Posted by Dinah on March 8, 2013, at 8:22:02
In reply to Re: I've become... Political » Beckett, posted by sleepygirl2 on March 2, 2013, at 17:51:52
Is it true that the sequester involves reductions in future increases rather than cuts?
Goodness only knows there ought to be cuts. Just probably not across the board ones. As much as I appreciate FEMA, I do see waste of FEMA money. If FEMA wisely trimmed its budget, I wouldn't at all mind.
Is the across the board issue only on an agency level? Is the agency allowed to decide where to cut? Mind you, my experience with local government is that they always choose the cuts that will most inconvenience the populace and increase the chances of tax rates being increased. No one ever suggests cutting the salaries and perks of the top officials. We're not likely to vote for an increase in taxes for the parish officials to go on "fact finding" tours of popular resorts, so they'll be able to apply those lessons to our city. But threaten to cut the police and schools and people will rush to raise their own taxes. Never mind that the "dedicated funds" generally cause decreases in general fund expenditures for the same services.
Bah. Politics.
Transparency is the key. Line by line expenditures should be open to public scrutiny. And news sources should hire people who know how to decipher them.
poster:Dinah
thread:1038930
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20120327/msgs/1039852.html