But factually, all screwed up, as usual. I just don’t read the WSJ to protect my blood pressure, but someone sent me their editorial on the budget. On a macro level, they got it right. This budget is out of control and not sustainable. The Mayor’s proposal does some truly irresponsible things like putting the $3.9M of TIF funding into the budget and adding 30 police officers. Both of those things make it very difficult to see how we will be able to sustain this budget in future years.
When you look at what they relied on to write their editorial, well, that’s where it all falls apart. It’s hard to believe this is the same paper that we rely on for the news. I wonder if they ever talk to their reporters before they write this crap on the editorial pages? And I’d wonder if they even read their own paper if they covered the local news in any meaningful way. Any ways, here’s what the WSJ got wrong yesterday:
1. It’ hardly remarkable that Tim Bruer said “one of the best he’s ever seen.” cuz he says it every year that he and Mayor Dave see eye to eye on the budget. So, that would be every year since Mayor Dave was elected.
2. Privatizing the concession stand operations would cause the City to LOSE money, as the concession stands make a profit. Additionally, privatizing the concession stands would not lower the wages, as any contractor would be required to pay a living wage as well under our current laws.
3. Progressive Dane alders proposed more cuts to the budget than Alder Brandon did and he failed to vote for some of them when they benefited him and his district. And more of our cuts passed, including $2.9M in the water utility. Alder Brandon failed to vote for millions of dollars of cuts in the Capital Budget which would have saved $516,000 on the levy. In the end, Alder Brandon claims to have cut only $60,000 in this year’s budget, which he says is his best year ever when it comes to successful cuts.
4. The Wisconsin State Journal credits Alder Clear with trying to cut officers to pay for youth programs, but they ignore that the other name on those amendments was Ald. Rhodes-Conway. And then they say that she made the amendment to not cut the cops and only pay for the programs, but that was not her motion.
So, once again, they can’t write a few paragraphs without getting a whole lot wrong. And while I agree that this proposed budget is not sustainable and that the one-time windfall from closing the TIF districts should have been used for a one-time expense, like perhaps . . . Allied Drive, it’s just scary how many people read their crap and believe it because they don’t know any better because the actual facts of the meetings aren’t covered in their very own paper.
