an 11% budget INCREASE for 2011?


Is this guy nuts?

[icejammer]

So...  Despite the current budget crisis, Suttle is calling for an 11% budget INCREASE for 2011?


Is this guy nuts?

Read up on the budget, and you might learn where the increase is coming from.  The largest single line item is a $20M increase for unfunded pension liability that previous administrations have passed down to this one - not Suttle's doing.  The next biggest increase - $5M - is for debt service, non-personal services, or in other words, paying off bond debt.  Again, lest you forget, voters approved an additional $79M in bonds be issued back in May 2009, again before Suttle was in office.  (the city now has nearly a billion in outstanding bond debt, just in case you're interested, every last penny approved by the great citizens of Omaha - maybe they're the ones that are nuts?)

[Brad]

Here is one paragraph from my letter to the city council this morning:

I work for a local company that had over 200 employees back in 2005/2006, we now
have 60.  Of the 60 of us that are still here, all salaried people were cut from
44 hours a week to 40 and their pay was cut 10%.  Those of us that are hourly we
were dropped from 40 hours a week to 32.  Why can't the city do that?  Its been
a struggle over the past couple of years and I have made it through.  If you do
that math, that's 52 furloughed days a year I am taking and the city doesn't
expect their employees to take a handful a year?  That's a 20% pay cut we took.  
The real salt in the wound is that when I took a 20% pay cut, the mayor hired
new staff members for way more then their predecessors.  Its time to stop the
spending, run the city like a business and make some reductions.

[joeglow]

Read up on the budget, and you might learn where the increase is coming from.  The largest single line item is a $20M increase for unfunded pension liability that previous administrations have passed down to this one - not Suttle's doing. ?)

-Hardly.  A BIG reason it is so unfunded is the inherent flaw in pensions - they are heavily contingent on expected returns and expected life expectancy.  It is essentially a big gamble that the taxpayers get to shoulder, allowing government workers to have guaranteed income for life.  As it has been pointed out many times before, this is why companies got rid of this and those that did not, hit bankruptcy (auto industry anyone?).  And yet, many still refuse to acknowledge the elephant in the room.

That said, even if you want to trot out this BS excuse, you are essentially admitting this should have been paid for in the past and, therefore, the increases in the past for other items were probably should not have happened.  Thus, that still means there are costs that can be cut without increasing the budget by 11 freaking percent.

 

The next biggest increase - $5M - is for debt service, non-personal services, or in other words, paying off bond debt.  Again, lest you forget, voters approved an additional $79M in bonds be issued back in May 2009, again before Suttle was in office.  (the city now has nearly a billion in outstanding bond debt, just in case you're interested, every last penny approved by the great citizens of Omaha - maybe they're the ones that are nuts?)

-I wonder if any of this is due to debt downtown we were told we would never have to pay a penny for.

[bbinks]

... The largest single line item is a $20M increase for unfunded pension liability that previous administrations have passed down to this one - not Suttle's doing.  ...  

Not Suttle's doing?  I guess this is a different Jim Suttle that was on the City Council for four years, or am I missing something?

[S33]

I suppose we have also forgotten about his massive salary increases for his staff?

[DeWalt]

Here is one paragraph from my letter to the city council this morning:

I work for a local company that had over 200 employees back in 2005/2006, we now
have 60.  Of the 60 of us that are still here, all salaried people were cut from
44 hours a week to 40 and their pay was cut 10%.  Those of us that are hourly we
were dropped from 40 hours a week to 32.  Why can't the city do that?  Its been
a struggle over the past couple of years and I have made it through.  If you do
that math, that's 52 furloughed days a year I am taking and the city doesn't
expect their employees to take a handful a year?  That's a 20% pay cut we took.  
The real salt in the wound is that when I took a 20% pay cut, the mayor hired
new staff members for way more then their predecessors.  Its time to stop the
spending, run the city like a business and make some reductions.

An excellent letter, making perfect sense.

But will Suttle listen?

[Brad]

Here is one paragraph from my letter to the city council this morning:

I work for a local company that had over 200 employees back in 2005/2006, we now
have 60.  Of the 60 of us that are still here, all salaried people were cut from
44 hours a week to 40 and their pay was cut 10%.  Those of us that are hourly we
were dropped from 40 hours a week to 32.  Why can't the city do that?  Its been
a struggle over the past couple of years and I have made it through.  If you do
that math, that's 52 furloughed days a year I am taking and the city doesn't
expect their employees to take a handful a year?  That's a 20% pay cut we took.  
The real salt in the wound is that when I took a 20% pay cut, the mayor hired
new staff members for way more then their predecessors.  Its time to stop the
spending, run the city like a business and make some reductions.

An excellent letter, making perfect sense.

But will Suttle listen?

Thanks.  I did not send it to Suttle, I sent it to the 7 City Council Members.

[icejammer]

... The largest single line item is a $20M increase for unfunded pension liability that previous administrations have passed down to this one - not Suttle's doing.  ...  

Not Suttle's doing?  I guess this is a different Jim Suttle that was on the City Council for four years, or am I missing something?

This goes back more than four years, and proposing the City Budget is the responsibility of the Mayor's office, not the City Council.

[icejammer]

That said, even if you want to trot out this BS excuse, you are essentially admitting this should have been paid for in the past and, therefore, the increases in the past for other items were probably should not have happened.  Thus, that still means there are costs that can be cut without increasing the budget by 11 freaking percent.

You are correct, it should have been paid in the past, but that doesn't change anything, your reply is nothing but a strawman.

I would like to hear what you think should be cut to offset this increase.  Hmmm?

[bbinks]

... The largest single line item is a $20M increase for unfunded pension liability that previous administrations have passed down to this one - not Suttle's doing.  ...  

Not Suttle's doing?  I guess this is a different Jim Suttle that was on the City Council for four years, or am I missing something?

This goes back more than four years, and proposing the City Budget is the responsibility of the Mayor's office, not the City Council.

I'm more then well aware of the fact that this has been brewing for more than the last 4 years of the Fahey administration.  However, Suttle voted in favor of many poorly crafted plans that helped get us to where we are now while he was on the council.

So, I still say, its partly Suttles fault.

[S33]

Is knowing who's fault it is going to balance the budget?

[joeglow]

That said, even if you want to trot out this BS excuse, you are essentially admitting this should have been paid for in the past and, therefore, the increases in the past for other items were probably should not have happened.  Thus, that still means there are costs that can be cut without increasing the budget by 11 freaking percent.

You are correct, it should have been paid in the past, but that doesn't change anything, your reply is nothing but a strawman.

I would like to hear what you think should be cut to offset this increase.  Hmmm?

I think I have made it clear: cut pensions and do an in depth audit of the fire department to find out why they have blown the sh*t out of the budget every year.