- Council Asks that Libraries Remain Open
- Good news! City Council stands up to the mayor, says "the public have questions!"
- Be There For Health Care Today at City Hall at noon
- City Paper on the effects of the YPP poll and other online organizing on budget cuts
- Another local library group organizes
- Kids organizing in Mantua to keep their library to open
- Talk solutions with Maria Quinones-Sanchez @ PFC Meetup tonight
- Talking Out of Both Sides on Libraries
- Vince Fumo, the Charmer
- SCI Camp Hill Update—Call for Action, Increased Monitoring, Constant Vigilance
Fattah's New Ads are Lies
Submitted by Aardhart on Sat, 05/05/2007 - 3:17pm.
According to Fight for Room 215:
"Tom Knox and Mike Nutter want to reform government. What's their answer? Massive Budget Cuts which would put neighborhood schools and services at risk."
That is completely and utterly false. Neither of them is planning massive budget cuts. Fattah may think that their plans are unrealistic, but the commercial is patently false. Given that his budget plans rely on "fuzzy math" (as Evans has called it) and the unrealistic airport plan (as almost everyone has called it), I guess he has to resort to lies.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Let the games begin!
Every assertion made in the ad is backed up. You can see that here.
How about you argue based on those facts?
All those facts question how
All those facts question how realistic the budgets are. There is no support that Nutter is planning budget cuts. I would put Nutter's proposed budget up against Fattah's proposals (no budget proposed) to be evaluated for realism by any neutral accountants.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
The case is certainly
The case is certainly stronger against Knox than Nutter -- the "facts" you quoted listed $47 million that Nutter thinks he can find in efficiencies (as opposed to Knox, who initially claimed $400 million), plus $1.2 million that Nutter "lost" in a fight with Street, where it's clear that however obnoxious Nutter may have been, Street took the money away.
Also, you can't argue that Nutter's budget would endanger "schools and essential services" when Nutter's budget proposes more money for the public schools.
Most people in the city would trade $47 million in inessential city jobs for more money for teachers and law enforcement.
What I really don't understand is why Fattah made this an issue about "reform" at all. He could have just said that his plan for crime prevention costs less than theirs and that he thinks government can do more for poor people, not less. He could also point to his airport plan and his tax differences. He doesn't do that. The message instead is, "poor people don't need/want reform." I just don't see how it plays.
Short is right
Short is right about Nutter's proposal for increased funding for public education:
The ad contains a lie, but I expect we will hear far more egregious lies in this last week of the campaign.
Fattah was clearly angry at last night’s debate. I think he expected this race to be a coronation.
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor
Karen
Do you believe that 2-1=3? Nutter does.
Increasing tax revenue
Stan, do you believe that Tax Revenue increased almost every year of the past eleven? Nutter does.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
So do Philadelphia's last
So do Philadelphia's last dozen budgets.
That darned reality. Always getting in the way of arithmetic.
Not under the sharp net income tax cuts that Nutter is proposing
because that tax hasn't been cut a dime. And furthermore, the cuts that have been made drew in 0 new businesses. The only reason revenue has gone up is because corporate profits have gone through the roof. Too bad that we won't be able to continue profiting from that as we sharply reduce the tax that captures the revenue.
I don't know, Stan. Wages,
I don't know, Stan. Wages, profits, and property values are all continuing to rise. Unless those all totally level off -- and with the promise of a pro-job, pro-business climate, I don't see why we can't (at the very least) stay revenue neutral for the foreseeable future.
Also, Nutter hasn't released a proposed schedule for the net profits tax -- so there's no evidence to characterize the reduction as "sharp." The wage and gross receipts tax have all been brought down gradually without a loss in revenue. The net profits tax can be as well. (I'd support bringing it down slowly, something like .1% annually, and only after the gross receipts tax has dropped to 1 mill.)
Isn't it interesting, though that the guy who's touted as
a financial genius, and oh, so transparent, hasn't actually said how how fast he's going to cut the net income tax. And given us no estimate of how much revenue his cuts will cost, or for that matter, if he believes it, how much revenue the tax cuts will gain? He just tries to make the issue go away by pushing his simplistic notion that there won't be any impact at all from tax cuts. Because that's what his experts allegedly say. So why lay out a schedule?
I tell you, he knows there will be a major impact, but he just doesn't want to admit it or raise it for polite discussion. The whole scheme is bogus.
As for his creating a "pro-business climate" I think he could do better by following Fattah's emphasis on poverty reduction, thus increasing the disposable income of the customers of those potential new businesses, and improving the readiness of the workforce, which is also central to Fattah's proposal. The more money a business makes, the less taxes hurt, no?
Any impact of Fattah's
Any impact of Fattah's antipoverty agenda will be indirect and delayed (even on poverty). It has to be, because it's education-based, and education is one of those things that takes some time to pay off.
Best case scenario -- new apprenticeship programs, boost in educational technology, and college scholarships. Sending kids to West Chester or Penn State doesn't do much to increase the disposable income of anyone in Philadelphia -- okay, maybe the people running the new programs -- let alone do it at any kind of scale anytime soon.
You're better off making the Tom Knox case -- that what we really need to draw employers to the area is workforce education, that the faster Philadelphia can improve its educational system, the more attractive we'll be to job-creating companies. As it happens, Michael Nutter agrees -- which is why he's putting more money into the public schools and community colleges. Of course, Nutter also wants to ensure that there are high-paying jobs for these kids (and reeducated grownups) -- which is (among other reasons) why Nutter supports continued cuts to the wage tax, improving Philadelphia's tax competitiveness, reforming the zoning code, cleaning up our ethically-challenged political and bureaucratic system so nobody has to bribe anyone to qualify for a program or build a new supermarket...
As I've made clear before, I choose
not to get into the details of particular programs because that's not the real issue we're deciding in this election. The issue is, what are we going to focus on in the next four years, and will we have the revenue to do any of it. That's what Fattah wants to focus on. And, to get back to the subject, he's doing it quite nicely with his new ad. You can "spin the shit", as someone else keeps referring to in another context, about tax cuts and magical new revenues, but that won't help you keep the government afloat while you add hundreds of millions of dollars worth of new programs. It will be truly wonderful to have a clean, pure, and money-starved government.
That's a cop out Stan. How
That's a cop out Stan. How someone plans to deal with an issue is just as important as what the issue is.
Are you honestly saying that if Fattah says "I am going to solve the poverty problem by giving everyone a puppy" you go LALALALALA after the solve poverty part?
--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.
