All for naught?
I almost didn't go and vote during the recent referendum on the city budget because it didn't say whether the City Council could still vote in a large tax increase after the residents expressed their opinion on the subject. And after reading the article in today's paper, I see that the City Council did just that, stating that the average taxpayer increase will be about $146 rather than the original $200 (big deal). Why did we go through the time, effort and expense to have the referendum if the Council was still going to vote for a large increase in taxes? Was it all for naught? And the proposed cuts to the budget are once again politically motivated. Why are we cutting needed services from police and fire departments rather than pork that is inevitably in every budget?
The cuts to the pension plan contributions is not a true cut but merely putting it off for a later date. There must have been a reason for the large increase in expenses, in the first place, to warrant such a large increase in taxes. Why not cut back on those new or increasing expenses?
I can tell you why; so that our city leaders can now say that it is our fault for voting for the referendum in the first place rather than placing the blame where it actually belongs. I don't see why there couldn't have been an across the board percentage cut for each department and let the department heads figure out where they can cut back. Also, I am not a fan of furlough days but I would much rather take one or two days off without pay rather than lose my job altogether.
Well, I guess the city leaders figure that this will deter any residents in the future from gathering signatures for another referendum seeing that it was a total waste of time. What a shame !
Albert Otto, Meriden