[Mpls] Where's R.T.? (no clear plans for a second term)

[David Brauer]

On May 18, 2005, at 10:12 AM, Greg Abbott wrote:

> On May 18, 2005, at 7:53 AM, Joseph Barisonzi wrote:
>
>>  a seasoned political
>> veteran who has yet to articulate how he would be a step forward=20
>> rather then
>> a step backward.
>
> I'm curious about why Joe thinks that Peter is the candidate with=20
> unanswered questions, and not R.T.  R.T. has given no indication of=20
> any major items for a second term agenda.

Greg, first I agree that RT's speech was vague. I thought Peter blew=20
him off the stage, focus and passion-wise.

However, the city =97 thanks to RT and the Council =97 has a five-year=20=

budget plan that plausibly can be called a second-term agenda. I=20
haven't reviewed it in depth recently, but even though we will spend=20
more money on police, fire and public safety, we'll still have to cut=20
services because labor costs (mostly benefits) are projected to rise=20
faster than revenue =97 even with the 8 percent overall property tax cap=20=

going out as far as the eye can see.

It's a fairly sobering platform =97 but that was the flaming bag of=20
you-know-what RT and the current Council was left by the last=20
administration. As others have noted, paying off past debt sucks up a=20
lot of the new tax revenue that could otherwise reduce or eliminate=20
those cuts.

Peter's platform is more police and fire and permanent NRP funding.=20
It's MUCH more exciting than R.T.'s =97 but the problem for this voter =
is=20
that I still can't figure out how he can pay for it. All I've heard is=20=

a reliance on a one-time, $25 million pension plan that is dead, dead,=20=

dead at the legislature =97 and besides, as Mark Snyder astutely noted,=20=

the concept only pushes out the pension debt, where it gets bigger,=20
rather than paying it off.

So from this vantage point, financially at least, it looks like Peter's=20=

overpromising on spending and running up the credit card rather than=20
paying off the balance. There's a case that can be made for that in=20
light of public safety concerns =97 but Peter hasn't owned up to the=20
financial tradeoffs. RT, on the other hand, has had to endorse a=20
specific plan with real numbers. It's perfectly fine to attack those=20
priorities, but I need an alternative that's as financially credible as=20=

the one to be overthrown. I haven't seen it yet, and I wonder if I will=20=

during this campaign =97 it's tough to talk about fiscal realities when=20=

you're trying to win a race.

I don't mean to dismiss Peter's larger arguments. If RT hasn't worked=20
effectively with labor, or neighborhood/NRP activists, or screwed up in=20=

creating CPED, those are fine things to settle in an election.

> No candidate is perfect, but at least with Peter what you see is what=20=

> you get.

I don't think that's yet true on budget and financial matters. I hope=20
that will change as the campaign continues.

David Brauer
Kingfield