Longacre Website
Look, Fattah's programs are eminently reasonable
and I was packing it in when I wrote that note. He has a wide range of programs, including getting people through college who dropped out, and improving their capacity at almost every age level. Yes, they may take some time to pay off, but when it does, it will start changing lives. Whoever suggested that this problem, that has been with us for decades and has recently been getting worse, can be or must be, solved overnight? And Nutter wants to put money into public schools and community colleges, you say. Exactly how does that differ in terms of time line out of poverty with Fattah's programs that you criticize for being education based? Aren't you comparing apples and apples here?
And if I don't get back at you right away, don't be offended. Can't sit here all day.
Stan, I do not believe I
Stan,
I do not believe I have argued with you about you choosing Fattah based on rhetoric and idealism. I only called you out for the comment about how the program doesn't matter, only the intent. That is wrong and I just wanted to help guide you back from the dark side of that type of defense. ;)
And it is an Internet forum ... there never should need to be a defense of when you state a reply. This isn't a debate with a time clock and a moderator. You should only post when you want to post and have the time for it. I have never said anything about someone not immediately replying to anything, so I assume some of this is directed at other people.
--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.
Longacre Website
Growth in Business Establishments, 1994 - 2003
Note that I am not comparing New York City and Philadelphia, simply plotting the two together to look at differences in overall trends. Without controlling for differences in size, it wouldn't necessarily be a fair thing to do. Note also that this is not firm births, just the change in the number of establishments (source = Census, obviously), which has births and deaths built-in.
My figures for Philly % change in business establishments
are a bit different, but this still confirms the point that I've been making: the recent sharp growth in Philly business tax revenue is not because of the growth in businesses allegedly attracted by tax cuts, but due to profit growth in businesses already here. Therefore, the tax cuts have served no positive purpose. The growth in BPT revenue clearly would have been greater without the cuts. No one has yet alleged, that I'm aware of, that tax cuts improve profits of companies present in the jurisdiction (except incidentally, of course, due to a decrease in tax expense).
The total number of
The total number of businesses in Philadelphia remaining constant doesn't at all mean that the same businesses are making more money. Rather, some existing businesses are making more money, some less profitable businesses went out of business or left the city, and some new, more profitable businesses took their place.
Maybe there's a kind of Darwinian fitness at work here -- lower business taxes attract smarter, more profit-oriented businesspeople?
Another great theory
to bet the house on.
Well, the new and old
Well, the new and old businesses are paying significantly higher wages -- those collections are up, too, despite tax cuts -- so something must be going right.
Something is going right
Corporate profits are soaring, and probably wages, especially executive wages, are increasing as well. And there could be a change of company types in the mix too. It's a nice parlor game coming up with the best explanation. But the basis for having a go at the Net Income Tax? No.
In the NFL, you always hear
In the NFL, you always hear about coaches saying "we got addition by subtraction". It is a reference to how you receive benefits from eliminating a negative influence.
--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.
Longacre Website
I think here, too, Fattah
I think here, too, Fattah misunderstands or distorts what "reform" means. If all he thinks reform in Philadelphia is about is shrinking government, he's wrong -- and the voters I think understand that.
All in all, it's a strange move to position yourself as anti-reform in an election where reform seems to carry such political weight (and where he's already had to give campaign money back, challenged the reform legislation in court, and lost some media days in the hubbub over his tax disclosures).
I kept waiting for Fattah to say, "I'm really serious about government reform" -- but he never did.
Supporting Michael Nutter for Mayor.
I didn't get that
I didn't see the ad as a comment on the size of government or the necessity of reform and improved ethics in City Hall (Fattah's plan for openness and transparency in government does after all contain lengthy sections about ending pay-to-play).
Instead, the focus of this ad is pretty simple: you can't cut taxes, without being revenue neutral, and not see cuts in city services.
For those who haven't, see the ad for yourself:
On Election Day, votes have to decide whether or not Knox and Nutter's plan to cut taxes as an investment strategy for the city in terms of job creation make mores sense than Fattah's plan to strengthen the quality of our workforce through education.
I am sure more outrage from Nutter fans will follow this comment, but stepping out of my campaign role for a second, the exchange between Nutter and Fattah in last night's debate, as well as this ad, are not personality based--they are priority and issue-based which is a far cry from elections past (like when Frank Rizzo called Ron Castille a drunk on the evening news and in print).
There are real differences between the candidates for Mayor, and voters should be excited to choose the one they like best this time around.
For comparison's sake here's Nutter's new ad
Which do you think voters will respond more positively to? Don't forget to consider the fact that Nutter actually has money to run his ad, while Fattah's will be running on this blog and Google video.
The more Fattah tries to pick fights with Nutter in debates, the more bitter, arrogant and desperate he looks. Not a great impression to make in the last days of a campaign. I think him calling Nutter the "media darling" last night was very telling. Clearly Fattah just can't believe that the media didn't anoint him to the Mayor's Office and he's lashing out at Nutter because of his anger at the situation.
These attacks are only priority and issue-based in that Fattah's priority and main issue is trying to get elected mayor. To me it's more sad than anything else.
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor
Yes, he has more money
because the whole corporate elite supports him and has been showering him with $1,000 to $5,000 checks. How is it not a valid issue to question the viability of cutting taxes and increasing spending? You don't define that as a real issue? You mean it's self-evident that less taxes equal more revenue? It should be beyond the pale to question that?
Fattah is welcome to
Fattah is welcome to publicly oppose tax cuts. He doesn't. He sounds like a supply-sider in every recent public appearance. Fattah is just spinning the shit.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
Over 4000 individual donors
Have given to Nutter's campaign. How many individual donors has Fattah received money from? Why don't you compare the amount of money each has received in $250 and less donations? Here's a hint, Fattah hasn't raised very much in that category.
Just keep making things up to support what you believe, Stan. It really helps your credibility.
To the extent that the "corporate elite" has donated to Nutter it is probably a more recent phenomenon related to his fast rise in the polls. Big money tends to flow to perceived winners. I would bet that many of those same "corporate elite" were giving $1000 and $5000 to Fattah back in January when he was the frontrunner.
And let's not forget those 6 figure checks that Fattah was collecting for his exploratory committee. Who was writing those, Stan? Corporate elite, indeed.
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor
Fattah has a sprinkling of big donors, yes
but the fat cats I listed in my post yesterday all gave to Nutter in 2006, while Nutter was in the single digits. 10% of his money last year, in which year he raised about $1.2 mil, came from the legal sector alone which will make out big time under his net income tax cut. On top of that he has a long list of CEO's, CFO's, real estate developers, and financial mavens all happy to give Nutter bucks when he was but a footnote to the campaign. Nutter has been their guy from the beginning.
$220,000
Nutter raised more than $220,000 in $250 and less donations in the last reporting period. That's almost 15% of the total amount he raised. I can't find Fattah's latest report online, but I'm betting he hasn't raised even $50,000 in $250 and less donations.
