Community Response to California’s State Budget Woes
Dublin resident Bill Schaub recently submitted a letter to the Contra Costa Times addressing the issue of California’s state budget challenges. While Bill is a Planning Commission member, this letter represents his personal views and not those of the Planning Commission, City Council, or City Staff.
California elected officials need to learn from businesses facing fiscal crisis and business would never say ‘stop delivering products and services to our customers until they give us more money’. Prudent fiscal management of any organization starts by taking inventory and eliminating non-essential or redundant tasks. Remove these expenses including poor performing employees.
For elected officials, rejection of initiatives has been interpreted as a call for ‘balanced budget’ and they focus only on one side of the balance equation: “where is more revenue”. The expense side limited to denial of fundamental services.
Agency and management redundancy, out of control retiree benefits programs, elimination of wasteful and ineffective social experiments are never mentioned.
Officials forget that delivery of services is the sole reason for their existence. And, to deny services to the least powerful individuals in our communities, children and the needy, is acting like bullies. Taking money from the less powerful local governments is also acting like the schoolyard bully.
This State needs the equivalent of a City Manager (The C.O.O.), answering to elected officials and managing all department heads with the direct responsibility of delivering resident services within current resource and revenue restraints.
Elected officials must do the same.
11:01 AM on June 3rd, 2009
Right on, Bill! We need more elected officials like you.
12:30 PM on June 3rd, 2009
Well said. Denying essential services should never be an option. Public health, public education and public safety are essential inherently governmental services and honestly the only three that must be maintained at a high level of success for society to continue to function. That being said there is a myriad of other less-essential services that while nice to have, we honestly could cut back on until the economy improves.
I would welcome an effective city manager-type to oversee the state's responsibilities in this area. Unfortunately, this position too would end up becoming a political prize to be fought over either through election or appointment, and we would end up getting the person who wants the job the most, instead of the person most qualified to do the job.
1:54 PM on June 15th, 2009
Excellent well thought out response to a deaf legislative group (regardless of party) who spends more time on useless legislation rather than focusing on what the electorate expects from them, including a balanced budget. I appreciate your business sense in knowing that depriving the needy only serves to anger the majority of the voters who put them in office.
It is sad but I am willing to bet that there will be no budget in place by July 1st. Indecision and party capitulation is the only thing they know.
2:27 PM on June 16th, 2009
I am trying to get a handle on what Bill Schaub is saying. On the one hand he wants no new revenue streams or taxes. OK, I don't want to give any more of my money out if I can help it. On the other hand he wants to eliminate wasteful spending. Didn't Arnold commission a bi-partisan wasteful spending committee early on in his term and they found no substantial way of reducing gov't to save money. I find his "City Manager" analogy immature and unpractical. It also goes against our state constitution and would eventually supercede our balance of powers. We need to ALL step up and help rsolve this. This includes the "Market Driven" people, the lets sepnd more people, and both parties. On this last one I have a question. The majority of the people in the state elected the majority of legislators. This majority is unable to make short and long term decisions due to our being one of 3 states (Rhode Island, Arkansas) requiring a 2/3 majority for decision making. Why are we holding back the will of the majority?
5:28 PM on July 1st, 2009
Another slanted, bias post by the editors of Around Dublin. This is not a Community response, it is the opinion of one (1) community member. It should be stated that way.f