Operating under the ‘better late than never’ theory of blogging, I shall now present my summary of the city council meeting this past Monday.
Sadly, attendance and punctuality by the Republicans was spotty at best. Mike Christman was absent, and Dave Cordle was fashionably late. But in defense of Republicans, many of us have jobs for the purpose of making our own money (and not receiving a government handout that was pilfered from our fellow citizens), and on occasion there just isn’t enough time in the day!
The Mayor started off the meeting by taking a shot at The Capital, and then we got down to business.
Acting Directors
The first bill on the public hearing agenda was a charter amendment concerning the designation and compensation of acting directors. This amendment was introduced by Alderman Israel against the mayor’s wishes, and stipulates that a person serving as acting director of any department for more than 6 months requires express consent from the city council.
It was suggested to me that this should be called the “Malinoff’ amendment, named after Mike Malinoff, who, as I understand, served as an acting director for some years.
The problem is secrecy. If a department head position is open, the mayor may appoint an acting director and determine that acting director’s salary at her whim! Acting directors are typically hired as contract employees, so the normal procedures of city employment and checks and balances provided by the city council do not exist. Currently, this process can go on indefinitely! Mr. Israel’s bill makes a lot of sense, and improves the visibility of government. A concerned citizen offered his testimony saying as much, and was quickly challenged by the mayor. She asked why he was so concerned, and after he answered, she snidely retorted “you didn’t answer my question”. It was readily apparent, as usual, that the Mayor was determined to argue with anybody who disagreed with what she wants. The vote on this bill is upcoming.
Zu Coffee
Congratulations to Zu Coffee, who will be able to offer drive through service after passage of a bill amending permitted uses of drive through facilities. The bill passed despite objections from Alderman Arnett—first that the bill was a big fix for a small problem and secondly that drive-throughs are not environmentally friendly because they encourage cars to sit idly! Well Alderman Arnett, why not just ban cars altogether?!
In light of Alderman Arnett’s reservations, Alderman Israel motioned to postpone the bill--which had already taken months to get to this stage—after only 2 weeks ago promising the proprietor of said establishment that his rules committee would fast track its review of the bill.
The postponement motion was voted down, and oddly enough Aldermen Israel and Arnett (along with every other Alderman) voted for the bill.
Taxi Cab Rates
Folks, this is one to which you should pay attention. The way any bill works is this:
1. It is introduced for the first time: called first reader.
2. If the bill passes on first reader, it goes to the appropriate committees for review. It should be noted that nearly every bill passes on first reader as a political courtesy to the bill’s sponsor.
3. Next, the public has a chance to comment on the bill at its public hearing. Theoretically, the aldermen then consider the public’s input and deliberate as to how they are going to vote on the bill.
4. The bill comes up on second reader at the next legislative meeting, and is voted on again.
5. If the bill passes on second reader, it goes to third reader, which requires a roll call vote. Don’t ask me why we need a third reader, because I have no idea. If it were up to me, they would do a roll call on the second reader and be done with it. The third reader is always done at the same meeting, right after the second reader. It is very redundant.
Anyway, a bill to increase taxi cab rates was up for public hearing last night. But since nobody testified on the bill, the council voted to change the rules (that I just listed above) and moved the bill to legislative action right then and there! It passed on second and third reader and now we have higher cab rates!
This kind of stuff happens all the time, and if you don’t pay attention you might never know about it. It is very important to participate!
Non-Important things that happened.
The council resolved that September 29th is “Worldwide Day of Play” in Annapolis. Hooray.
