NOTE: We'll be discussing this story on my AM760 morning show here in Colorado from 7-10am local time on Monday. Tune in on your radio dial or on the web at www.am760.net. - D
After their anti-tax zealotry left their city in the budgetary lurch, Colorado Springs Republicans have slashed their community's social services to the bone. We're talking big cuts to police, firefighters, park maintenance, public transportation - even turning off the city's streetlights (except, of course, in the wealthy areas!).
If this wasn't bad enough, the city council this week doubled down on its conservative extremism, officially opposing a congressional jobs bill that would provide roughly $43 million to the city in much-needed aid. Their rationale? They don't want to add to the federal deficit -- a seemingly principled position, until you realize the same city council has had nothing to say about a far bigger deficit culprit: the profligate defense spending that underwrites about a third of Colorado Springs.
You see, for both Springs' Republicans and the Republican Party nationally, federal deficit spending on huge defense contractors as AOK. But deficit spending on jobs for the unemployed or basic safety-net services for the very poor in a city that has experienced a big jump in homelessness? Well, Republicans are against that because, according to the Springs' Republican mayor, Lionel Rivera, poor people want to be poor.
That last part sounds like I'm extrapolating the mayor's comments, but unfortunately it's exactly what he said. Check this out from the Denver Post's Susan Greene today, quoting The Springs' mayor:
Thumbing his nose at federal assistance seems to abdicate his responsibilities to the Judd Hesses of his community and others who are down and out, living in tent colonies, arguably not because they want to.
"Some people want a homeless life," counters (Mayor) Rivera, a financial adviser. "Some people, they really do."
So there you have it: According to the conservative leader of one of the most conservative cities in America, those thrown out of their homes in this Great Recession actually want to be homeless, so we shouldn't spend money or -- gasp! -- dare to raise taxes on the super-rich to generate revenue for programs to help the homeless get back on their feet.
I'd say that's about as frank an admission about the Republican Party's callous attitude these days as any. Give the Springs' conservative leadership credit -- at least their honest in their heartlessness and their extremism.
Follow David Sirota on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidsirota
Are you listening, Rivera?
He knows.
Yeah, right, we want to be homeless and to watch our homes flipped like pancakes by the circling vultures.
The GOP will be the first homeless political party, nowhere to turn but upside down and over the cliff. Good riddance.
The Independents will be taking their places in our govt and we might get some progress in rising from this GOP induced criminal mess they made of this country.
The lazy part of the Dems will be replaced with Independents too. Go new party!!!!!
Every time one of these nitwits comes up with something this stupid I get all goose-pimply thinking how such videotaped quotes would look to the public if Democrats had the sense to use them in their campaign ads.
Either way, he is history. And so will be a lot of the city council in the next elections.
His statement concerning the homeless, just further proves that he has no clue what the homeless suffer on a daily basis. And turning down federal monies to support the majority of council's idiotic Libertarian values is just plain stupid. I want my tax dollars coming to my community!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Butch
(And now he is dead. He lived and died about two blocks from my place.)
I can't believe he has a wiki page. That would have amused him.
This article is simple punditry; not real journalism.
This article fails to mention TABOR, which dictates that all new taxes be approved by the voters. The voters rejected higher PROPERTY taxes, hardly a "tax on the wealthy" as the author here states. If higher property taxes are this author's idea of keeping people in their homes, then we need some new liberal brainstorming.
Please know the city you're writing about before you try and make my home town look bad. Keeping property taxes low is a way to help keep people in their homes and avoid foreclosures. That might seem evil to the left, but it's common sense to me.
http://www.gazette.com/articles/election-65031-narrative-.html
"Rattled by an economic downturn and skeptical of the dire predictions emanating from City Hall, Colorado Springs voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to raise property taxes to stave off myriad cuts in city services next year."
Raising property taxes and arguing that's going to somehow keep people in their homes is beyond stupid.
The real deal (see comments, not so much Shandrick's babble, but read it anyway for context): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shandrick/inmates-now-running-the-a_b_347275.html
You should move to Denver. The lights are on and the mayor hasn't driven the city into the ground with conservative incompetence.
"Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper on Tuesday presented plans to cut $120 million from the city budget, including eliminating 176 city jobs... However, if the city and fire unions don't make concessions about pay raises, the number of layoffs will be even higher. On top of that, another 191 police officers, firefighters and sheriff's deputies could lose their jobs if they don't agree to forgo raises."
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/20926613/detail.html
Every city has to deal with budget cuts these days, regardless of what their economic policies are. The Springs City Council wanted to raise property taxes to negate a lot of the budget cuts. The voters decided that would be a bad idea in the midst of a recession and voted against the proposal. Hence, they had to sell our police helicopter. Meh.
I actually live in Castle Rock these days. It's a nice location between Denver and the Springs. They're very different cities, and I actually kinda like Denver more. The Springs is just one big suburb.
Anyway, if you want to look at where liberal economic policies lead, how about California?
If you are think that is wrong or mean, then put your money where you mouth is, open the doors to your house for people to stay in until the can get back on there feet. Or, open your checkbook up.
Someone buys a home, at the time they bought the home they could afford it. Then, about 24 months ago, this person lost their job through no fault of their own. Because their area was hit particularly hard, there are jobs but none that would keep up with the mortgage payments. So the bank forecloses. Am I to understand that this person should have presumed that they would lose their job and therefore their home and not have bought a home unless their job was absolutely airtight? Am I following your logic correctly?
That people who had jobs and could easily afford their houses that they voluntarily signed loans for are at fault for the epic failure of the most recent republican reign of terror.
Yep, it's their fault that their jobs were eliminated. They wanted their jobs to be eliminated. It's their fault that the home they bought became unaffordable. They are stupid for buying a home that they could afford and then had the republicans destroy the American dream for most of us.
And by the way, I've found that renting is as expensive or even more expensive than buying at least 1/2 the time.
Instead of punishing the victims by telling them that they are at fault for being a victim lets punish those that are responsible. Lets help the victims recover from the crime that was committed against them.
Being the victim and then being told you are at fault is a much harsher lesson to learn the hard way.