Submitted by Thor-Zone on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 8:21am.
We already pay too much to run this city.
The person from the fire department being interviewed said it is not fair to pay to rescue people that don’t live here. I don't know, but I'll bet the people featured in the story actually live in the city and pay taxes to support the fire department. Of course, if Channel 2 were an actual news gathering organization, they would have presented that information as part of this story.
Scaring the voters like this is the standard bureaucrat approach, cut services that are the most visible so that the voters agree to raise spending. You never hear about any of thousands of desk jockeys at city hall getting shorted, only the Police, Fire Departments and teachers.
It has happened over and over in this city. Taxpayers WAKE UP!!! Stop being played for suckers and just say no to more money for our government.
Submitted by acruxksa on Sun, 07/05/2009 - 1:44pm.
Your exactly right, this tactic has been employed with great success by our school district as well. When funding doesn't meet expectations, the teachers, patrolmen, and fire fighters are first to go because their jobs are visible. The principals, managers and administrators are never cut. If you dig into government you will find that this concept is employed throughout. Cuts are made where they are most visible and cause the most pain to the taxpayer, never behind the scenes where the desk jockeys reside.
The other frequent tactic is saying their budget has been "cut" when in reality the only "cut" was to the increase. Meaning often they will say the budget was cut even though it's the same or higher than last year, just not as high as they expected.
With respect to paying for rescues, I don't mind it assuming it can cut down on taxpayer expenses, but we all know that won't happen. I do find myself wondering just how much it cost given that we are already paying for these guys/gals to standby at the fire house and wait for just such an emergency. Yes I understand there's the fuel/maintenance cost for the vehicles, but isn't labor already covered regardless of whether there's an emergency or not.
The TAX PAYERS pay for everything they need, is it for that GUNS and HOSES thing they always bug you about?
We already pay too much to run this city.
The person from the fire department being interviewed said it is not fair to pay to rescue people that don’t live here. I don't know, but I'll bet the people featured in the story actually live in the city and pay taxes to support the fire department. Of course, if Channel 2 were an actual news gathering organization, they would have presented that information as part of this story.
Your exactly right, this tactic has been employed with great success by our school district as well. When funding doesn't meet expectations, the teachers, patrolmen, and fire fighters are first to go because their jobs are visible. The principals, managers and administrators are never cut. If you dig into government you will find that this concept is employed throughout. Cuts are made where they are most visible and cause the most pain to the taxpayer, never behind the scenes where the desk jockeys reside.
The other frequent tactic is saying their budget has been "cut" when in reality the only "cut" was to the increase. Meaning often they will say the budget was cut even though it's the same or higher than last year, just not as high as they expected.
With respect to paying for rescues, I don't mind it assuming it can cut down on taxpayer expenses, but we all know that won't happen. I do find myself wondering just how much it cost given that we are already paying for these guys/gals to standby at the fire house and wait for just such an emergency. Yes I understand there's the fuel/maintenance cost for the vehicles, but isn't labor already covered regardless of whether there's an emergency or not.