Next meeting in 2 weeks—a legislative action meeting.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
New Taxicab Rates
As of Monday night, we have new taxicab rates. Here they are:
-$2.00 drop charge (no change)
-$2.00 per mile (25% increase)
-$30 per hour (25% increase)
-$1.00 late night (midnight-5 am) surcharge (no change)
Fuel Surcharges if gas goes above $3.50 per gallon (entirely new surcharge)
-trips to greater Annapolis area: $.50
-trips within AA County: $1.00
-trips to BWI or AA County locations north of BWI: $3.00
-trips more than 50 miles one way, or outside of Maryland: $5.00
Fuel Surcharges if gas goes above $4 per gallon (existing surcharge)
-trips to greater Annapolis area: $1.00
-trips within AA County: $2.00
-trips to BWI or AA County locations north of BWI: $6.00
-trips more than 50 miles one way, or outside of Maryland: $10.00
-$2.00 drop charge (no change)
-$2.00 per mile (25% increase)
-$30 per hour (25% increase)
-$1.00 late night (midnight-5 am) surcharge (no change)
Fuel Surcharges if gas goes above $3.50 per gallon (entirely new surcharge)
-trips to greater Annapolis area: $.50
-trips within AA County: $1.00
-trips to BWI or AA County locations north of BWI: $3.00
-trips more than 50 miles one way, or outside of Maryland: $5.00
Fuel Surcharges if gas goes above $4 per gallon (existing surcharge)
-trips to greater Annapolis area: $1.00
-trips within AA County: $2.00
-trips to BWI or AA County locations north of BWI: $6.00
-trips more than 50 miles one way, or outside of Maryland: $10.00
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Party Affiliation and Extending the Olive Branch
I would like to take this time to make the following observation: life is crazy.
Mine is a 12 person company, 13 including myself, and from amongst us we are dealing with the following concurrent problems:
-an employee’s father who had a heart attack and was diagnosed with cancer around the heart.
-an employee in a lawsuit with a former business partner AND involved in a police sting to recover his stolen cell phone.
-an employee hospitalized (under worker’s comp) with back problems.
-a different employee missing time for body soreness.
-an employee hospitalized with vertigo.
-an employee hospitalized with a severely broken hand—after having his dog die, his girlfriend break up with him, and losing the apartment that he and his girlfriend were going to lease together.
-an employee hospitalized from a concussion after the cab he was riding in got into an accident.
-an employee missing days for court for an improper penalty imposed upon her.
-an employee missing time as a result of his daughter’s suspension from school.
-a car in the shop for the second time in 2 weeks for the same problem on 2 different tires.
(I would ask 2 favors of this blog’s loyal readers: pray for the families dealing with these problems, and forgive me for not posting as frequently as might be desired.)
And if that wasn’t enough, AP has been co-mingling with Democrats!
Yes, it’s true. At the city council meeting on Monday, Alderman Shropshire said he had read this, and assured me of his sincerity to host myself and/or the entirety of the Central Committee for a dinner at his house. In appreciation of his devotion to reading this blog, and in recognition of the enjoyment I get from eating food that I did not have to make, I may indeed dine with Alderman Sam. I suppose we shall see.
I did say DemocratS (plural), and I was referring to former HACA President and rumored mayoral candidate Trudy McFall. She had some very nice compliments, and remarked that Mrs. Politics must be very supportive, since she is willing to put up with the distraction that comes from writing the 118th most popular political blog in Ward 5, as I do.
Perhaps the most useful point that I can make with this post comes from one of Mrs. McFall’s comments. She said something to the effect of:
I never knew I would agree so much with a Republican! I think that your influence on individual responsibility is well placed, and I find it very interesting.
Folks, party affiliation doesn’t matter a whole heck of a lot on the local level. You can certainly have big government vs small government debates, but that’s about it. Most people even agree on taxes, since at the local level the only real tax we are concerned with is the property tax. And I would challenge any Annapolitan, Republican or Democrat, to justify a 10% increase in assessments every year.
This is the reason I enjoy local politics. You can interact with the people who influence you lives on a regular basis. Most of us will never meet President Bush, but you can see Dick Israel every Saturday at 49 West. We will probably never be able to have a one-on-one with the Governor, but if you show up at the Sly Fox on the right Thursday night, you can talk to Sam Shropshire. You can email your alderman and they will respond!
Party affiliation is a way to solve an information problem. We can never know everything about the people who are running for president, senator, or governor. The best way to know if they are the candidate that best represents our viewpoints is party affiliation.
If you support increased government social welfare programs, but you don’t know anything about candidates who are running, you can vote for a Democrat and be relatively certain that this is the course of action that is most likely to agree with your viewpoint.
Having a party affiliation saves voters the time of doing research that they could not possibly do on every candidate by signaling the proclivities of that candidate. Party affiliation, therefore, is a signaling characteristic whereby voters increase their efficiency of time by using a small, easily obtainable bit of information to discriminate for or against a candidate—a discrimination that is perfectly appropriate.
