The Sky Is Going To Fall If I Have To Chip It Off With This Mop Handle
By Mitch Berg
As prediced: Govenor Pawlenty is going to unallot the budget to balance it – and the Dems are going to cry that police and fire protection will be chopped (even though they’re a small fraction of most city’s budgets).
Speed Gibson is onto the scam:
Even on the normally more reliable KSTP-TV, yes the sky will be falling from police cutbacks, closed libraries, neglected parks, and of course, unavoidable property tax increases. All from the loss of a very small cuts in Local Government Aid (LGA).
“I don’t need any lecture from Tim Pawlenty on how to run a budget,” says Minneapolis Mayor R. T. Rybak. Yes, you do, Your Honor. Police protection, your number one obligation, is less than 10 percent of your budget. The Fire Department costs less than half of that. To even hint at cutbacks in these areas solely on the basis of LGA not being what you want is nothing short of a lie. But of course, nobody in the newsrooms will likely call you or any other mayor on this.
I’m going to have to take a look at the cuts Saint Paul’s budget can absorb without hurting police and fire protection. I’m suspecting it’s “lots”.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
“As prediced: Govenor Pawlenty is going to unallot the budget to balance it”
BS – he’s pushing $1.7B to a time when he doesn’t have to worry about it – that’s not balancing it, it’s shirking his responsibility and saddling some OTHER governor with balancing his mess.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
And Mitch, when did you become a city administrator, or a finance expert, such that you’d have a clue about ‘what St. Paul can cut’? Or are you saying you are a bonafide expert on every program in the city and know ENTIRELY well and thuroughly what is a needed program and what isn’t?
June 18th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
And Mitch, when did you become a city administrator, or a finance expert, such that you’d have a clue about ‘what St. Paul can cut’?
The same time you became a legal expert of a calibre fit to scold Scott Johnson on the legality of his opinions.
No, Pen, I am not a “bona fide expert” on every program. Either is anyone who is making the decisions on what to budget.
But since I am a taxpayer, I have the right to an opinion.
By your leave.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
By your leave.
Don’t you wish.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
And Mitch, when did you become a city administrator, or a finance expert, such that you’d have a clue about ‘what St. Paul can cut’?
Probably about the same time Peev moved into that magical neighborhood consisting of Nobel laureates and every other manner of expert he chats with over his picket fence on a daily basis.
As usual, I conclude with:
Fart. Go eat one.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
BS – he’s pushing $1.7B to a time when he doesn’t have to worry about it – that’s not balancing it, it’s shirking his responsibility and saddling some OTHER governor with balancing his mess.
BS on your BS. Lest you forget, T-Paw was the one who turned a $4bil deficit left over from Ventura into a surplus. It was the DFL led spending orgy on a state level (but that gives orgies a bad name), and the out of control spending of irresponsible city/town/township councils in a time of a declining economy that got us to where we are. T-Paw has had the executive wisdom to reign in most of the spending, and it was DFL/RINOs who overrode his veto. His responsibility is not to bend over and take it up the poop chute from the DFL spending whores. His responsibility is to manage the state.
He isn’t putting his mess off to the next governor, he is protecting the taxpayer and the next governor can try to control the spending tsunami the DFL will try to ram down their (and our) throat.
LGA should be abolished completely. If the Boy Mayor and Comrade Coleman can’t figure out how to say “no, we can’t afford that”, then too flipping bad. STOP SPENDING MONEY YOU DON’T HAVE.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
And Mitch, when did you become a city administrator, or a finance expert, such that you’d have a clue about ‘what St. Paul can cut’?
Peev, taxpayers pay the bills for this crap. If they can pay for it, they can sure as hell decide if it is necessary. Politicians spend money to achieve political goals, not the goals an ‘expert’ may decide are important. This is a feature, not a bug, of a democracy.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
“I don’t need any lecture from Tim Pawlenty on how to run a budget,” says Minneapolis Mayor R. T. Rybak
This clown and his city council are spending $500,000 on 10 drinking fountains. They are a “public arts” project. That’s $50,000 per bubbler.
