Another GOP Mayor slashing cops/firemen. Necessary?

[bucs90]

Matthew Tully: Indy's budget crunch offers opportunity to have serious discussion about public safety | Indianapolis Star | indystar.com

The GOP mayor of Indianapolis took a stand and said police and fire are gonna have to take a slashing on behalf of Indy's broken budget. Is it necessary? Article said non-fatal violent crime (stabbings, assaults, etc) are up, murders are down, and the Indy PD is woefully understaffed already.

The summary:

Indy PD and FD are unionized. They likely have far better pay/benefits than the non-union depts of the South, so I understand they've had it pretty good for a while.

Artical says a property tax increase of 0.2 %, thats right, two/tenths of a percent, would fix the entire shortfall.

But rather than support the 0.2% increase (which is $200 for a 100K earner), the mayor wants to look to the cops and firemen to make ends meet.

Right? Wrong? Well, it is union, and I know they've made far more than "normal" for cops nationwide.

But the problem is.......everytime a mayor like this takes a stand to cut police/fire, there are dozens of GOP mayors in NON UNION cities that dont have the crippling union contracts that some others do....who believe this is a valid reason for them to also cut police and fire, even if it isn't necessary for their city.

It's slowly become a well accepted trend in the Tea Party/GOP circles that putting cops and firemen on the govt chopping block is A-OK!!!! Necessary or not.

 

[Oddball]

Then maybe they should take a hit in pay and benefits, like most of the rest of the people operating in the real world have.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Really?

More fees, job cuts, police and fire consolidation in Chicago

 

[SniperFire]

Matthew Tully: Indy's budget crunch offers opportunity to have serious discussion about public safety | Indianapolis Star | indystar.com

The GOP mayor of Indianapolis took a stand and said police and fire are gonna have to take a slashing on behalf of Indy's broken budget. Is it necessary? Article said non-fatal violent crime (stabbings, assaults, etc) are up, murders are down, and the Indy PD is woefully understaffed already.

The summary:

Indy PD and FD are unionized. They likely have far better pay/benefits than the non-union depts of the South, so I understand they've had it pretty good for a while.

Artical says a property tax increase of 0.2 %, thats right, two/tenths of a percent, would fix the entire shortfall.

But rather than support the 0.2% increase (which is $200 for a 100K earner), the mayor wants to look to the cops and firemen to make ends meet.

Right? Wrong? Well, it is union, and I know they've made far more than "normal" for cops nationwide.

But the problem is.......everytime a mayor like this takes a stand to cut police/fire, there are dozens of GOP mayors in NON UNION cities that dont have the crippling union contracts that some others do....who believe this is a valid reason for them to also cut police and fire, even if it isn't necessary for their city.

It's slowly become a well accepted trend in the Tea Party/GOP circles that putting cops and firemen on the govt chopping block is A-OK!!!! Necessary or not.

Paying cops and firemen less does not mean the departments will be understaffed.

You get understaffed in public employment by OVERPAYING for the work done and not being able to afford what you need.

 

[Publius1787]

Matthew Tully: Indy's budget crunch offers opportunity to have serious discussion about public safety | Indianapolis Star | indystar.com

The GOP mayor of Indianapolis took a stand and said police and fire are gonna have to take a slashing on behalf of Indy's broken budget. Is it necessary? Article said non-fatal violent crime (stabbings, assaults, etc) are up, murders are down, and the Indy PD is woefully understaffed already.

The summary:

Indy PD and FD are unionized. They likely have far better pay/benefits than the non-union depts of the South, so I understand they've had it pretty good for a while.

Artical says a property tax increase of 0.2 %, thats right, two/tenths of a percent, would fix the entire shortfall.

But rather than support the 0.2% increase (which is $200 for a 100K earner), the mayor wants to look to the cops and firemen to make ends meet.

Right? Wrong? Well, it is union, and I know they've made far more than "normal" for cops nationwide.

But the problem is.......everytime a mayor like this takes a stand to cut police/fire, there are dozens of GOP mayors in NON UNION cities that dont have the crippling union contracts that some others do....who believe this is a valid reason for them to also cut police and fire, even if it isn't necessary for their city.

It's slowly become a well accepted trend in the Tea Party/GOP circles that putting cops and firemen on the govt chopping block is A-OK!!!! Necessary or not.

Don't care. Not my district. Doesn't affect me none. Welcome to federalism. Wait? Did you want me to pay for their cops?

 

[bucs90]

"Like the rest of us" doesn't apply here. Because in the last 5 years, not everyone has taken a pay/benefit cut. Heck, the medical industry has soared. Oil too. Many fields have prospered. Wall Street is soaring right now.

