F.A.I.R. is not FAIR it is F.O.U.L
Enter the latest attempt by the D&C to take a stand in the great Monroe County budget debate. They had another Op-ed in the Sunday paper that again waffled.
Brooks needs to get back to using her collaboration skills. Find out if there are ways to smooth the plan’s rough edges.
Apparently, Ms Brooks has collaborative skills we didn’t know about. Is this the same Op-ed page that called for Ms Brooks to conduct public forums? Is this the same Op-ed page that called for a letter writing campaign? Is this the same Op-ed page that also noticed that the lockstep legislature rammed through the ‘plan” in about 90 mins?
Because public involvement in all these things is lacking from the Brooks administration.
Maybe they were referring to Maggie’s opening paragraph across the printed page where Maggie asserts in her speaking out essay:
Working together over the past three years, we have met Monroe County’s Budget challenges by….
Please, who did she work with? Steve Minarik?
But, back to the editorial. Maybe they should play in the same sandbox. I mean, Monroe County is a single entity, right? Here is the money graf with my emphasis:
Brooks was not altogether persuasive in contending that a revenue-generating proposal to restructure the water authority is illegal. Where is the willingness to at least seriously consider proposals she may initially find objectionable? Brooks’ intransigence could cause spillover to other critical county issues and concerns. No one is suggesting that Brooks “play in the sandbox” with her political foes. Rather, she needs to work aggressively to avert a return to the toxic political atmosphere that cast a pall over this community for too long.
What does that mean? Consider opposition proposals like the Water Authority, yet don’t play in the opposition sandbox lest we “return to a toxic political atmosphere”? Ummm we are already there. It took 90 minutes of a Monroe County Legislature meeting to pollute the sandbox.
You are suggesting Maggie should work with the other side, but you don’t want her to play in the same sandbox with the Democrats? Please.
Oh- How about mentioning that the Democrats proposed the Water Authority restructuring. Or is that part of the sand-box Maggie is, or isn’t, supposed to play in.
Take a stand and stop waffling D&C. Stop trying to have it both ways.
This plan is not fair. It was unfairly implemented without input or consideration from residents, opposition legislators or for that matter State officials (as in ensuring that the assumptions made by the County will remain valid in the future). It is objectionable and created the toxic atmosphere the D&C ed board seeks to avoid.
Then again - Bob Iveson in the LTE section has it right with:
F.A.I.R. is one of the best misnomers ever. A much better acronym for the county “sales tax intercept” would be F.O.U.L. — Fraudulent Objective of Unlawful Legislation.
Related posts:
Stlo7:
You are obviously entitled to your opinion about Brooks’ proposals. I can’t help but notice, however, that, at least on these pages, it is only Maggie Brooks, Steve Minarek, and Republicans who “play politics”.
Are you suggesting that the Democrats are altruists, who want only what’s best for the County, no matter what it means for their electoral chances? Are we to believe that their views never have any political coloration?
Let’s be fair (no pun intended) both sides play the game. The sales tax increase being declared “DOA” by Mr. Gantt and the Assembly Democrats, was political. The Democrats are most angry at the fact that their unrelenting political efforts at trying to force Maggie to break the no property tax hike pledge have not panned out.
I think that it is politics at its worst when criticism is dished out, without any serious alternative plan being offered. The Leg. Dem’s “plan” to balance the budget is mostly platitudes. The parts that would have fiscal impact (i.e., the moves re the Water Authority and Road Patrol chargeback) do the things they are criticising Maggie for.One shifts the burden of taxes onto someone else, the other is largely a one-shot deal.
A deficit results from spending more than you take in. You either have to cut spending or raise taxes. All the rhetoric in the world won’t change that. What programs do you want to cut? If you aren’t willing to set that out, quit complaining about taxes going up.
And quit implying that Brooks’ plan is the result of some evil Republican political machinations.
You know, nothing is more lame than the “everybody does it” excuse. It’s a tacit admission that your side is a bunch of sleaze bags. “Evil” it may or may not be, but “machination” it most certainly is. What other reaction would you expect from an eleventh-hour rimjob like this?