Fattah has gotten his money from the same corporate and legal interests and when last I checked (when he filed that report that wasn't required) the vast majority of his money had come in $1000 or greater chunks. You condemn Nutter but you choose to overlook the same issues with Fattah.
I'm done with this.
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor
Right, he's gotten the $1,000 or more checks
but just a lot fewer of them, and very little from his major natural constituency, poor people, for obvious reasons. Did you know that the poverty level for a single person is around $9500. How much do you think that leaves for campaign contributions?
Which is why Fattah wanted the limits overturned
So he could raise huge checks from a few mega-rich donors. But I guess since they were Fattah donors they would be the "philanthropic elite," rather than the "corporate elite," right?
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor
Exactly. I don't support that stand, but I understand it.
If it was easy to raise money fighting for poor folks, why don't you think there are more candidates out there doing it?
Not a Big Deal
He tried to get the limits overturned so he could raise six figure checks from very wealthy, very connected individuals and is now on the record saying that he doesn't believe corruption or the attempts to rid Philadelphia's Government of that corruption are particularly important. A bad combination.
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor
P.S. Fattah speaks for people
for whom even $20 is beyond their capacity to give. That's why no one else has made lifting them up central to their campaign.
no one else has made lifting
no one else has made lifting them up central to their campaign
Right, because reducing crime, improving schools, fighting unemployment, and bringing jobs to Philadelphia only lifts people up if they also sell the airport.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
No, he should have said you lift them up by funding programs
with tax cuts, phony cuts in waste, finding phantom revenues in City budgets, underestimating the cost of your proposal to hire 500 more police, and generally dealing with ideas through empty promises and wall to wall support from the city's power elites.
Yes, Stan we know...
If you don't support Fattah, you hate the poor and you either are a part of or love the "corporate elite."
The Philadelphia equivalent of you're either with us or against us. If Fattah loses, the terrorists win (clearly no one has actually said this and since there is such a high degree of sensitivity on this blog I feel the need to point out it is meant as a sarcastic statement).
I think Fattah's problem is that many people think he doesn't speak for anyone but himself.
Done with this, too.
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor
I suppose you don't believe there is a corporate elite?
It ain't the same as believing in Santa Claus, I must tell you. They are real, and they know what they want. And it's tax cuts. Did you notice btw why the Inquirer didn't endorse Irv yesterday? It was pretty clear. He didn't say uncle to them on their (Nutter's) tax cut agenda. Otherwise, he was great. What could be more clear about who the Inquirer speaks for?
I believe there is
And I believe you will find most of the people that you put into that class (everything seems to be about class to you) on the campaign finance reports of every Democrat except Knox. The "coporate elite" in Philadelphia tends to hedge their bets when it comes to politics, you know that as well as I do.
Also, that "corporate elite" is going to need to create a whole lot more jobs in the near future if we're going to have any hope of lifting anybody out of anything.
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor
Yes, they hedge their bets, but it's interesting
that the sacred Inquirer only noted the heavy corporate presence in Nutter's report, no one else's, stating he had donations "from a range of supporters, including powerful players in the city's legal and business communities. For instance, among those who gave $5,000 - the maximum individual donation permitted under the city's new law - were developers Carl Dranoff and Daniel Neducsin."
Why do you suppose that was? Because his fundraising was just like that of everyone else?
And I can tell you there were plenty more of these heavy hitters hitting heavily even last year, when there was no reason to hedge bets with a noname District Councilman in the single digits. No, they were looking to promote that guy, and they succeeded.
And of course business will have to create a whole lot more jobs. But business doesn't care about creating jobs. Indeed, they would rather have fewer jobs and more profits, although their pitchmen and lobbyists always talk up their job-creating intentions when looking for handouts. Just like when they pitch the tax cuts they're lusting for here, which will likely produce few or none of those jobs.
Fattah, Laywers & Lobbyists
Stan - I don't get the point you're trying to make about Nutter here. I just looked on the "Open Secrets" website and see that Fattah raised $224,779 from the "Lawyers & Lobbyists" category for his congressional campaign, more than from any other category. What's your point about Nutter then?
Disclaimer: I support Michael Nutter for Mayor, Matt McClure for 4th District, Marc Stier, Derek Green, Blondell Reynolds Brown, and Kenney for Council-at-Large and Barack Obama for President. I also like dogs, asian food, the East Falls School Committee, and PhillyCarShare. Also, I rode my bike to work today and had Chinese food for dinner last night.
That's the ever fun comparison between apples
and you know what. As a high ranking, unbeatable member of Congress you get contributions from a far wider pool, and from people who clearly are paying just to get their calls returned. Completely different than what's going on here.
Well, They are Both Fruits
Stan - The lawyers and lobbyists gave Fattah a bit less than 1/4 million "just to get their calls returned"? As you've said before, "surely you jest". I'm not implying anything, but just making the point that whatever distinction you're trying to make hangs on a very slender reed.
I don't jest at all, although I love jesting.
We're talking about a business expense, a minor business expense for a far wider universe of potential givers than get involved in a Philly mayor's race. And I may be hanging on a slender reed, but the Inquirer, not noted for their vendettas against Nutter, mentioned the prevalence of local power-broker types in Nutter's contributor list as well. Just yesterday. Are they trying to sabotage him? Now that would be a story.
Minor Business Expenses, Small Wars, Collateral Damage, etc.
Let me get this straight, on one hand we've got contributions that are "minor business expense[s]" and on the other we've got the "corporate elite" looking to exact a quid pro quo from the candidate? So when Klehr, Harrison gave Fattah almost $46k for his 2nd Congressional District election last year, it was kind of like they bought some staples and paper clips but when a couple local developers gave Nutter $5,000 a piece it presents evidence of a diabolical plan?
The couple couldn't give more than 5k, could they
They gave to the max along with a raft of other CEO's, CFO's, developers, ball clubs, financiers, etc., etc. Did I tell you that the Inky took notice of it Friday? If the Inky thinks it's important, it must be important.
You Had Said
Yea - you mentioned the Inky...but I guess you're not going to respond to what I said about Fattah's contributors, aside from saying that his contributions are "minor business expenses". And weren't you just last week denigrating the Inky for their endorsement of Michael; now they're insightful?
What I think the Inky was doing was obliquely debunking a myth about Michael, one of which is that he doesn't really have support or a "base". In this instance, you'll be quick to point out that it's the "Center City Business Elite" who is supporting him (and some of those corporate elite seem to think that Fattah is a swell guy) but the broader point is that Michael's got a lot of support from a lot of people all over the City. It's one of the reasons why his campaign is going so well at this point...he's got Citywide appeal. And Stan, do you think that the Inky would throw out a glowing endorsement and then undermine it? That's a little silly.
So much for trickle up economics eh Stan?