Defend that, Peev. I dare you.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Kudos to Pernicious Peev for challenging Mitch Berg of Saint Paul, Minnesota who is oh so far off the deep end on this topic.
How dare you, Mitch Berg of Saint Paul? How DARE you???
You, Mitch Berg of St. Paul, have NO experience in any kind of relevant budgetary responsibilities. What’s more, Mitch Berg of St. Paul, you have backwards priorities and questionable values when it comes to city, county, and state spending… as you are a conservative.
Not only that, but you are the worst kind of conservative… a Saint Paul conservative.
For shame, Mitch Berg of Saint Paul… for shame!
June 18th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
It’s awesome when Peev has his effete little ass handed to him.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Yoss, It happens on a daily basis.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Mitch,
I didn’t scold Johnson, that’s a hyperbolic exageration of the first magnitude – but let’s be clear – better legal minds than you or I found his conduct questionable at best. His chief comment was not on point – you don’t claim a policy violates the Constitution of the state – and Mitch, you’ve also proven that apparently it’s okay for you to pretend to be an expert, when you aren’t, but you’re happy to call others out for doing the same – when they aren’t. However, unlike you, I went and researched my comment, retracted it, and apologized for saying more than was fair – yet, the comment was fair in the main. Johnson isn’t a lawyer with experience in the area of law on which he was commenting (specifically policy about how to apply rules against the promotion of religion within the bounds of the state’s laws) AND that such comments were of dubious legal value.
Here, though, you appear to take the stance that you think you can easily identify many programs for elimination when you a. aren’t involved in them and b. don’t have the background to make such a claim.
In fact, your conduct is more akin to Johnson’s than it is to mine except in that you dont’ have the applicable degree (whereas Johnson did). You are professing expertise in an area you have no expertise in.
At some point, though, you need to let the past be the past Mitch – I think you’ve asked the same of others here on your blog – don’t you think that after I retracted my comment and apologized for the error it’s time to let it go? Really.
June 18th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
oh, and Mitch, since you thought what I did was wrong – why would you repeat the conduct?
Wait – that’s because you know it’s not – you, like me, are entitled to take a look at something, with a degree in the area or not, and question the situation – in fact, indict the people involved, which you do every day, despite not being an expert.
So, unless you’re wanting to show yourself to be a class A hypocrite, your comkplaint about me I think you’d have to see is really a complaint about yourself.
June 18th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Or even better yet, when Peev had an opportunity to call in and talk directly to Michelle Bachmann, but he apparently forgot how to dial a phone. That, or he’s a raging keyboardist, but he’s terrified of the non-digital world.
June 18th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
“He`s pushing 1.7b to a time when he doesn`t have to worry about it.” Sort of like Dem politicians pushing tax increases on the “rich” so they don`t have to worry about it.
June 18th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Peev doth protest too much.
June 18th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
The same Edu shift was in the last failed version of the DFL gigantic tax increase. And the original Senate tax proposal was a 2 billion dollar decrease to K12 with their albeit bogus initial proposal.
The MN DFL are like spoiled children whining about being caught in a lie. And the mayors of St. Paul and Minneapolis are like crack heads on Skid Row who lost their supplier. They should have been in this movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0180093/
Sex Ed for pigeons, but I’ll cut police and fire. Good priorities Kaiser Coleman.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Sure am glad you all know everything – yep, sure am glad, just like I sure am glad the “low taxes=job growth” Governor you fawn over has grown soooo many jobs.. wait, what’s that, he’s LOST jobs.. how is that possible?
Low taxes under Bush and Tpaw, and we have SOOOOO many more jobs, more rich people, education is fixed, so is health care, sure am glad, yep.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Low taxes under Bush and Tpaw, and we have SOOOOO many more jobs, more rich people, education is fixed, so is health care, sure am glad, yep.