“The sales tax increase being declared “DOA†by Mr. Gantt and the Assembly Democrats, was political.”
Everybody knows these taxes are incredibly regressive. There is more than good reason for their stance. Let’s face the facts, a group of well-off Republicans were trying to solve the budget crisis they have accumulated while in power, by pushing the burden on the backs of the poor who must spend a greater proportion of their income, due to their income level.
In regards to the Water Authority, we’re talking about a corrupt organization that needs to be reformed. I’ll gladly take a one-shot deal to solve two problems with one reform.
I’m not sure where I stand on the Road Patrol chargeback. I understand your opinion here.
“And quit implying that Brooks’ plan is the result of some evil Republican political machinations.”
I guess you didn’t attend the last county leg. meeting? Perhaps, they aren’t evil, but they are most certainly political machinations! I think everyone is clear on this after watching the proceedings (on tape or in person). This is not in doubt.
The Dems in the legislature have no power to play.
I think it was a Democrat who said ‘politics ain’t beanbag”.
But seriously, I would love to have you set out all those cogent Democrat alternatives to balance the budget. Are there any Democrat sacred cows that could be cut?
Apparently, Democrats would prefer a property tax hike. OK, but the main reason is not the “regressive” nature of the sales tax. Its the political gain of making Brooks “renege” on her no property tax promise.
I’m curious as to how the Water Authority would be a “one shot deal”? Will they stop turning a profit when they are absorbed by the County ? I would also rather pay for the services that I use (Sheriffs Dept) than watch my town and school tax bills go through the roof,(as they will) with Maggie’s intercept program.
One last thing-it’s not the Dems who complain about taxes going up. Tha’ts the Repos. Helloooo, McFly????
“Its the political gain of making Brooks “renege†on her no property tax promise.”
I ain’t denyin that would be a beautiful thing!!
Whatever John.
Evil? your words not mine - you obviously know something I don’t. Republican machine? Sure - hits a little too close to home maybe?
I guess you are comfortable with a proposal rammed through the Legislature at the 11th hour without community input. Without consideration to the implications for nothing but short term gain or political optics.
Machine? John
Sure If the County Republicans were actually interested in governing instead of ruling we would have community input and discussion instead of the kangaroo court that is the legislature. We would be discussing this publically. We would be making hard difficult choices that are painful to all populations segments. WE WOULD UNDERSTAND WHY because we bought into the change. That would be FAIR wouldn’t it.
Oh - cut services or raise taxes - yeah the simple argument. Which services to cut or organizations to cut. What does it have to be schools or nurses? Why can’t it be say the Water Authority or the revolving door of contractors or certain goivernment offices like the office of Faith Based servces (I believe it is gone now anyway). Do you really believe all options were looked at?
What other structure or excesses that are the product of this failed administration not been looked at.
This administration has had its head in the sand for a few years as we headed down this path. The times were good because we pushed this into the future. The future is now now.
RE both sides doing it. That is a cop out. So that justifies one side doing it? Please.
The simple answer is that the Water Authority tranfer would be a “one-shot” infusion of cash in the first year. After that, increases in the price of water will subsidize other County spending. Why does water in the City cost more? The revenue helps balance the budget. Pressure to raise revenues will cause artificial increases in County water costs. Oh yeah, that’s a user fee, not a tax. But once the WA is part of County Government, the revenues become fungible.
And, OK, you want to shift the cost of the Sheriff’s patrol to suburbanites without their own police. That’s a choice, but you can’t pretend its different in nature from the Brooks shift. Its just a matter of which time of year the check is written. Whether your school tax goes up or your property tax does, its still money out of your pocket.
“Its the political gain of making Brooks “renege†on her no property tax promise.”
Okay, let’s look at this from a more accurate perspective. Its Maggie and her colleagues that made this promise and then got themselves into this mess, in which they are trying to continue to confuse/mislead everyone regarding the reality that they’ve decided to raise taxes.