Maybe we should give donors the money so they can donate it to Fattah.
Unsurprisingly
you miss my point entirely. Maybe someone else can explain it to you.
There isn't anything about
There isn't anything about taxes or revenue neutrality in the ad -- just "reform." That seems to be the political mistake in the ad -- if there's anything more popular in Philadelphia politics right now than tax cuts, it's reform.
The deeper, more cynical mistake is the claim that Nutter's budget plan would "put neighborhood schools and services at risk," when Nutter has pledged more money for the city's schools and increased services, especially more police, citywide recycling, etc.
Nutter's credibility should be zero on his plans
and they should be attacked as I've been doing here. About time that Fattah took them on. Nutter wants to start out with the new hole in his budget that would be created through his reckless tax cut scheme. Guess what, that means budget cuts, no matter how much you want to paper that reality over by calling for more, rather than less spending.
If Fattah had talked at all
If Fattah had talked at all about tax proposals in his ad, he could try to make the Stan Shapiro case. But he doesn't.
It's implied; there's just so much you can do
in a thirty second ad that you can't afford to blast out of every media outlet.
It's simple:
It's simple:
Strike "reform government." Replace with "lower business taxes."
Fattah would have to come out against tax cuts, but that seems better that coming out against reform.
Maybe I should work for Fattah's ad team. :-)
No, he's intending to debunk the whole reform agenda
for what he thinks it is, a smokescreen to divert people's attention from Knox' and Nutter's real primary goal, to reduce the size of government. There are distinctions between the two of them, and each is more dangerous in different ways, but again, Fattah is limited by the format.
That's the sense I got from
That's the sense I got from the ad too, that Fattah thinks reform = gov't reduction. But I was told that that wasn't the point at all.
I will say here and now that while I speak for no one but myself, I think more than a few heads in Philadelphia's government deserve to roll -- not just elected officials. Of course, anyone who can find ways to cut costs and make city government work better can stay as long as they like.
Different people can interpret the ad differently, but
to me, Fattah is not equating reform per se with government reduction, but that it's what Nutter and Knox are really peddling when you get down to the bottom line.
Never Said That
To reduce the size of government? As you said about somebody else's comments Stan, "surely you jest". At this point, you're just making stuff up.
Ray, the primary assertion
Ray, the primary assertion of this ad just ain't true. What would be wrong with simply saying, "I believe that Nutter/Knox's unrealistic budgets will lead to drastic budget cuts."? Instead, the ad claims that Nutter and Knox are actually PROPOSING these cuts, which is fudging the truth at best, and is an important distinction to make.
It's one thing to go back on your promise not to go negative. It's another to do it under an utterly misleading premise.
***
Volunteering for Michael Nutter
It's not misleading
if you think Nutter includes tax cutting as part of reform, which he does, and if you think Nutter knows the tax cut "reforms" will cost lots of money and therefore services.
C'mon, now...
You don't think there's ANY distinction to make between proposing something that an opponent perceives to be an unrealistic budget and proposing budget cuts outright?
Listen, I don't agree with your conclusions about Nutter and taxes - obviously - but I don't dispute that your case is one that has some merit and internal consistency. All I'm asking is that Fattah make that case with a certain level of intellectual honesty about Nutter's stated intentions. What he's gone with instead is a cheap-shot ad.
***
Volunteering for Michael Nutter
Fattah's not talking about Nutter's "stated intentions"
just what he thinks his intentions actually are. And his conclusions about those intentions are, unfortunately, quite logical.
This is where is gets a
This is where is gets a little boring, because I say "Fattah IS claiming that Nutter's stated intention is to drastically cut the budget, and that's not true." I mean, that's what the ad says. Quoth Fattah: "What's their answer? Massive budget cuts..."
Fortunately, you can read a world of nuance into those words, as well as the hidden intentions that lie deep within the cranium of the former Councilman. Lacking these powers of interpretation and clairvoyance, I will, sadly, have to go to bed.
***
Volunteering for Michael Nutter
Yes -- $49 million, less
Yes -- $49 million, less than 2% of the city's budget, is "massive." I'm not saying it's insignificant, but compared to Knox, who says he wants to cut $100-$400 million of the city's budget, Nutter's plans are modest. There's also Bob Brady, who wants to cut taxes to the same level as Knox or Nutter, but doesn't think we have to lose any jobs at all.
Every city job is sacred. Every city job is great.
My real worry is the potential for abuse in Fattah's high-minded anti-poverty programs, especially if it's more about ideals than economics, or if his managerial mind is elsewhere, on more important things. And I still don't understand why the Opportunity Agenda needs an entire appointed board to oversee its spending. Wouldn't one director with a small office do the trick?
Fattah can't even pronounce the word learning
I'm amazed at the level desparation Fattah has sunk to. He's even more desparate than Evans. This Fattah is the one I have seen at issue forums: unprepared and ignorant of the facts,
His website still has no policv on education. He shirks responsibility by seeking to let the state continue to manage it. That is not leadership, but it is Fattah.
If the media chooses to not air the 527 groups ads because of legitimacy, they should not air this one either.
Freedom to Lie
If the media chooses to not air the 527 groups ads because of legitimacy, they should not air this one either.
That's what I thought immediately, but it appears that is not an option.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
the level of discourse here is appalling
I had intended to post here my own reasons for supporting Fattah - not just because I think a campaign and administration focused on alleviating poverty in this city is exactly what's needed, but also based on knowing him, working with him, and paying attention to his stellar level of achievement for almost 18 years. But I have decided that it's not worth my time. I'm going back to canvassing voters in my overwhelmingly African-American neighborhood. I successfully turned a bunch away from Knox and toward Fattah today.
I don't know who most of you are and so have no way to judge you except for your words here. The attacks on Fattah are disgraceful, venal, nasty. If he had just crawled out from a rock and had never done anything worthwhile for our city and its citizens - like Knox - I could see this. No one else is getting this kind of treatment, and I am staggered by it. A man who has spent his entire life working for education and opportunity for our most vulnerable citizens with spectacular results, and almost all of it while serving in legislative bodies ruled by Republicans, deserves better than the insulting belittling he is receiving here.
On other streams I have made longer, more eloquent arguments for his candidacy. I have compared him to Michael Nutter and others, but I have not maligned Nutter, who I respect, but whose credentials don't hold a candle to Fattah's, in my book. I may not be as vociferous as Stan, but I too fail to see how cutting business taxes will not result in major City budget cuts. These cuts will certainly hurt the most vulnerable citizens. They will also mean lost jobs - good paying, union jobs with pensions and health benefits, held by thousands of Philadelphia residents who populate and stabilize our neighborhoods. Someone earlier called them "inessential." Nice.
