Wrong again!

The morning paper’s lead political columnist gets it wrong again, and possibly is forgiven by the boss because he so frequently simply re-states management policy in different words.

His headline says: "Streets are icy? You get what you pay for."  Wrong.  Tax dollars are taken from citizens, under threat of fine and imprisonment, for the purpose of operating municipal government on behalf of all citizens.

That’s what we pay for.  And the giveaways which absorb such huge amounts of public funds should follow - if exist at all - when the city services for which we do pay are completed to the satisfaction of citizens.  And only then.

Hundreds of millions of tax dollars have been and are being spent on projects approved by the so-called leadership of this city, without the suppliers of those dollars ever having been asked for their approval.

The columnist takes the approved Washington approach to fiscal problems.  He even mentions the $10 million being handed to the local basketball team.  But instead of making any suggestion toward an effort to eliminate, reduce, or even prioritize such outrageous expenditures, his answer is "...we will have to chip in a little more."  (Following Washington’s lead, can we take a whack at any local millionaires and billionaires?)

What is needed is to chip at...no, let’s make that "take an axe to"... corporate welfare of all kinds, with great emphasis on every dollar which goes to any business refusing to produce data justifying a request for public dollars.

A newspaper has constitutional protection so that it can be a watchdog over government for the people.  And we know that in this case we’re talking about the opinion of an individual, misguided as it may be.  But  is a costly new scoreboard for the basketball team really a higher priority than safe, ice-clear streets?  

Isn’t it time for editorial policy of the paper itself to be asking some questions about whether we’re really getting we’re paying for?  And if we're not, why not?

Comments

[Gary Welsh]

The larger point he misses in his column is that the only reason many of our side streets get plowed when it snows is because neighborhood associations collect dues from residents and pay private contractors to plow their streets. That's the way it has been in my downtown neighborhood for the past 18 years I've lived there.

[Jiim Fuquay]

I usually agree with these columns but not this one. I believe Mathew Tully raised a some good points--that is (1) Hoosiers generally believe that lower taxes and living on the cheap is a good thing even when it comes to safety issues and (2) Hoosiers don't demand and hold elected officials accountable for the essential services that their tax dollars are expecterd to pay for. Mathew Tully, in my opinion, is about the only Indy Star columnist with the balls to take on the dysfunctions and misguided priorities of the city administration. Other contributors, like Russ Pulliam, are so far up the butts of many of Indiana's elected leaders that he can't clearly see and critically think through issues of governance.

[Jiim Fuquay]

One more point...the column's point about corporate welfare is right on target, in my opinion.