I’m not worried about Brooks reneging. Everyone is already aware of the fact that Republicans try to claim the mantal of fiscal conservatism, by playing games like Maggie et al. are doing right now. Oh, and then there is George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. What better examples could there be? Talk about maxing out the federal credit card.
Again, Maggie and the rest of the Republicans got themselves stuck in this corner. Its all smoke and mirrors. The game has ended, checkmate. In fact, I don’t think I could have done a better job than Minarik, Maggie, and the Rep. county legislators, of illustrating their ultimate dishonesty toward the residents of Monroe County.
John, come with me to the next county legislature meeting….the invitation is alway open.
Just a question - are you the same John Dicaro who is the Republican Town Leader for Gates? And are you on the ethics board of the Water Authority? Was that the board that, when required to have members from two parties on it, had members appointed from the Republican and Conservative parties? Are you denying that Steve Minarik calls all the shots for Republicans (and consequently the county) in this town?
There are several differences between Republicans and Democrats (though not always around here, where people switch parties when needed to promote their own personal agendas). Even Republicans have to acknowledge that. As the last seven years have demonstrated nationally, and the last many years locally, one of those differences is that Republicans don’t want the public to know what’s going on. Whether it’s local backroom dealings with Minarik telling Republicans how to vote, or secret courts and wiretaps on a national level, the Republicans are surely not the party of open governnment. And that shouldn’t be trivialized or reduced to some argument that each side plays politics. One side plays hide the ball.
And although Democrats may seek an increase in taxes locally, they’re not trying to load the taxes onto the backs of the poorest in our community. And they don’t pretend to be reducing taxes for people when they’re increasing them. This nonsense of calling the program “FAIR” and announcing a county tax cut is offensive, and I think Brooks is catching on that this time the citizens of Monroe County were not all sleeping.
:
[...] F.A.I.R. is not FAIR it is F.O.U.L [...]
What is the difference in cost of water for the city vs. suburbs?
And how does the quality of the water compare? What are the differences in costs for the city due to economies of scale, etc. I think making a straight comparison without other relevant information paints an inaccurate picture.
I guess I should give up on commenting on this blog. So many of the commentators here are captives of left-wing rhetoric and talking points, that its difficult to discuss an issue like our County budget without having someone try to place it in the context of alleged overall Republican “tyranny”.
I wonder if you have actually considered the effects of the Brooks’ plan and compared it to any alternatives. As I noted previously, its easy to criticise; its much harder to propose alternatives. Many Democrats blithely state that Brooks and the GOP have “caused” the deficit and now they want to balance the budget “on the backs” of the less fortunate.
Really? Can you articulate the policies that have led to the deficit? Do you deny the crushing growth of the medicaid program and its effects on the County budget? Is it unfair to look at school districts and ask them if a 1%-2% cut in their revenues isn’t reasonable, particularly since the state aid to schools has grown dramatically?
My point about “playing politics” was not an attempt to justify any actions by Republicans because the Democrats “do it too”. I was simply responding to the fact that most GOP actions are attacked here as being nothing but politics, without any effort to discuss the merits, while politically motivated moves by Democrats which bear on the same topics are ignored. I’m not supportive of any moves by members of either party made just for the sake of politics.
Finally, yes, I am the Gates GOP leader and I am on the Water Authority Board of Ethics. I have never made any effort to hide my political posts or persuasions. I wasn’t aware, however, that disqualified me from having an opinion.
What a cop-out John. Always the same tag line to every response you don’t want to hear. Just like Minarik and company “skirting” the issue with Maggie. If you have a vested issue by being on the MCWA Ethics Board, you should at least be honest enough to make your intentions known through your comments. Care to tell us how much you are PAID for your Ethical opinions? I’ll find out in a couple of phone calls regardless, but it would be nice to have you admit it.
Why does it take majority opposition in either this blog OR in the Legislature, OR i nthe Assembly, State or Federal to get anyone in the GOP to tell the truth?
PEOPLE elect INDIVIDUALS to represent their best interests. Have you forgotten the definition of “public service”?