Kathy Black
Proud supporter of Chaka Fattah for Mayor
Are you seriously suggesting that Fattah doesn't
care about education? Come on. As to the state takeover, do you have a plan to get the legislature to pay for the needs of the school district if we take it back from the state? Does Nutter? I haven't heard it.
Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen
I know a lot of Nutter supporters. Some are good friends. As such, I know better than to generalize. However, some Nutter supporters are downright nasty and make the banner of reform they carry seem like a joke.
True reform includes running campaigns on issues. Fattah does attack Knox and Nutter's plans for our city budget
, but he did not attack the men. Fattah has great respect for Mike Nutter. However, he launched his new ad to ask fair questions about Nutter's budget priorities.If you can't handle defending Nutter without resorting to personal attacks, go to another blog.
Further, stop attacking Fattah's character and making things up about his record, and stick to deconstructing his position on issues.
Lastly, Congressman Bill Gray, who got higher in the Democratic party leadership than any Congressman ever from PA, once said that the GEAR UP legislation, written and passed by Congressman Fattah was the most significant legislation passed under 12 years of Republican dominance in Congress from 1994-2006.
Candidate's character
A candidate's character is a legitimate issue to raise in an election. I started this thread because I feel the ad is false. I believe that running an attack ad based on a lie after pledging to stay positive says something about Fattah's integrity. Integrity is important to me in selecting a mayor. The only evidence of integrity is person's actions. It can't be discovered from policy papers.
I know that you disagree with whether the ad contains a lie, whether Fattah is spinning the shit about his position on tax cuts, whether he is abandoning a pledge to stay positive, and whether any of this says anything about his integrity or is (or should be) relevant to this race.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
integrity?
And the sum total proof of his integrity and character is contained in one 30 second commercial, where, as I understand it, you object to the use of one phrase? After 25 years of pubic service and a public record that can be examined and dissected and analyzed for signs of character and integrity? Have you bothered? Apparently not. Hence my disgust. His record precedes Nutter's and outweighs it by any measure. Your allegiance to Nutter has blinded you to anyone else's attributes. It's touching, but it doesn't pass the test of true analysis.
Tax cuts for business without identified replacement revenue will result in budget cuts and staff cuts and therefore loss of critical city services, especially for our inner-city neighborhoods and residents. If you believe otherwise, we have the second greatest concentration of higher education institutions in the nation in this region and I suggest you enroll in Econ 101.
Raising the level of discourse
My post didn't say that Fattah had no integrity. But as long as you are pushing the issue, I don't trust him speak truthfully. I don't base this just on "one 30 second commercial." He spun the shit for Street four years ago. He says he's for tax cuts, and he attacks candidates who are for tax cuts. When asked about fighting the city's campaign finance laws and potentially stripping power from the city, he responded "I'm trying to beat Tom Knox. What are you trying to do." His tactics suggest that he would win at any cost. I've spoken with people who have worked with several of the candidates, including Fattah. I've read and watched quite a bit on this mayoral race. My opinions have not been formed by "one 30 second commercial."
Regardless of my opinion, character and integrity are relevant to selecting a mayor. And this ad says something about Fattah's integrity.
I know Fattah has done many good things and I can understand why people would support him. I don't think he would be best for Philadelphia, or be the most effective mayor at improving education, reducing crime, or attracting good jobs to Philadelphia. You know, doing things that reduce poverty.
His campaign tactics and rhetoric is also annoying. If you don't support Fattah, you must hate poor people (or be stupid or blinded).
After being so offended at "the level of discourse here," you quickly hurl ad hominem insults at me. Your post called me "blinded," ignorant, and stupid. Way to raise the level of discourse, Kathy. Welcome to YPP.
I should take Econ 101? How about Chaka Fattah's transcript from CCP:
ECON 181 - D
ECON 182 - F
ECON 182 (again) - W
ECON 182 (yet again) - W
ECON 112 - W
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
Not a great academic record, if true, yet
Fattah still seems to understands that 3-2=1. Certainly not 4. I think your guy is overeducated, and perhaps should have been enrolled, as Fattah was, in the school of hard knocks.
When Stan took freshman
When Stan took freshman econ, he wrote 3-2=1 as the answer to every question.
He received a gentleman's "C."
No, but if you can't get that answer right
your grade is F no matter what else you think you know.
Philadelphia Knows Something About Subtraction
Declining jobs, declining wages, declining industry, declining population, declining property values, declining morale, declining prestige, declining standards of public service, declining bond rating.
When the gross receipts of the BPT was at .325%, and the wage tax was at 5%, and the city still couldn't balance its budget, still, nobody wanted to give up a revenue stream. I don't know what Stan's position was then (this would be an interesting conversation), but there were definitely people making Stan's case -- if we cut spending, we lose services, and if we lower taxes, we won't have enough revenue.
Well, Philadelphia cut spending, and lowered taxes -- and crisis didn't ensue. In fact, fiscal crisis was averted.
Philadelphians know that if you don't subtract somewhere, you'll have to subtract everywhere.
Now those are hard knocks.
Excuse me, but
first we borrowed hundreds of millions from PICA, then we imposed a 1% sales tax, then we started attritting the work force. Not the narrative that we keep getting from the "business climate" spinners, but what can you do.
Revenue collections from the
Revenue collections from the BPT and wage tax are up by well more than the sales tax.
Would you support another sales tax increase? We might get it from Rendell whether we like it or not -- another development that's had no play here. (Really, we all need to pay more attention to Harrisburg.)
Any evidence of Fattah's budgeting skills?
Fattah understands 3-2=1? Where has he been in charge of a budget? When was the last time he saw a balanced budget in Congress? Where is his attempt to budget for all his campaign promises? Ignore the airport and Opportunity Agenda, how is he going to pay for everything else he proposes? Lay it out. Just because he is not for tax cuts (in spite of recently sounding more like a supply-sider than anyone) does not make him fiscally responsible.
Fattah's CCP transcript is posted at fattahxray.com and confirmed in this Daily News story. "'I had other things going on that took my time and attention,' Fattah said last week." There is also this lovely quote that suggests great fiscal aptitude: "Asked last week if he was monitoring the groups to make sure that their grants are a good expenditure of tax dollars, he said: 'I got other things on my mind. You think I'm trying to figure out how many paper clips Community College is buying if I support them in an application? I'm not. I assume that at the end of the day, good people will do good things. . . . I'm sure that if they do something wrong I'll read about it in the Daily News.'" Sounds like just the diligence this city needs in a mayor.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
It's actually very simple math and Fattah does understand it.
Nutter doesn't or worse, is pretending not to. Because that's the simple math that the whole corporate elite is evading with their "business climate" shit spinning. But it's not spinning Fattah, no matter how weak you think are his credentials.