The phrase about public safety work recruitment was always "You'll never get rich, but you'll always be stable."

My premise is: Is cutting cops/firemen salary/benefits necessary in this case? Or, is a 0.2% prop tax raise modest enough to propose??

I'd say do the 0.2% increase. It's hardly noticeable for one. And, if it gets us to next year without taking money away from our cops and firemen, great, maybe the economy will be rising by then and it'll only be a 1 time needed increase. But, we cannot do this increase annually. We'll reassess next year.

 

[Publius1787]

"Like the rest of us" doesn't apply here. Because in the last 5 years, not everyone has taken a pay/benefit cut. Heck, the medical industry has soared. Oil too. Many fields have prospered. Wall Street is soaring right now.

The phrase about public safety work recruitment was always "You'll never get rich, but you'll always be stable."

My premise is: Is cutting cops/firemen salary/benefits necessary in this case? Or, is a 0.2% prop tax raise modest enough to propose??

I'd say do the 0.2% increase. It's hardly noticeable for one. And, if it gets us to next year without taking money away from our cops and firemen, great, maybe the economy will be rising by then and it'll only be a 1 time needed increase. But, we cannot do this increase annually. We'll reassess next year.

Don't care. Not my district. Doesn't affect me none. None of my business. Welcome to federalism. That’s the problem with liberals. They care about stiff that doesn't concern them and stick their nose in to other peoples stuff. Unless, of course, you’re from Indianapolis. Or unless you want a strong union in the city so that Obama can get more money? Thats your beef isn't it? You want the union to get higher dues to pay for more democrats so your sticking your nose in the business of other taxpayers?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Like the rest of us" doesn't apply here. Because in the last 5 years, not everyone has taken a pay/benefit cut. Heck, the medical industry has soared. Oil too. Many fields have prospered. Wall Street is soaring right now.

The phrase about public safety work recruitment was always "You'll never get rich, but you'll always be stable."

My premise is: Is cutting cops/firemen salary/benefits necessary in this case? Or, is a 0.2% prop tax raise modest enough to propose??

I'd say do the 0.2% increase. It's hardly noticeable for one. And, if it gets us to next year without taking money away from our cops and firemen, great, maybe the economy will be rising by then and it'll only be a 1 time needed increase. But, we cannot do this increase annually. We'll reassess next year.

Unions should never have to face real world economics, because they're unionized.

Amiright?

People should be happy to support the higher wages and benefits of union labor because they're unionized.

In Westchester County, the average unionized employee now makes $10K a year more than his non-union private sector counterpart and yes we've been jacking up property tax to pay for the bloat (we have the second highest taxes in the country now) but, they're union

In short, it's time for the Unions to meet the real world.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Really?

More fees, job cuts, police and fire consolidation in Chicago

It's different when Dems do it, right Bucs?

It just is.

 

[SniperFire]

"Like the rest of us" doesn't apply here. Because in the last 5 years, not everyone has taken a pay/benefit cut. Heck, the medical industry has soared. Oil too. Many fields have prospered. Wall Street is soaring right now.

The phrase about public safety work recruitment was always "You'll never get rich, but you'll always be stable."

My premise is: Is cutting cops/firemen salary/benefits necessary in this case? Or, is a 0.2% prop tax raise modest enough to propose??

I'd say do the 0.2% increase. It's hardly noticeable for one. And, if it gets us to next year without taking money away from our cops and firemen, great, maybe the economy will be rising by then and it'll only be a 1 time needed increase. But, we cannot do this increase annually. We'll reassess next year.

Cut the pay in half.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"Like the rest of us" doesn't apply here. Because in the last 5 years, not everyone has taken a pay/benefit cut. Heck, the medical industry has soared. Oil too. Many fields have prospered. Wall Street is soaring right now.

The phrase about public safety work recruitment was always "You'll never get rich, but you'll always be stable."

My premise is: Is cutting cops/firemen salary/benefits necessary in this case? Or, is a 0.2% prop tax raise modest enough to propose??

I'd say do the 0.2% increase. It's hardly noticeable for one. And, if it gets us to next year without taking money away from our cops and firemen, great, maybe the economy will be rising by then and it'll only be a 1 time needed increase. But, we cannot do this increase annually. We'll reassess next year.

Unions should never have to face real world economics, because they're unionized.

Amiright?

People should be happy to support the higher wages and benefits of union labor because they're unionized.

In Westchester County, the average unionized employee now makes $10K a year more than his non-union private sector counterpart and yes we've been jacking up property tax to pay for the bloat (we have the second highest taxes in the country now) but, they're union

In short, it's time for the Unions to meet the real world.