B-but penigma!- President Barack Obama himself says he’s “created or saved” hundreds of thousands of jobs- all by himself!
We really do have SOOOOO many more jobs! Really!
June 18th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
All I know Penigma, is that when TPaw had a GOP House the state was at a 2.2 billion dollar surplus after digging out of the Ventura deficit without raising taxes when things were already going south. Then the DFL took the purse strings in the legislature, jacked spending for their special interests in the HHS to a degree to take the reserves to nothing (they knew they didn’t have to spend squat on Edu evidenced by the meager increases that even EDU MN was bitching about), passed a HUGE tax increase in Transportation, and here we are… You say low taxes… we don’t have them. We never have. We are the highest taxed state between New York and California give or take a few. It’s the SPENDING stupid! More so it’s the wasteful useless spending.
So I would ask what is your high taxes/high spending/no reform=job growth plan… Is there one?
June 18th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
I didn’t scold Johnson, that’s a hyperbolic exageration (sic) of the first magnitude
One of the asinine statements cowardly Peev uttered:
If Johnson hasn’t argued before the court matters of fact about the MN Constitution dealing with educational law and standards, then he’s frankly speaking out his ass, legally speaking.
June 19th, 2009 at 4:07 am
penigma said:
“when did you become a city administrator, or a finance expert, such that you’d have a clue about ‘what St. Paul can cut’”
So you’d have to be a “city administrator” or a “financial expert” to have a “clue”?
“are you saying you are a bonafide expert on every program in the city and know ENTIRELY well and thuroughly what is a needed program and what isn’t”
So you need to be a “bonafide expert” to have an opinion on HOW OTHER PEOPLE SPEND YOUR MONEY?
These may be your opinions, penigma, but they are incredibly stupid opinions. In my opinion.
June 19th, 2009 at 4:16 am
I think we will have to see what kind of “job growth” we get whenever we get anywhere close to “low taxes”.
June 19th, 2009 at 6:50 am
Pen,
I didn’t scold Johnson, that’s a hyperbolic exageration (sic) of the first magnitude
Well, no. From the same piece that Brad quoted: “Foot, or any other lawyer wants to claim they make factual statements about the applicability of law in areas outside their expertise, then they are bigger fools than you, and that’s saying something indeed.
Your commentary about “anyone can comment’ implies just how little you know about the legal profession. Mitch, you and I are protected, as laypeople, when we comment about the law. Our comments are assumed to be uninformed. We CAN comment, but our comments are assumed to be inexpert. A lawyer who comments out of school is perpetrating malpractice – if you don’t believe that, I don’t care, you’re dead wrong, no ifs, no ands, no buts. His/her opinion, rendered on a topic they are not competent to comment on, is considered the HEIGHT of unprofessionalism. THAT’s the point, and the fact you don’t get that, is also the point. You make yourself out to be a fool by making comments like anyone who can read a statute is competent to comment, for a lawyer, as I understand it, that’s basically incorrect. ”
Say what you will, but I was not hyperbolic. You were scolding Johnson.
I don’t have any special desire to revisit the whole discussion, but you did get just a tad obstreporous aobut Johnson’s remarks.
June 19th, 2009 at 8:04 am
“A lawyer who comments out of school is perpetrating malpractice”
This is so far removed from reality, I don’t even know where to begin.
June 19th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Geez, Mitch, sorry I got your a** in a sling for suggesting the possibly that St. Paul could live without some programs. I didn’t realize a person needed to show his credentials before expressing an opinion.
How’s this: I spent nearly two decades as City Attorney representing half-a-dozen small cities and some townships. I sat through innumerable Council meetings as elected representatives struggled to balance the services their constituents desired against the tax revenues they anticipated receiving. In all that time, in all those meetings, I never once heard a small-town City Council member opine that it would be better to lay off the fire department so children could have a refrigerated outdoor hockey rink. I never once heard a small-town Mayor suggest that City would be a better place to live if they spent less on cops and more on mimes.