But locally, we don’t have to do this. We don’t need signals—we can evaluate the candidates ourselves. And so continues my quest to do so.
Mine is a 12 person company, 13 including myself, and from amongst us we are dealing with the following concurrent problems:
-an employee’s father who had a heart attack and was diagnosed with cancer around the heart.
-an employee in a lawsuit with a former business partner AND involved in a police sting to recover his stolen cell phone.
-an employee hospitalized (under worker’s comp) with back problems.
-a different employee missing time for body soreness.
-an employee hospitalized with vertigo.
-an employee hospitalized with a severely broken hand—after having his dog die, his girlfriend break up with him, and losing the apartment that he and his girlfriend were going to lease together.
-an employee hospitalized from a concussion after the cab he was riding in got into an accident.
-an employee missing days for court for an improper penalty imposed upon her.
-an employee missing time as a result of his daughter’s suspension from school.
-a car in the shop for the second time in 2 weeks for the same problem on 2 different tires.
(I would ask 2 favors of this blog’s loyal readers: pray for the families dealing with these problems, and forgive me for not posting as frequently as might be desired.)
And if that wasn’t enough, AP has been co-mingling with Democrats!
Yes, it’s true. At the city council meeting on Monday, Alderman Shropshire said he had read this, and assured me of his sincerity to host myself and/or the entirety of the Central Committee for a dinner at his house. In appreciation of his devotion to reading this blog, and in recognition of the enjoyment I get from eating food that I did not have to make, I may indeed dine with Alderman Sam. I suppose we shall see.
I did say DemocratS (plural), and I was referring to former HACA President and rumored mayoral candidate Trudy McFall. She had some very nice compliments, and remarked that Mrs. Politics must be very supportive, since she is willing to put up with the distraction that comes from writing the 118th most popular political blog in Ward 5, as I do.
Perhaps the most useful point that I can make with this post comes from one of Mrs. McFall’s comments. She said something to the effect of:
I never knew I would agree so much with a Republican! I think that your influence on individual responsibility is well placed, and I find it very interesting.
Folks, party affiliation doesn’t matter a whole heck of a lot on the local level. You can certainly have big government vs small government debates, but that’s about it. Most people even agree on taxes, since at the local level the only real tax we are concerned with is the property tax. And I would challenge any Annapolitan, Republican or Democrat, to justify a 10% increase in assessments every year.
This is the reason I enjoy local politics. You can interact with the people who influence you lives on a regular basis. Most of us will never meet President Bush, but you can see Dick Israel every Saturday at 49 West. We will probably never be able to have a one-on-one with the Governor, but if you show up at the Sly Fox on the right Thursday night, you can talk to Sam Shropshire. You can email your alderman and they will respond!
Party affiliation is a way to solve an information problem. We can never know everything about the people who are running for president, senator, or governor. The best way to know if they are the candidate that best represents our viewpoints is party affiliation.
If you support increased government social welfare programs, but you don’t know anything about candidates who are running, you can vote for a Democrat and be relatively certain that this is the course of action that is most likely to agree with your viewpoint.
Having a party affiliation saves voters the time of doing research that they could not possibly do on every candidate by signaling the proclivities of that candidate. Party affiliation, therefore, is a signaling characteristic whereby voters increase their efficiency of time by using a small, easily obtainable bit of information to discriminate for or against a candidate—a discrimination that is perfectly appropriate.
But locally, we don’t have to do this. We don’t need signals—we can evaluate the candidates ourselves. And so continues my quest to do so.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Ferries
I read the story in The Capital yesterday about a 42-page feasibility study that was given to the Governor by a committee of people who studied the viability of passenger ferries as a way to alleviate traffic woes locally.
The group suggested a trial period for the ferries to see how the private market responds to ferry service. If successful, the ferries could be implemented permanently.
But even by the committee's own admission, this is not much of a solution:
Passenger ferries will not address the need for moving large numbers of automobiles or trucks across or up and down the bay but can be used on the margins of the problem.
My question is this: the trial period is set to cost almost $2 million. If it is deemed successful, we can expect to continue to pay multiple millions of dollars for this service. Should we be spending this money on the margins of the problem?