Cops and fire can't strike those unions are useless.

 

[Dot Com]

tax cuts for Romn..... millionaires & billionaires got to come from somewhere my friend. Might as well be working stiffs.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

tax cuts for Romn..... millionaires & billionaires got to come from somewhere my friend. Might as well be working stiffs.

you seem to be totally clueless how tax cuts work. Cutting a tax, means that people pay less in taxes, they do not receive payments from anyone.

Maybe you can get a summer job while you're still in high school, and get a taste of what we call "the real world"

 

[Oddball]

"Like the rest of us" doesn't apply here. Because in the last 5 years, not everyone has taken a pay/benefit cut. Heck, the medical industry has soared. Oil too. Many fields have prospered. Wall Street is soaring right now.

The phrase about public safety work recruitment was always "You'll never get rich, but you'll always be stable."

My premise is: Is cutting cops/firemen salary/benefits necessary in this case? Or, is a 0.2% prop tax raise modest enough to propose??

I'd say do the 0.2% increase. It's hardly noticeable for one. And, if it gets us to next year without taking money away from our cops and firemen, great, maybe the economy will be rising by then and it'll only be a 1 time needed increase. But, we cannot do this increase annually. We'll reassess next year.

Life's tough....Shit happens...Wear a helmet.

 

[Dot Com]

Matthew Tully: Indy's budget crunch offers opportunity to have serious discussion about public safety | Indianapolis Star | indystar.com

The GOP mayor of Indianapolis took a stand and said police and fire are gonna have to take a slashing on behalf of Indy's broken budget. Is it necessary? Article said non-fatal violent crime (stabbings, assaults, etc) are up, murders are down, and the Indy PD is woefully understaffed already.

The summary:

Indy PD and FD are unionized. They likely have far better pay/benefits than the non-union depts of the South, so I understand they've had it pretty good for a while.

Artical says a property tax increase of 0.2 %, thats right, two/tenths of a percent, would fix the entire shortfall.

But rather than support the 0.2% increase (which is $200 for a 100K earner), the mayor wants to look to the cops and firemen to make ends meet.

Right? Wrong? Well, it is union, and I know they've made far more than "normal" for cops nationwide.

But the problem is.......everytime a mayor like this takes a stand to cut police/fire, there are dozens of GOP mayors in NON UNION cities that dont have the crippling union contracts that some others do....who believe this is a valid reason for them to also cut police and fire, even if it isn't necessary for their city.

It's slowly become a well accepted trend in the Tea Party/GOP circles that putting cops and firemen on the govt chopping block is A-OK!!!! Necessary or not.

So far it looks like all the posters who responded to you are "Pledge-type" kool aid drinkers.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Matthew Tully: Indy's budget crunch offers opportunity to have serious discussion about public safety | Indianapolis Star | indystar.com

The GOP mayor of Indianapolis took a stand and said police and fire are gonna have to take a slashing on behalf of Indy's broken budget. Is it necessary? Article said non-fatal violent crime (stabbings, assaults, etc) are up, murders are down, and the Indy PD is woefully understaffed already.

The summary:

Indy PD and FD are unionized. They likely have far better pay/benefits than the non-union depts of the South, so I understand they've had it pretty good for a while.

Artical says a property tax increase of 0.2 %, thats right, two/tenths of a percent, would fix the entire shortfall.

But rather than support the 0.2% increase (which is $200 for a 100K earner), the mayor wants to look to the cops and firemen to make ends meet.

Right? Wrong? Well, it is union, and I know they've made far more than "normal" for cops nationwide.

But the problem is.......everytime a mayor like this takes a stand to cut police/fire, there are dozens of GOP mayors in NON UNION cities that dont have the crippling union contracts that some others do....who believe this is a valid reason for them to also cut police and fire, even if it isn't necessary for their city.

It's slowly become a well accepted trend in the Tea Party/GOP circles that putting cops and firemen on the govt chopping block is A-OK!!!! Necessary or not.

So far it looks like all the posters who responded to you are "Pledge-type" kool aid drinkers.

only in your kool aid drinking mind.

 

[Moonglow]

Well I am sre they can help out if a pay cut is needed, how much of a percentage of regular earning do they make for retirement? 50-90%? You know that people don't want any increase in taxes.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

More moaning and crying about local budgetary issues.

Someone call this fraud a wammmmmbulance

 

[Ragnar]

Another GOP Mayor's city not bankrupt. Necessary?

Thread title fixed. You're welcome.

 

[Grasshopper]

Each municipality has it's own financial issues and should handle it in their own way. Chances are, they can reach a resolution acceptable to all parties unless the national media and the political opportunists get involved.