Instead, I routinely heard public servants trying their level best to decide what we NEED versus what we WANT in light of what we can AFFORD. Not everybody was satisfied with the results, but everybody was satisfied that the results were achieved honestly and in good faith. Can’t say the same thing about St. Paul today.
.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Oh, and Pen, re: Scott Johnson, the place to file the ethical complaint is here:
http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/olprbroch.html
Good luck with that.
.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Nate,
Were you a Kennedy & Graven guy?
June 19th, 2009 at 9:19 am
More Mines! More Mimes!
June 19th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Sorry, Foot, no. I didn’t mean to imply I was in their class; we were small town lawyers in Greater Minnesota.
My point in this (and the earlier comment linked by Mitch) was that the issues facing St. Paul versus South Haven differ in magnitude but not in scope. Both need to provide the same services: clean water, effective sewer, cops, firefighters, snow plows, street sweepers, economic development, etc. Both need to make hard decisions about what we want versus what we need in light of what we can afford.
I just think the small towns did it more honestly – and more sensibly – than St. Paul is doing it now.
.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:47 am
This is what I love about SitD. Lots of intelligent commentary and Peev.
Good humor.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Nate,
Wasn’t implying anything. Just wondering, since a couple of K&G attorneys were adjuncts for the local law course I took my third year.
Come to think of it, that course makes me qualified to opine on this issue under the Peev Opinion Originator Propriety and Eligibility Rating (POOPER)!
Ha! Suck it all you unqualified non-local-law-course-taking plebes!
June 19th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Peev, in picture format:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GCI4zdZ9fkg/SJTuHeUWRsI/AAAAAAAAAAk/37sBzuu9yb8/s400/whargarbl.jpg
June 19th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Peev:
I can comment on any number of subjects, regardless of my qualifications!!! Don’t you oppress me!
Peev on a different day regarding a different topic:
You can’t comment on any that subject!!! You are not sufficiently experienced, educated, or qualified!!! StFU!!!
Peev on yet another different day regarding yet another topic:
As a St. Paul citizen and tax payer, you can’t comment of St. Paul taxes, expenses, programs, and budgets!!! StFU!!!
June 19th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Badda, you can’t comment on Peev. You don’t have the necessary psychology degree.
June 19th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
I think that in St. Paul, the police and fire department represent 30% of the cities budget. Public Works is another 30%. Debt financing is 10% and Parks and Rec is a little less then 10%.
The police and fire department make up 1260 of the 2840 people on the city city pay roll (I’d also be willing to bet that after all of the overtime is counted that they are some of the highest paid city employees).
The police department is far and away, far far and away, the cities largest employer (by more then 25%). The fire department is #3. How could the police and fire not take a lions share of the budget?
If the budget needs to be cut and cutting the police and fire department budgets is not in the discussion what’s the point?
all of the info cited above can be found here:
http://mn-stpaul.civicplus.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=7800
June 19th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
If the Mayor said “We’ve already dumped everything except police and firefighters, there’s nothing left to cut, we have no choice but to lay off cops,” that would be one thing.
To start by cutting essential services instead of all the other programs Mitch listed, is quite another. That’s not responsible leadership, that’s political grandstanding. That’s what we’re complaining about.
It may well be that the City has to lay off cops to keep something even more important – but I’m damned if I can find it on Mitch’s list.
.
June 20th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Peev, read the bottom two paragraphs of this statement from the Office of the Governor of Texas:
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/12392/
Quit being a tax and spend leftist sycophant.
June 20th, 2009 at 11:59 am
And if you think the governor of Texas is lying, he’s not the only one saying it:
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=texas+created+more+jobs+in+2008+than+all+other+states&btnG=Google+Search