Less importantly, the committee engaged in one of my most hated pet peeves:
The citizen-drafted plans suggests future avenues of discussion, including a collaboration with Virginia.
Any committee that recommends forming another committee, task force, or feasibility study should be penalized 1000 awesome points*, because what were they doing there in the first place? Does anyone not know that we should keep talking about issues to see if we can do something better? And how many meetings did it take to realize that Maryland and its neighboring states share vested interests in common waterways?
(*The awesomeness point scale goes up to 10,000, and the full 10,000 points have only been achieved by one person, this guy, who cut off his own arm after being trapped by a boulder--and survived. That is freekin' super-awesome--that he could do that, not that he lost his arm.)
Maybe it's just me, but it just seems like a big waste of time for a committee to recommend forming another committee.
Anyway, one guy who was part of the committee had his name removed from the report, citing its failure to explore vehicle ferries. He went on to say that passenger ferries are one of the least viable solutions to the traffic problem.
Let's see what the governor thinks.
The group suggested a trial period for the ferries to see how the private market responds to ferry service. If successful, the ferries could be implemented permanently.
But even by the committee's own admission, this is not much of a solution:
Passenger ferries will not address the need for moving large numbers of automobiles or trucks across or up and down the bay but can be used on the margins of the problem.
My question is this: the trial period is set to cost almost $2 million. If it is deemed successful, we can expect to continue to pay multiple millions of dollars for this service. Should we be spending this money on the margins of the problem?
Less importantly, the committee engaged in one of my most hated pet peeves:
The citizen-drafted plans suggests future avenues of discussion, including a collaboration with Virginia.
Any committee that recommends forming another committee, task force, or feasibility study should be penalized 1000 awesome points*, because what were they doing there in the first place? Does anyone not know that we should keep talking about issues to see if we can do something better? And how many meetings did it take to realize that Maryland and its neighboring states share vested interests in common waterways?
(*The awesomeness point scale goes up to 10,000, and the full 10,000 points have only been achieved by one person, this guy, who cut off his own arm after being trapped by a boulder--and survived. That is freekin' super-awesome--that he could do that, not that he lost his arm.)
Maybe it's just me, but it just seems like a big waste of time for a committee to recommend forming another committee.
Anyway, one guy who was part of the committee had his name removed from the report, citing its failure to explore vehicle ferries. He went on to say that passenger ferries are one of the least viable solutions to the traffic problem.
Let's see what the governor thinks.
City Council Meeting Tonight
Tonight is public hearing night, which means we get things started at 7 pm at city hall. If any of you loyal readers will be in attendance, let me know and we can tailgate in the parking garage before hand.
To view the agenda, click here.
Some things I am interested in:
-public hearing on changing procedures for acting directors. this may seem boring, but consider this: the city code requires the director of public works to be an engineer. the mayor terminated John Patmore, and Bob Agee (the city manager) assumed the responsibilities. is he an engineer? see my point.
-pubic hearing regarding requiring certain buildings downtown to install sprinkler systems.
-public hearing on raising taxicab rates
-legislative action (a change in the rules) to vote on allowing Zu Coffee (located in the Bay Ridge Giant shopping center) to operate a drive thru window
I will post a summary tomorrow.
To view the agenda, click here.
Some things I am interested in:
-public hearing on changing procedures for acting directors. this may seem boring, but consider this: the city code requires the director of public works to be an engineer. the mayor terminated John Patmore, and Bob Agee (the city manager) assumed the responsibilities. is he an engineer? see my point.
-pubic hearing regarding requiring certain buildings downtown to install sprinkler systems.
-public hearing on raising taxicab rates
-legislative action (a change in the rules) to vote on allowing Zu Coffee (located in the Bay Ridge Giant shopping center) to operate a drive thru window
I will post a summary tomorrow.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Don't Even Try To Get Rich
Regarding the Governor's proposed tax hikes, Isaac Smith over at FSP had this to say:
The essentially flat nature of the current state income tax is unfair to low-income families; as I've argued before, if we're all going to pony up to keep the government running effectively, it should be done with an eye toward the fact that higher income people need to be taxed at a higher rate in order to have the same effect on their utility as lower rates would on people with lower incomes. Even apart from the need to close the state budget deficit, this would be a welcome change.