Very, very simple
So there is absolutely no evidence that Fattah knows how to handle a budget, other than how obviously easy it is.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
We're comparing here.
We've got to elect the best, not the ideal. He's got more understanding of the basics of a budget than any of the other candidates, with the probable exception of Evans, whom I don't support for other reasons.
Stan, I know you don't like
Stan, I know you don't like Evans's support of the state school takeover, but really -- he seems closer to your positions on revenue, etc. than Fattah. And CF isn't exactly railing to have the schools return to city control. Far from it.
you're right...
...about my tone. I apologize. It was late, I'd had four drinks, and my frustration and passion got to me. I should have stuck to my pledge to stay out of this fray on this site. I renew it now.
Fair Questions
Since increased funding for city schools (an additional $100 million over five years) is one of a handful of new spending programs Nutter's proposed, it's fair to say that schools are a budget priority, and there's no way that Nutter's "reform" agenda would put them "at risk."
Other budget priorities:
Hiring 500 more police officers
Expand Youth Violence Reduction Project
Support for After-School Activities
PREP Re-Entry Program for Ex-Offenders
Full Funding for Community College
Increase Arts & Culture Fund
Increase Housing Trust Fund
Increase Funding for Office of Supportive Housing, for Philadelphia's homeless
Increase Funding for Fairmount Park
Recreate Office of Transportation
Create Office of Sustainability
Technical Support for Small Businesses
Reorienting our budget towards outcomes rather than inputs, success rather than spending
Establishing a Rainy Day Fund
Solving our Pension Crisis
If there are budget cuts anywhere, they won't be here -- at least not because of Nutter. (If Jannie Blackwell wants to hold up extra money for the Housing Fund out of spite, all bets are off.)
I am completely baffled by this post
and so I will say good night. When I wake up in the morning, perhaps you will have explained to me how the fact that Nutter has proposed all of these programs means that they will have a higher priority than tax cuts since nothing had a higher priority when he was in Council. Are you saying he doesn't really mean it when he says he's going to slice the Net Income Tax? Tell me what he means, I want to know. Tomorrow. Good night, and good luck.
Nutter's Council Record
Go to the City Council Bills and Resolutions Page.
Click "Advanced."
Under "Sponsor," select "Councilman Nutter."
Press "Search."
What you'll see are a whole lot of bills. The first bill you'll see will be the smoking ban. By far the majority of them have to do with neighborhood issues of some kind -- zoning amendments, the creation of economic opportunity zones, having streets repaved. You will see a lot of bills related to reform -- only a handful regarding elections, the majority (and the majority of failed bills) dealing with city contractors: who they're related to, who they contribute money to, requiring them to pay a living wage, requiring them to hire minority and low-income workers.
He definitely beat the tax drum hard in 2004 -- it sounds like he tried a number of different approaches trying to find workable compromises -- but there's as much stuff about the wage tax and property taxes (including, yes, several proposals to cap year-to-year increases). And there's a lot of stuff about pensions -- making sure they're payable to dependents, including adopted and disabled children. There's also one interesting co-sponsored bill that would have given wage tax rebates to low-income workers that never made it out of committee. Other sponsored and co-sponsored bills that never made it out of committee include most of the substantive law enforcement proposals -- increased funding for police officers (always a no-go with the Street administration), resolutions for hearings to reduce gun violence, urging the mayor not to lay off police officers, etc.
So, yes -- reform, taxes, crime, neighborhood development and effective city services. The no-smoking ordinance. That's the record; that's the program.
I certainly think he means it when he says he's going to gradually reduce the net income tax, and with the support of council, that will happen. But the other major campaign promises, especially education and crime, will get a big push right away.
So while some patronage jobs might be at risk (and I know good-paying, high-pension jobs aren't easy to find, cronyism aside) and I think there will be pressure for departments to create revenue, cut costs, and clean house, our schools and basic services aren't at risk at all. Far from it.
I spent two years as coordinator of One Philadelphia
a coalition of about 20 organizations that came together to fight one thing, Nutter's relentless campaign to abolish the BPT. Believe me, he wasn't introducing one bill after another, calling hearings just before Thanksgiving, refusing to meet with adversaries, ridiculing opponents when they testified, horse trading for votes, all because it was just one other little item on his long agenda. He was as a man possessed. So do I believe he will just push it aside the first time it looks to him that it will get in the way of other items on his agenda? Not if he's the same guy described above. And I would be foolish, and so would the city, to think he's not.
Oh, btw, One Philly's website is still up. You should check it out. It's pretty nice. http://www.onephiladelphia.org/
My claim has never been that
My claim has never been that tax cuts would take a back seat to everything, but:
1) the tax cuts will not trigger a budget crisis, due to increasing profits, wages, sales, and property values (all of which have been steadily increasing, whether helped by the tax cuts or not, and I think they are);
2) That Nutter will not "push aside" other items on his agenda, like education or police, but pursue them coterminously with tax cuts;
3) That if Nutter cuts the budget anywhere, it won't be anywhere near his stated spending and reform priorities == unless it's something grossly inefficient (e.g., shifting police from underused desk jobs to other work, tearing up bad school concession contracts, etc.)
So if you want to bemoan the loss of city jobs, any city jobs, go ahead. If you want to find a city program that you love that Nutter's been lukewarm or critical of, or has threatened now or when he was in council, fine. But it is dishonest to say that Nutter plans to put our neighborhood schools and critical services at risk when the opposite is true.
So Nutter, the budget expert is really into faithbased budgeting
is what you're saying. Tax cuts don't need to be laid out in detail or in schedule for this detail loving policy wonk because we should just have faith in your first point, namely, don't worry, be happy. We've had "increasing profits, wages, sales, and property values," and these will never end my friend, so we can whack away at taxes at our pleasure and go on our way. You definitely should vote for Nutter because that's the happy little world that he inhabits and that had us up in arms for two years.
Evidence-based budgeting
You know, anything can happen, but a twelve-year trend of increasing revenue is hard to ignore -- the steep rise in the last four-five years is even harder. The transfer rate for real estate taxes is going down, but property values continue to rise (and that rise has never been adequately factored into property tax collections).
The Street administration took it as an article of faith (as Stan does) that if you cut tax rates, revenues would have to go down, and budgeted accordingly. Every year they had a surplus -- well beyond the stated budget surpluses -- and spent the "surprise" money as a windfall on special projects. Depending on how you look at it, it was either the budget pessimism that led them to say, every year, in the middle of a homicide crisis, that there wasn't any money for new police officers, only to spend ten times that money on special projects -- or, it was an out-and-out accounting lie.
That's the sad, cynical world that Philadelphia's government has inhabited for eight years -- and it's even sadder and more cynical that they were able to lead a handful of idealists to defend the status quo. It's time for a change.