Nevermind - we’ll remind you come November for crying out loud.
“Water Authority board members receive $7,000 a year, and the chairperson receives $10,500 a year, according to the 2007 county budget. Currently, board members and their families can also receive lifetime health coverage and other benefits.”
No wonder you fight like hell. This isn’t a seat on a board - it’s a way of life.
I think it’s great that people of various political persuasions exchange views here, and I hope you don’t leave. But you can’t come out, guns blazing and calling names without facing a response. And frankly, I’m extremely frustrated with the manipulations of Steve Minarik and its impact on this county, and my post reflects that more than a desire to repress your expression.
I do believe that the Water Authority office was used to benefit Republican supporters, and manipulated to ensure that the Democrats didn’t have a say in how it ran.
I also believe that Minarik has manipulated this county’s political system, and that those who seek his support and political positions around here sacrifice good government in order to attain position.
I agree that Medicaid has burdened our county (and every other in New York) financially. But I don’t agree that we play a shell game of hide the tax hike, by shifting the hike to the school taxes and taking funding from our schools without notice, and without input from the state and schools.
There is money to be had in the county - once we stop providing welfare for Republican donors, be they contractors or supplier. It won’t make up this deficit, but it’s a start. Schools should be among the last places we look for funding - but if we do it, let’s do it in an aboveboard way, with notice and comment from the public, input from the schools and the state (the real funding source), and an acknowledgement that taxes are going up, instead of pretending that they’ve been reduced.
I think the dishonesty of the label and the way in this was handled, besides the 1984ish quality of labeling something as the opposite of what it is, cements the lack of trust many have developed for Republican politics. And I want to ask you the same questions -
Was that the Water Authority the board that, when required to have members from two parties on it, had members appointed from the Republican and Conservative parties? Are you denying that Steve Minarik calls all the shots for Republicans (and consequently the county) in this town? Let me ask you another - have you ever done anything counter to what Minarik wants? What were the consequences?
Charles, with the exception of calling Jiminy an “ideologue”, I don’t believe I’ve done any “name-calling”. Please point out to me any comment to the contrary.
My claim about Democrat talking points being regularly used by commentors on this site is hardly a stretch. In the last couple of days, critics of Brooks’s plan have asked “why do Republicans hate children” and there have been numerous references to “Bush’s war for oil”, among others. You referenced “illegal wiretaps”. Can you tell me when the Supreme Court ruled the overseas telephone surveilance program illegal? To my knowledge, the “illegality” is the opinion of Democrats, not based on any judicial finding.
Finally, please note that the Board of Ethics, of which I am a member, was created less than 3 years ago as a result of State legislation requiring various municipal boards and authorities to create them. The Board of Ethics did not exist at the time of John Stanwix departure.
It appears to me that your questions are an attempt to avoid the real issue; the merits of the Brooks’ plan. I’ll discuss that, not the ad hominem efforts.
Jiminy:
I’m sorry to have to let facts interfere with your rant but:
The MCWA Board of Ethics has been in existence for less than 3 years. It did not exist at the time of Mr. Stanwix departure.
The Board of Ethics has nothing whatever to do with the actual operation of the Water Authority.
We members of the Board of Ethics serve witout compensation of any kind (except for the satisfaction of public service).
Here’s some free advice: make the fact-finding calls before you go off on ignorant, offensive, and incorrect rants.
I’m afraid that republican politics here as I see them are through politics in extremis COMIDA Water Authority double dippers funneling work to friends.
Even the chairman Steve Minarik is in on the profit.
What’s with his public relations firm Impact Communications I think it is
Do they do or have they done work in the past for republican candidates (reputedly not so voluntarily on that part of those candidates) slop slop
You just used an inappropriate label, one promoted by the biggest political manipulator of our time, Karl Rove. I find it hard to take your comments sincerely if you use the word Democrat when you should be using the term Democratic.