I was trying to have a relaxing weekend, but this stirred me up a bit. Mr. Smith says that taxes on the rich should be higher even if the state didn't need the money!! What?!! The following is the liberal tax mindset:
"Just for the hell of it, let's hit those rich bastards where it hurts!! Rich people are not normal people--they are evil! They don't need all their money--the rest of us do. Yes, all of us who didn't make that money have a right to take it through taxes simply because we don't make as much money and we need it more than they do."
Mr. Smith also says that higher taxes on the rich are necessary from a fairness perspective to ensure the same negative effect on utility as would happen to other people paying lower tax rates.
What message does that send? The market economy relies on individual people looking out for their own interests, and trying to make more money. The policy Mr. Smith would like to see ensures that hard work and efforts to make more money are fruitless--because as soon as you make more money, the higher tax structure will kick in and your quality of life will be the same as when you were making less money. There is no incentive to work harder or become more productive, and that is not good. To clarify, when there is no free market incentive to achieve individual success because the government penalizes such actions, it is called socialism.
And since when is taxing everybody at the same income tax rate not the most fair thing possible? If everybody pays the same percentage of their income as taxes, the fairest outcome is achieved.
Which brings me to my next point. I am aware that rich people have more money left-over after taxes than middle class and poor people. I am fine with that, and it is actually better for the middle class and poor people. Rich people invest their money in capital (companies, equipment, etc.) for the purpose of trying to become richer. But the capital needs labor to be productive. So, the owners of capital hire labor (i.e. middle class and poorer people) to operate the capital. Since labor is a finite quantity, at some point the scarcity of labor bids up its price, and the workers make more money.
If you tax the rich at such a rate that their utility can never improve, you eliminate the reason for the rich to invest. Why work your butt off to make more money if it's just going to be taxed away? Capital owners would hire fewer people, and the people they did hire would make less money.
Why would we want that?
The essentially flat nature of the current state income tax is unfair to low-income families; as I've argued before, if we're all going to pony up to keep the government running effectively, it should be done with an eye toward the fact that higher income people need to be taxed at a higher rate in order to have the same effect on their utility as lower rates would on people with lower incomes. Even apart from the need to close the state budget deficit, this would be a welcome change.
I was trying to have a relaxing weekend, but this stirred me up a bit. Mr. Smith says that taxes on the rich should be higher even if the state didn't need the money!! What?!! The following is the liberal tax mindset:
"Just for the hell of it, let's hit those rich bastards where it hurts!! Rich people are not normal people--they are evil! They don't need all their money--the rest of us do. Yes, all of us who didn't make that money have a right to take it through taxes simply because we don't make as much money and we need it more than they do."
Mr. Smith also says that higher taxes on the rich are necessary from a fairness perspective to ensure the same negative effect on utility as would happen to other people paying lower tax rates.
What message does that send? The market economy relies on individual people looking out for their own interests, and trying to make more money. The policy Mr. Smith would like to see ensures that hard work and efforts to make more money are fruitless--because as soon as you make more money, the higher tax structure will kick in and your quality of life will be the same as when you were making less money. There is no incentive to work harder or become more productive, and that is not good. To clarify, when there is no free market incentive to achieve individual success because the government penalizes such actions, it is called socialism.
And since when is taxing everybody at the same income tax rate not the most fair thing possible? If everybody pays the same percentage of their income as taxes, the fairest outcome is achieved.
Which brings me to my next point. I am aware that rich people have more money left-over after taxes than middle class and poor people. I am fine with that, and it is actually better for the middle class and poor people. Rich people invest their money in capital (companies, equipment, etc.) for the purpose of trying to become richer. But the capital needs labor to be productive. So, the owners of capital hire labor (i.e. middle class and poorer people) to operate the capital. Since labor is a finite quantity, at some point the scarcity of labor bids up its price, and the workers make more money.
If you tax the rich at such a rate that their utility can never improve, you eliminate the reason for the rich to invest. Why work your butt off to make more money if it's just going to be taxed away? Capital owners would hire fewer people, and the people they did hire would make less money.
Why would we want that?
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Does a 'Rain Garden Specialist' Serve The Public Good
I was browsing the city's website, as I often do for fun, and noticed something peculiar.