Time for a change to faith-based budgeting
Terrific. Because small incremental tax cuts that didn't touch the Net Income tax didn't diminish the take when corporate profits were soaring nationally, that will ever be the case including when you do start taking down the tax that brings in the revenue from those profits. And we can also count on the real estate boom going on forever. I like that assumption too.
Keith says Fattah can't speak, I say he can't read.
Fattah has no policy about education on his website?
I can't even be bothered to past the HTML for the website, but trust me, there is policy about education on his website.
PS- In another thread, we are discussing the presence of racism in the Mayor's race, and I have to wonder if Keith's comment sets anyone else's alarm bells off? If that's not a race-baited claim, it's certainly a class-based one (sorry to upset you Gaetano, but sometimes classism does exist in plain sight).
What are you talking about Ray?
"PS- In another thread, we are discussing the presence of racism in the Mayor's race, and I have to wonder if Keith's comment sets anyone else's alarm bells off? If that's not a race-baited claim, it's certainly a class-based one (sorry to upset you Gaetano, but sometimes classism does exist in plain sight)."
Seriously Ray, what are you insinuating here? Are you claiming that Keith is unfairly criticizing a wealthy upper class public offical who lives in a two house, multi-acre compound in the leafy enclave of East Falls?
http://www.phillyforfattah.co
http://www.phillyforfattah.com/gee/doc/PLAN_AFTER-SCHOOL_IN_PHILADELPHIA...
There you go Ray. Fattah's link to education. It provides the only information on his website I can find concerning education. There is nothing wrong with it, it's just incomplete. Why is Fattah unwilling to step up and ask for control of our school district to be returned to us? Is he afraid of the responsibility? Nutter's not. Its called leadership.
As for the many comments regarding this topic I confess, dishonesty is something I have little tolerance for. Fattah's ad is a disgrace. He should be embarrased by it. From George Bush and the swift boaters maybe, but from Chakah Fattah?
What did I do now? I''m not
What did I do now? I''m not even inolving myself and I get brought in.
From my vantage point it seems the Fattah camp is all too ready to want a race or class based campaign. People like Stan do, in fact, bring up legitimate concerns. But, let's remember the policy want and the legislation that follows are often two different things. All candidates will have to work with City Council and certain communities, including the important busines community. Someone said something about a corronation-there will be nothing of the sort for any candidate.
Last week was my week to be ugly. It doesn't make anyone feel any better. Four candidates will lose that is the only certainty. f
I expect more from Nutter supporters
Sam Durso, Hannah Miller, Rue Landau, Charlie Fischer, Katherine Gajewski, Sue Rosenthal, Alex U-A and other people who have proclaimed themselves Nutter supporters, I expect more from you.
One Nutter supporter above made a comment about the way Fattah speaks--saying that he can not pronounce the word "education." Gaetano thinks I am reacting to this blatant classism because I support Fattah:
Gaeatano, you can't bury your head in the sand forever. Lots of people make judgments about other people based on their class and race status and there is no doubt that is playing out in many ways in this Mayor's race.
The people I name above, you all know me. You know that if the same thing was said about Bob Brady, I would be equally upset.
You guys need to reign your people in, and if you can't, you need to condemn them for attacking someone for having a different class or education background. The way Chaka Fattah speaks has nothing to do with his ability to be Mayor.
Meanwhile, back to the ad, there is a 3 page back-up for every page made in the ad. I can see no one here actually cared to read it. I get why Nutter folks don't want to do that, but for people who are asking real questions about Nutter and Knox's plans to reduce taxes and magically increase and improve services, the back-up piece that i cited above shows how hard that will be to achieve.
I read the
I read the three-page-back-up and responded to it directly, right away. See my second post (first vertically) above.
I didn't respond to the "Fattah can't pronounce learning" because it wasn't worth responding to. Juvenile, not funny, not to the point. Also, Stan is keeping me pretty busy.
Making fun of the way Fattah
Making fun of the way Fattah speaks is cheap. And it carries hints of racism and classism. Bad news all around. As penance on behalf of my fellow supporters, I promise to get on my rooftop and yell "Michael Nutter sounds like Bert from Sesame Street, just like everyone says!" after this post is completed. Will that help?
In the meantime, I will say - not that it matters too much - that one of the reasons I like Nutter is that I think he's uniquely positioned to hold a substantive citywide dialogue about race that really includes all of the deeply polarized communities in Philly. So, for that matter, is Tom Knox - but I shudder to think about the stupid things Knox would probably say during that dialogue.
I do think you're a little to quick to call folks out for what you see as race- or class-based assumptions. The conversation on YPP is rooted in privilege, for sure, and there needs to be a voice reminding us of that. At the same time, I think you know that your voice carries a lot of weight here, and I wonder if there's a gentler mode available. It can be a little hard to say something honest when you're worried about someone jumping down your throat.
Lastly, I did read your fact sheet, I did! And I'm just not sure the commercial's defensible anyway. First, the fact sheet conflates Nutter's statements about goverment reform ("I'm the only reform candidate...") with his statements about tax reform. Secondly - and this is more important - there is a categorical difference between what the fact sheet claims (which is arguable) and what the ad claims (which is false.) The ad doesn't say (in your words) "people...are asking real questions about Nutter and Knox's plans to reduce taxes and magically increase and improve services." It says "[Nutter's] answer: massive budget cuts." I just don't think that's fair or true, and I think it's beneath Fattah to make such an under-handed attack.
***
Volunteering for Michael Nutter
it's bright in the lights
Points taken about tone.
Stan is actually an expert on the city budget and taxes, even though he gets no credit from many here. He has laid out many, many scenarios in which Nutter's tax rate reduction schemes cut into the city budget enough to create massive budget cuts.
You may not agree with Stan, or with Fattah, but there are intelligent people who look at the Nutter, and Knox plans, and see no way to find enough revenue to expand services and to cut taxes all at the same time.
It's always popular to talk about cutting inefficiencies in government, but unless you want to cut something like 1/3 or 1/2 of the city's work force, no matter how many cuts you make, you'll never make enough to put 1,000 new cops on the street as Knox has said he will do.
Nutter says he'll find enough revenue in "surprise" money, which PICA, an independent fiscal agent says won't occur.
These are all documentable facts. If Nutter folks can counter with other facts, great, but I don't in any see this is under-handed.
And again, despite all of the candidate to candidate rancor, this is an add and this a conversation that's not about personality, but about issues which I think is pretty cool.
Ray...Surprise!
What's the "surprise money" you referred to?
