More Bureaucracy, More Taxes, Less Services
April 15, 2007 by Cato
Filed under Fiscal Policy, Maryland, Public Safety, Salisbury Politics, Taxes
Take time to read Barrie Tilghman’s Budget Message. As soon as I have time this week I’ll try to post the line item budget and her budget summary (which is actually much longer than the line item budget).
One glaring inconsistency in the budget message is the fire truck that she wants to purchase. In the budget message Barrie lists the cost as $750,000. In the line item budget it is listed as $950,000. $950,000 is the correct number. It’s not Barrie’s money, so $200,000 doesn’t really matter to her, does it.
During the next few weeks we’ll be bringing you details of how Barrie wants to take over $700,000 from the Fire Dept. (in personnel costs) while continuing to fund the boondoggle on the bog. She also wants to give promotions and raises to some of her loyal sycophants. Perhaps Lore Chambers (Barrie wants to promote her to Assistant City Administrator) can rush into a burning building the next time there is a fire.
As you read the budget documents we will post, you will see that there is an underlying message:
MORE BUREAUCRACY, MORE TAXES, LESS SERVICES
Technorati Tags: Salisbury, politics, salisburypolitics, budget, bureaucracy, fiscalpolicy, taxation
Powered by ScribeFire
Sphere: Related Content
Cato:
Can you explain the following statement from Barrie’s budget blather (it’s from the 3rd page, just above where she say that she wants higher taxes):
“During this past year, we have begun an analysis of our fiscal structure. This leads us to the decision to adopt a policy of only bringing surplus forward during the budget process to recommend funding for capital projects. This reduces the amount that we have been able and comfortable bringing forth in the past.â€
It reads with such an intense ambiguity that it could mean almost anything. The mayor needs to explain this one a bit further. At the end of it, no one’s sure what the “amount” is, where it comes from, what you did with it in the past, and why there’s a reduction in it and why that’s uncomfortable.
Is this to say that the surplus is really close to nothing, and that no capital projects can look forward to funding from surplus projections? Yes, one can see how this would create some discomfort. The checking account’s empty, and the overdraft protection is maxxed out?