(I know that many of you are calling me a dork for looking at the city's website for fun, and, well, you are right. I do a lot of odd things for fun. In fact, here are my top 5 leisure activities:
1. riding my bike
2. bowling
3. browsing the city's web site
4. following sports, especially American football and also European football. Go Barca!
5. continue my life-long mission to mandate that people pronounce the words 'sword' and 'soared' differently)
I noticed that the city employs a Rain Garden Specialist:
One way to help save time and benefit plantings is to prepare a Rain Garden. Our Rain Garden Brochure is available by clicking on these links:
Rain Garden Brochure - Page One
Rain Garden Brochure - Page Two
For more information, call Harry Sandrouni, our City's Rain Garden Specialist, at 410-263-7949.
This blog questioned whether the city should be spending money on a Director of Health and Aquatics--and some people thought: yes, we should.
But a Rain Garden Specialist? Is this position really on the city payroll? I am hoping that this guy is a volunteer. Because if he's not, what's to say the city couldn't have any of the following specialists:
1. Dogfighting specialist
2. Global warming specialist
3. Sister City Specialist
4. Navy vs. St. John's annual croquet (sp. edited!) match specialist
5. etc.
(Edit: it has been pointed out that the gentleman in question is a stormwater management specialist, which would make sense.)
The question of 'when to stop' has to be answered by governments all the time....take minimum wage--why stop at $11.25/hr? Why not $100/hr?
This is a basic illustration of the conservative view of government. Government should exist to enforce contracts and laws, provide public safety, and operate where the private market fails to provide the correct goods and services. If the government tries to expand beyond this, we get waste, and things we don't need.
(I know that many of you are calling me a dork for looking at the city's website for fun, and, well, you are right. I do a lot of odd things for fun. In fact, here are my top 5 leisure activities:
1. riding my bike
2. bowling
3. browsing the city's web site
4. following sports, especially American football and also European football. Go Barca!
5. continue my life-long mission to mandate that people pronounce the words 'sword' and 'soared' differently)
I noticed that the city employs a Rain Garden Specialist:
One way to help save time and benefit plantings is to prepare a Rain Garden. Our Rain Garden Brochure is available by clicking on these links:
Rain Garden Brochure - Page One
Rain Garden Brochure - Page Two
For more information, call Harry Sandrouni, our City's Rain Garden Specialist, at 410-263-7949.
This blog questioned whether the city should be spending money on a Director of Health and Aquatics--and some people thought: yes, we should.
But a Rain Garden Specialist? Is this position really on the city payroll? I am hoping that this guy is a volunteer. Because if he's not, what's to say the city couldn't have any of the following specialists:
1. Dogfighting specialist
2. Global warming specialist
3. Sister City Specialist
4. Navy vs. St. John's annual croquet (sp. edited!) match specialist
5. etc.
(Edit: it has been pointed out that the gentleman in question is a stormwater management specialist, which would make sense.)
The question of 'when to stop' has to be answered by governments all the time....take minimum wage--why stop at $11.25/hr? Why not $100/hr?
This is a basic illustration of the conservative view of government. Government should exist to enforce contracts and laws, provide public safety, and operate where the private market fails to provide the correct goods and services. If the government tries to expand beyond this, we get waste, and things we don't need.
myAnnapolis Emails
About 2 weeks ago, I stopped receiving daily emails from the police department, as well as various other announcements from the city to which I was subscribed.
I checked the city's web site and the way to sign up for these listserves is different, so I'm thinking that the subscriber list may have been lost during the transition period.
If you are experiencing the same problem, or want to subscribe to city listserves for the fist time, click here.
I checked the city's web site and the way to sign up for these listserves is different, so I'm thinking that the subscriber list may have been lost during the transition period.
If you are experiencing the same problem, or want to subscribe to city listserves for the fist time, click here.
No News On Police Officer Hiring
Pervading through all the discussions of crime in the recent months has been one particular theme: hire more police officers. Specifically, hire 23 more officers to fill the vacancies in the police department that are already funded.
The mayor's response to this cry has been mixed, at best.
Her original position was that we did not have a crime problem--that violent crime has been decreasing. But the actual crime data made this position an inconvenient one to defend.
