In my small government experience, it was council members' fear that
raising water and sewer rates angers the voters, their neighbors. So
previous councils pretended the problems in the water and sewer systems
didn't need to be funded. They did cheap, little fixes that made the
problems a bit
You have that backwards. Foolish government offers subsidized flood
insurance program and property owner buys it (sometimes required to by
the lender). I hope people who buy insurance are not foolish to expect
to be paid for an insured loss.
Thank you,
Mark Snyder
-Original Message-
I am on the town council in a historic Virginia town of about 700. We
provide water and sewer services to in-town residents. In the 1970's,
the town built its sewer using state and federal grants to defray almost
all of the cost. Connection and availability fees were too low. When
we realized
It is more complicated than that. Funding must be identified for future
capacity as well as current or new users will be shut out. So we added
a modest increase in the new capacity of the new plant. Also, when the
state and federal government shut down those grant funds, they left
municipal
That is a vastly over-simplified account. I never recoup the cost of my
water or sewer plants in your scenario.
You also ignore the disruption when the state or federal government
suddenly ignores these infrastructures.
Life sounds very simple in your world. Probably too simple.
Thank you,
For someone with so many criticisms of government, you know curiously
little about actually running one!
If I don't charge an amount proportional to the customer's use of the
system, when it comes time to replace those parts of that system, where
will the money come from? (Developers hate me
Message-
On Feb 3, 2009, at 12:51 PM, Snyder, Mark (IT-EI) wrote:
If I don't charge an amount proportional to the customer's use of the
system, when it comes time to replace those parts of that system,
where will the money come from? (Developers hate me for charging
In the future, enough resources to do the job right, within the
budgetary constraints agreed to. If we can't do it acceptably, we
should look for another solution. Hasn't happened in a while. I don't
advocate cheap fixes that don't work. I hate expensive screw-ups. For
now, the financial
Quantify? Who cares what I think is too-little, enough or too-much? I
am not a member of the house or senate. I'm not sure I qualify as your
big-government proponent. I personally am comfortable with the 15-25%
of GDP that is the approximate norm in recent history. I do not include
the rescue
Huh? Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, used to be liberal? In what sense
of the word?
Thank you,
Mark Snyder
-Original Message-
Tom,
I think you are misusing the term neocon. Most of what you disagree with
the right on are conservative principles, such as minimal government.
Neocons are
You are a one-trick pony. Any tax rate appears to be too much. You
want an absolute number and are exaggerating the percentage of GDP
spent by the US government to push your case.
No response to your question will satisfy you, and you appear to swig
more cool aid and demand another answer. I
Are you implying I respond randomly? Or can't/won't read?
Bush and Cheney were hailed as neocons by self-described neocons when
they were elected. If the neocons now claim they are no longer pure
enough to qualify, I will not drink their cool aid. They were and are
neocons, among other
that some neocons hailed their interventionist policies post
9-11, but agreement on aspects of foreign policy does not make them
neocons by any definition of neocon which I am familiar.
Matthew
On Jan 30, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Snyder, Mark (IT-EI) wrote:
Bush and Cheney were hailed as neocons
That sounds like a whack-job, then; you get to walk around and change
the government tax rate as you go. Expanding one's definitions as one
goes is an idiot's game. That does not wash with me; you don't even
know where I am. It is just a ploy to make it look ooh, ooh, scary!
You might as well
Unless you ask by jurisdiction, federal rate, state rate, county or
city, town - and which ones, since service needs vary by location, your
question makes no sense. Does government direction include the HOAs and
their fees? National economy, but federal, state and various local
government? Keep
That is an excessively pessimistic response to the idea of repairing the
Mall as one recovery project. I would not think that looking around for
items of public importance that are suffering neglect is reckless, the
way the post implies.
An effective recovery package needs elements of both.
So recovery projects should not include a criteria for Things that are
Important to us (and that need repair)? What should the criteria be?
So are you proposing that by keeping all of Your Money, you will do a
better job at recovery than the gov't? I didn't get much from the 2nd
paragraph
The Register's opinion piece thinks so because it dropped 54% last
quarter, a $100m drop in revenue.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/axe_the_zune/
Thank you,
Mark Snyder
*
** List info, subscription management,
18 matches
Mail list logo
