Dear Mr. Wessel:
The bias displayed in the Business Journal’s June 4, 2010 article on state budget issues begs the question: are you reporters or government apologists?
Mr. Giegerich’s diction betrays his sympathies. He chooses verbiage like “…brutal…painful… toss a lifeline…feel the pain…critical condition…disastrous…”. This melodramatic imagery, designed to reduce your audience to guilty hand-wringers ready to send even more money to Salem, could hope to succeed only in Oregon (OK, maybe in Vermont).
How about a businesslike approach? Explore in detail government’s biggest expense – labor costs – and propose solutions addressing those costs. Present the pros and cons of concepts like zero-based budgeting, mandated prioritized funding for core services, and changes in public employee contributions to their health and retirement plans.
Budget reconciliation is definitely possible, even in hard times. We all do it in our own business and personal situations. But let’s have a rigorous debate minus the emotional references to “…320,000 seniors and persons with disabilities…”. Frame the issues with dispassion; I believe it is the best way to generate fiscally sound decisions involving government spending.
Signed,
Richard F. Jaskiel
- rjaskiel's blog
- Login or register to post comments