The next incarnation of her policy statement assured us that Annapolis offered competitive salary and benefits; therefore, we are doing everything we can and we just have to live with the shortage. The war in Iraq had caused a nationwide shortage in officers, she said. But then we learned that the salary figures she used were not accurate, and in fact that the city had not offered an entrance exam in more than a year, so no new officers could be hired regardless of salary offered.
The city finally administered the entrance exam, and AP asks, where are we now? Have we hired any new officers? Are we planning to?
An email to Public Information Officer Ray Weaver, asking him the above questions, is un-returned as of this writing. I just sent the same email to Hal Dalton, the police department spokesman.
Many times in politics, a certain cause gains steam, chugs along for a while, then putters out. I shall strive to ensure that this issue does not share a similar fate. Just because we don't hear about a problem doesn't mean that it's solved, and we should demand answers.
The mayor's response to this cry has been mixed, at best.
Her original position was that we did not have a crime problem--that violent crime has been decreasing. But the actual crime data made this position an inconvenient one to defend.
The next incarnation of her policy statement assured us that Annapolis offered competitive salary and benefits; therefore, we are doing everything we can and we just have to live with the shortage. The war in Iraq had caused a nationwide shortage in officers, she said. But then we learned that the salary figures she used were not accurate, and in fact that the city had not offered an entrance exam in more than a year, so no new officers could be hired regardless of salary offered.
The city finally administered the entrance exam, and AP asks, where are we now? Have we hired any new officers? Are we planning to?
An email to Public Information Officer Ray Weaver, asking him the above questions, is un-returned as of this writing. I just sent the same email to Hal Dalton, the police department spokesman.
Many times in politics, a certain cause gains steam, chugs along for a while, then putters out. I shall strive to ensure that this issue does not share a similar fate. Just because we don't hear about a problem doesn't mean that it's solved, and we should demand answers.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Fuzzy Tax Math
As part of his rhetoric at the "kitchen table" unveiling of more details on new taxes, "Governor MOM" declared that 95% of taxpayers would save money under the new proposal.
First of all, the 5% who would pay more are, of course, the rich. I am not even going to go into the arguments as to why taxing the rich at a disproportionately high rate hurts precisely the poor and middle class people that people are trying to help, and instead focus on the fact that the 95% statistic is total balderdash in the first place!
(I recently learned that 'balderdash' is a synonym for 'nonsense', and I have been striving to use the word frequently.)
The current state tax code provides that all persons are taxed at a rate of 4.75% of income for all incomes over $3,000. Since almost everybody makes more than $3,000 per year, basically we all pay a 4.75% state income tax.
The new tax code makes some changes, but single persons making $15,000-$150,000 and married persons making $22,500-$200,000 still pay 4.75%!! The median household income in Maryland is about $53,000--this means that the average family is paying basically the same income tax!!!
AND, THIS IS ONLY THE INCOME TAX!! If you raise the sales tax by 20%, raise the gas tax by who knows how much, and expand the sales tax to include services--the real tax environment that we will be facing rears its true, ugly head.
In other words, if you keep income taxes basically the same, and increase every other tax, taxpayers will be worse off than before and will have less money to spend or save.
As Ron George says, "Only the governor could call a tax increase a tax cut."
First of all, the 5% who would pay more are, of course, the rich. I am not even going to go into the arguments as to why taxing the rich at a disproportionately high rate hurts precisely the poor and middle class people that people are trying to help, and instead focus on the fact that the 95% statistic is total balderdash in the first place!
(I recently learned that 'balderdash' is a synonym for 'nonsense', and I have been striving to use the word frequently.)
The current state tax code provides that all persons are taxed at a rate of 4.75% of income for all incomes over $3,000. Since almost everybody makes more than $3,000 per year, basically we all pay a 4.75% state income tax.
The new tax code makes some changes, but single persons making $15,000-$150,000 and married persons making $22,500-$200,000 still pay 4.75%!! The median household income in Maryland is about $53,000--this means that the average family is paying basically the same income tax!!!
AND, THIS IS ONLY THE INCOME TAX!! If you raise the sales tax by 20%, raise the gas tax by who knows how much, and expand the sales tax to include services--the real tax environment that we will be facing rears its true, ugly head.
In other words, if you keep income taxes basically the same, and increase every other tax, taxpayers will be worse off than before and will have less money to spend or save.
As Ron George says, "Only the governor could call a tax increase a tax cut."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)