Abortion and guns in 2024 spotlight
11 months ago
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Where Do We Go From Here?
Well, the budget failed, not surprisingly, by a 2-1 margin.
I say "not surprisingly" because saying no is always easy; and in a climate where many local towns are slashing budgets and even closing schools and our First Selectman made the careful choice to exert no political capital on behalf of his budget, and in a circumstance where people are upset about the building department and the Dems just want to hand Mr. Freda a defeat . . . well, you get the point.
Way to stem the tide of populist anger, Mr. Freda - both in your budget presentation and in your handling of the budget's promotion.
So, now, we're going to see the ugly game of limbo, and you all know the rules and expectations of limbo.
People can just keep turning out to vote no now. It's easy. It's easy to oppose. It's easy to say no.
Now, Mike, it's time to figure out how to produce a budget that retains as much town value as possible that the people can and will say YES to. You'd better get to work, sir.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Completely disagree with you on this one.
It's not the easy choice to vote "no". Voting "no" meant we had to accept change and force fiscal responsibility on our leaders to make very difficult choices that may effect our daily lives.
Voting "yes" was the easy choice, stats quo solution. Voting "yes" meant putting our collective heads in the sands and pretending that there are no economic issues happening in out households, towns, and states.
Knowing that you are in debt and that you elect to keep spending more than you earn is the easy choice.
That's what brought the credit crisis in this country down on our heads.
I can't even begin to understand why anyone voted "no" based on any other reason than rejecting the budget based on taxes and our current level of services.
If people voted "no" because they were upset with the building office issue or wanted to use the budget referendum vote as a vote of "no confidence" on Freda and his administration than that's just completely miss-guided.
Jackson, I have ZERO doubt that what you said is true for you. You've proven that you're a rational and reasonable person many times over.
I have to disagree with you, and I think you actually agree with my side. You saw the irrational responses defending NO votes on Chris's blog.
Clearly, just from the numbers, people had an easier time saying no.
Did you just attempt a Jedi mind trick on me? ;)
Thanks for understanding at least where I'm coming from, but,
Unfortunately, I still don't completely agree with you.
I believe that a very small percentage of that "No" vote was based on a "No confidence" vote on Mr. Freda and his administration or on the building office.
Even if all of those "No" votes were removed for the total count the budget would have still failed to pass. I don't think that there was over 1000 or 1/3 of those types of votes.
I do agree with you that it was probably "easy" for them to vote "no" because they can't really understand what the budget referendum vote was for, because it was not for or against the things they stated wht they voted "no".
There's always going to be that group of people that are completely clueless on both sides of any vote.
No disagreement there. :-) Is that a Star Trek reference? I'll have to have either my husband or my son translate for me.
It's a Star Wars reference... Your son or husband should be able to translate it. :)
Post a Comment