There are two pots of surprise money
First is the alleged $50 million in surpluses that Nutter describes in this sentence in his plan: "As Philadelphia Forward has long pointed out, every year the collected revenues to the General Fund exceed projections by $50 to $100 million." Therefore, Nutter insists, it will continue to be there every year ad infinitum. Presto. That gives you $250 million over 5 years (being conservative as he is and just assuming the $50 million). PICA, however, which is not running for office, sees no such rosy picture. Second, Nutter is going to eliminate $47 million a year in waste. There you get another almost $250 million over 5 years. Wow, almost there to his projected (but low) estimate of $591 million in new needed spending. What is so brilliant, I want to know, about a candidate who runs against waste? Every candidate runs against waste and then, I guess, fails to find it, because the next candidate has to run against it again. Waste, when it's found, usually means retrenchment and smaller government. That's how Street vanquished it to comply with his waste campaign, by cutting about 2,000 jobs from the roster (although he's recently restored about 700.) So your candidate has found tow surprises for us which are really, given that he's just another politician, is not surprising at all.
And, oh yes, by the fifth year, he will have gotten deep into his tax cuts, I assume, although he chooses not to tell us right now. But if he is, that will surely have an impact on those guaranteed continuing surpluses, but unfortunately, the pure policy wonk won't tell us what it is.
waste
I sit on many labor-management committees within City government and what I see day in and day out is not massive waste but critical needs going unmet because of scarce dollars. Yesterday while canvassing, I ran into an angry voter who demanded I help him get a city job. The city isn't hiring. It's shrinking by attrition. Despite the savings the elimination of those salaries provide, the needs continue to loom large. If you doubt this, visit your local dismal Rec Center; check out the destruction of the gorgeous crown plaster work at the Central Library because a new roof had to be delayed for lack of capital program funds; read about the kids who slip through the cracks in part because of the unwieldy caseloads the DHS social workers carry. I'm all for cutting patronage jobs and trimming management, but I don't think there are significant savings to be found there. Most City jobs are civil service positions held by people who directly deliver the City's services, from monitoring the air and water quality to nursing the uninsured at the health centers, and thousands of other critical functions that benefit all City citizens.
There's Always Room
I used to work for the City and I'm now a government management consultant to cities, counties, and states. It's not easy, but there are always ways to improve efficiency, it's a matter of priorities and good management.
And when, if ever, do you get to the limit and say
there really aren't any ways to cut that will save meaningful dollars without impacting services? Because I can't remember a campaign that didn't insist it could and would save huge amounts from efficiencies. And what do you do in the border areas, where maybe you could do without an employee or two, but you don't really know and to do so is a gamble you just have to take because there's not enough money? Are those the kinds of gambles we want to take in a City in which services and infrastructure are already weak?
The Point of Inflection
You're certainly right that there's a point of inflection at which cuts would impact services, but I don't make the presumption that the government is doing everything it should, how it should, using exactly the correct processes so that every dollar cut represents a diminution in services. I don't think that making government more effective and efficient is a gamble, it's what every single government that I work with across the nation is trying to do.
What I Think the Problem Is
I do firmly believe in tax competitiveness for Philadelphia, so I agree in principle that we need to look at how and what we tax so that we're competitive with other cities and our surrounding "competitor counties" and muncipalities. But I think that the issue that we don't talk about that much in this debate is the fact that the cry for tax cuts is fuel by the perception - both real and imagined - that taxpayers in the City of Philadelphia aren't getting value for their tax dollar. Starting with the latter, I say "imagined" because a lot of time people don't realize what services they're getting or how much they cost. Muncipal government services are like "The Matrix"...they're in the background, when you need them, and you never think about it. "Real" in the sense that Philadelphia is really behind the times in terms of taking a more customer-service oriented approach to service delivery and people are really, really tired of it. We don't have 311, CitiStat, etc. This is a major bummer.
But as you've noted before Stan - residents and businesses are willing to tax themselves extra through neighborhood and business improvement districts. My take away on this is that people just want some service...if we really want to have a more rational dialog about taxes and who pays them and what they are and how much they are, then we're going to have to start talking more about municipal service delivery Citywide.
room for improvement
I can't disagree that Philadelphia government would benefit from more citizen/customer friendly processes, the cutting of red tape, streamlining of bureacratic BS. L&I is probably the most frequently cited example, and with good reason. My point was though, that in a city like ours with its crumbling infrastructure and cuts that have already been made, it will be tough to garner enough real savings from efficiencies to fund significant new initiatives. The current and longstanding list of needs is already screaming for attention.
Unless you find some
Unless you find some alternate revenue source, tax cuts result in a reduction of revenue to the City Budget, which in turn, must lead to service cuts.
That's why all of the plans that involve getting revenue from some other source -- leasing the airport, cutting down pay to play, asking friends in Harrisburg/Washington, etc.
Spending is largely fixed, b/c of municipal contracts, debt on prior bond issuances, federally/state mandated social service payments that have large dollar amounts in match funding attached to them.
Mayors have been trying for years to reduce budget either to streamline government, or find more money for their own pet projects.
I don't think that there is any doubt that people perceive that the City is not providing a fair level of service for their tax dollars. Schools are very bad most places and City service is not responsive. So something needs to be done.
But unless there is some alternate revenue, tax cuts lead to service cuts and services already suck.
__________________________________________________________________________
I do not work for/support any candidate for any office in Philadelphia.
Just One Question
That ad requires three steps of Ray or Stan logic to be defensible. The ad says "[Nutter's] answer: massive budget cuts."
Has Nutter publicly supported a reduction in expenditures during this campaign?
That's the only question. The answer is no. The ad contains a blatant lie.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
We're going in circles here, so one last time
That is Nutter's answer, in terms of what he'd actually have to do, as opposed to what he's said, if his riverboat gamble on taxes doesn't work. Fattah believes it won't work and that the necesssary result -- or answer -- is budget cuts.
You see, btw, Nutter has to pay for pension and health care costs, for debt service and the Courts, and a bunch of other things that can't be cut. Several of those things that can't be cut actually require more funding over the4 next few years, by law. So, there will be little left to cut that doesn't affect the services that the City provides.
And yes, this is a campaign and there's a little bit of political license. Do you think Nutter may engage in a little of it, perhaps when he says he did this or he did that, and actually those things were done by the whole City Council? Or when he goes on the air to say he's not John Street and everyone else is?
Stan's Admission?
Stan, do you admit the ad is inaccurate? Do you admit to the difference between "[Nutter's] answer: budget cuts" and "Fattah believes it won't work"?
I don't think this is justified by "a little bit of political license" any more than I think other dirty tricks are justified. If Nutter says anything inaccurate, I expect him to get called out, but I don't think he has done anything egregious. In the last debate, he repeatedly said "I supported Councilman X in ...." I don't have the transcript of the Street commercial, but he never said that everything else, e.g. Knox, is John Street.
----
I support Michael Nutter for Mayor. My slate.
Nutter said in essence