How large of a "Nanny State" does the governor want to attribute to her legacy?
We have gone through an entire regular legislative session without a budget by the majority (Democrats) but having passed their personal agendas with the help of some of the RINOs in the Legislature.
At the end of the session the minority (Republicans) with the help of some Democrats have passed a realistic, reduced spending budget.
With no time left before recess and the Democrats crying foul, the governor decides to go back to the drawing board with her majority in extended session.
Now there are three items in this budget that upset the majority. There is an item that would cut the spending for education that the majority wants to delay funding until they wrangle the dollars on a future gamble. Now why would you delay a payment of money if you are going to try and formulate the expenditure later with no more money than what you have now?
The second item is cutting some health-care programs. That is very appropriate for the financial state of the economy and the state.
The third item is really the crux for disapproval by the majority. This item calls for increased contributions for union members into there pensions and health care. What an unusual concept, to pay into your own lifelong pension and health care!
The city is now hiring a consumer shopping survey crew for $35,000 to find out why the sales tax revenue is dropping over the past few years?
Well, guess what - how often has the sales tax been increased? Being a simple man to answer that question with a realistic viewpoint obviously, the sales tax paying residents are going elsewhere to shop even with high-priced gas. It's not very far to travel if you are saving much needed money in this economy and never ending spending by the politicians of this city and state.
If I would budget my household such as the city and the state does I would have had to file bankruptcy a long time ago and become homeless. Is this what they are working for?