Charles did not refer to overseas telephone surveillance, he referred to domestic surveillance. The Supreme Court held in Katz v. United States (1967), that the monitoring and recording of private conversations constitutes a “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes, and therefore the government must obtain a warrant before domestic wiretapping can be engaged in. Since the Bush Administration is not acquiring warrants, what they are doing is illegal.
Maggie’s and the county legislature’s plan is lacking on its merits for all the reasons stated above, including all the games they have been playing over the past decade, which have led to this mess.
I’m pretty sure he was talking about the NSA surveilance program which wiretapped calls which originated or ended in the US. To my knowledge, there has never been an adjudication that the President exceeded his power in authorizing same.
If such calls occur within the United States, they are domestic. Anyway, I think the point couldn’t be clearer that Republicans are willing to obfuscate the truth in order to do as they please in order to protect their interests and their image. It doesn’t take a PhD to decipher between legitimate differences in interpretation and flat out avoiding the truth.
With respect to legality of the program, I don’t think that a determination by the Supreme Court is what’s necessary to conclude that an action is illegal. Or contrary to our constitution. First of all, there are decisions made every day by courts in this country concerning actions that are illegal that never make it to the Supreme Court. Second, the members of the current Supreme Court (or at least five of them) might not conclude that the FSA wiretapping (and who knows whatever datamining is occurring) is illegal, but that doesn’t mean that such actions are not contrary to the principles upon which this country was founded or even prior legal decisions. Legal scholars and lawyers certainly are questioning these policies. In fact, even Republican senators have been quoted as follows:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): “The FISA Act was–created a court set up by the chief justice of the United States to allow a rapid response to requests for surveillance activity in the war on terror. I don’t know of any legal basis to go around that.â€ÂÂ
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA): “â€ÂÂThere is no doubt that this is inappropriate.â€ÂÂ
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): “WALLACE: But you do not believe that currently he has the legal authority to engage in these warrant-less wiretaps. MCCAIN: You know, I don’t think so…â€ÂÂ
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS): “I am troubled by what the basis for the grounds that the administration says that they did these on, the legal basis…â€ÂÂ
Second, the process by which decisions are made is the hallmark of a democracy. And the process here stinks. The process helps to create the substance. Failure to include all of our legislators in the process prevents us (and our legislators) from adequately analyzing the data and coming up with solutions.
Finally, since we haven’t been provided with the data, the reasoning behind the recommendations, or the time to have economists, lawyers, legislators, school administrators and other necessary parties review the plan, it seems a little silly to expect me to come up with the alternative, doesn’t it? How about giving the experts the opportunity - a real opportunity - to participate in our government. Then maybe the Republicans won’t be generating the anger they are right now.
I read in today’s D&C a letter to the editor, in which the writer wrote about Ms. Brooks’ “shell game”. I don’t know that writer, but I believe I used that phrase recently (I’m not feeling like reviewing the prior posts right now - dinner’s almost ready) . So this is what these practices create - rancor among the public, and budgets in which we have no confidence.
But you still haven’t answered my questions, which have nothing to do with choosing to ignore the topic, and everything to do with how things are done around here and why an increasing number of people are questioning the Republican party’s handling of county government.
To call my comments an ad hominem attackis inaccurate - unless by saying that when I question how things are done I’m attacking you personally. The Water Authority appointments are a prime example of the backroom deals that should not be the way business is done. Maybe you’re qualfied - but the process makes us all question this.
So if you really want to discuss the Brooks plan, why don’t you share with us, as a Republican insider, who may have been present or at least knowledgeable about the creation of this plan, who was consulted, what the considerations were (such as “Can the schools afford to lose this?” or “Will we be able to claim we didn’t raise taxes again”), whether the county’s finances were actually calculated, whether school costs were calculated, whether there was ever a thought to include members of the DemocratIC party or public, and if not why not. Maybe you can let us know why those who came up with this plan thought they should do this without generating the publicity or consulting with the other legislators or school administrators, the state and counties.
Wow, nice roundup.
Thanks. Except at the end when I said “counties” I meant towns.
Only human. A misplaced word, nothing that can’t be overlooked!