8 Days to Go

1/2 cent sales tax increase - Santa Clara County Measure A - 8 days to
go

Today's point is simple: "Priorities Seem to Mean Nothing to the Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors."

What does the following statement mean?

"Restrict new expenditures unless they are required/mandated, or are
revenue-positive, including limiting any required homeland security/health
threat expenditures."

(Source: Page 7 of the "County Executive's Budget
Message" FY 2007 Recommended Budget, column 2 near the bottom of the
page)

The statement above states action recommendations to the Board of
Supervisors from the County Executive who prepares the budget.. It makes me
very nervous when the board would consider limiting homeland security/health
threat expenditures. Was their statement written in error? In haste? Did
they mean that they are actually considering limiting funds for required
homeland/health threats? Or is the sentence written unclearly?

Since the writing and clarity on everything else in the Budget Message is so
well-crafted, I'm assuming that the priorities are such that any required
homeland security/health threat funds are in jeopardy and could be whacked
by the County Board of Supervisors.

Shouldn't PUBLIC SAFETY be the number one priority? If so, why is the board of supervisors promising money to the VMC and VTA and promising to limit homeland security/health threats monies?

Does it make sense to you that the county would cut funds for homeland security, yet fund anger management classes, pay for an ATM machine at Stevens Creek Park to collect park entrance fees, pay $35,000 for a public opinion poll on parks after having raising entrance fees at parks, spend $15,000 on a "Fantasy of Lights" display during the Christmas holidays, provide illegal immigrants free medical services, pay lawyer fees for fighting the City of San Jose over the Concert Hall debacle, and give hundreds of thousands of dollars to Catholic charities?

Affordable housing isn't shown on the Measure A logo. Maybe they didn't have room on the logo.

We need to hold the supervisors accountable for affordable housing. Higher priced homes do have an advantage to the county. So much money is coming into the county's coffers from the property tax based on higher-priced homes that the board is downright gleeful with the property tax revenue increases. So, we hope their compassion for lower-priced affordable housing gets equal attention in spite of lower property tax revenues.

However, if you want to get affordable housing, just suggest to the Board of Supervisors that the first step to affordable housing is REDUCING THE PROPERTY TAX! 

Do you think reducing taxes is anywhere remotely possible with the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors? 

Also, did you get the point that the county executive is advising the board to restrict NEW expenditures? Did you get the point that by restricting NEW expenditures, you don't have to REDUCE any existing expenditures? This way, the community-based funding for the board's favorite organizations don't have to face reduced funding.

Also, note that expenditures should be required or mandated, or revenue positive. Sounds like anything could be construed as required, so why bother to even put this clause into the restrictions? Free medical care at the county hospital, unlimited roads and transit options, healthcare insurance for the 200,000 uninsured RESIDENTS, and homes for all the homeless in the county within 10 years.

The board has too much of a cavalier attitude towards homeland security/health threat expenditures if the wording by the County Executive was correct. The board's attitude would seem to be, "Let's feed, house, and give free medical care to those that raped our border, and let's not worry about trivial issues like homeland security/health threat expenditures."

Look at the "Yes on Measure A" logo next time you see it. It is on flyers, on the Measure A website, and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group website.The "Yes on Measure A" logo shows a medical symbol and a mass transit vehicle. The basic 2 groups that would get the highest priority for the windfall tax increase would be the Valley Medical Center (VMC) and the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Do you see anything wrong with that picture? What's missing?

Shouldn't PUBLIC SAFETY be the number one priority? If so, why isn't it pictured on the Measure A logo? On the logo, where is the picture that shows the priority on public safety, the police, the fire department, the jail, Elmwood Correctional Facility, jobs, and affordable housing, among others? Looking at the logo, I only see 2 logos: VTA and VMC, which are apparentlly the top 2 contenders for the taxpayers money.

The board of supervisors wants end homelessness in Santa Clara County in 10 years. The board also wants to provide healthcare insurance to 200,000 residents that do not have healthcare insurance. The board of supervisor wants affordable housing for all residents, yet housing costs in Silicon Valley are among the highest in the nation.

Supervisor Beall, Chair of the Board of Supervisor, also says in his "State of the County" speech that there are "...130,000 county residents subsisting in financialdespair-living below the federal poverty line." Supervisor Beall goes on to say, "Just imagine, living in poverty, with $19,350 or less per year for a family of four."  Hey, board of supervisors, "IT'S NOT HOW MUCH YOU MAKE, IT'S HOW YOU MANAGE YOUR MONEY!" 

Supervisor Beall, it's no different for a county than a family. You trim the budget. PERIOD. STOP SPENDING EXCEPT FOR EMERGENCIES!!!!!! The families bringing in $19,350 or less are making it; the county is pulling in 2 to 3 billion dollars isn't making it. Again, it's not how much you make but how you manage what you make.

So, whatcha gonna do for the residents living in financial despair Supervisor Beall? Are you going to give them the shortfall to bring them up and over the $19,350 level? How about providing all of the people living in financial despair in Santa Clara County a guaranteed minimum cash payment to bring them up to $19,351 so that we can eliminate poverty in Santa Clara County?

Raising everyone's income to $19,351 as a priority would be in line with ending homelessness and providing healthcare insurance for everybody.

What priorites do you want the county to follow? Do you think the county taxpayer could ever pay for the priorities that the county supervisors have proposed? Do you think the board of supervisors is wise in dismissing the Public Safety issue of homeland security/health threat expenditures?

Do you believe the county should, like a family, live within their means?

Send a strong message to the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors - Vote NO on Measure A

------------------------------------------------

P.S. Come back tomorrow. Let's look at staffing in each of the departments to see if there are staffing issues. For example, let's see if the board reduced its own headcount. What's your guess?