City increases after school spending, gives each District $1Million for projects. Mike Morris, Houston Chronicle
The most curious line of spending was forwarded by a Councilmember who had, up until this point, acted as somewhat of a fiscal hawk. C.O. Bradford forwarded the amendment providing each council district with $1Million dollars to use as they please. Borrowing a quote from the above linked article (but only a quote mind you, so as not to interfere with the Chron's pay wall.) one can see how many hoops some Councilmembers are willing to go through to get their hands on this money:
"I don't want this splashed around the media as a slush fund. That's not what it is," said district Councilwoman Ellen Cohen, who supported the amendment. "This is discretionary funds we can use in our district to expedite some of the issues. I have 80 civic clubs in my district. I promise you I hear from all of them what they need."
In other words, it's a slush fund.
Mr. Morris goes on to say that these monies will be drawn from "savings" that Mayor Parker had included in the budget to ostensibly ward off fiscal Armageddon in the 2016 budget, when things are really projected to go haywire.
Amazingly, in the face of all of this financial doom, the Councilmembers were able to maintain their laser-like focus on getting themselves re-elected rather than acting as stewards for the financial health of Houston. Parker, as is her style, seems more interested in celebrating with her staff (hopefully not at "pricey" hot-spots in Central Houston) than working to find cost savings in the budget in the face of a Council that seems not to care.
Where does this leave Houston? Depending on which side you take it means either looking at potential deep cuts in the 2016 annual budget, more policies of the type we've seen in recent history that kick the can further down the road or a ballot referendum in November which will relieve the City of its pillow-soft revenue cap.
Since I'm a betting man I'll give you some odds:
Actual Spending cuts: 20/1
Kick the can "cuts": 2/1
Referendum: 1/9
In reality I think we're going to see a combination of the latter two. Unlike say, a private business or household, the idea of living within budget restraints is foreign to those who feel that every problem (real or imagined) requires a large government solution. Since they do nothing to earn revenues, and have control over how much is taken, there's no fiduciary duty inherent in elected officials to be good stewards of the public dime. While it's understood on the campaign trail that each and every candidate is to wave the "fiscal watchdog" flag. The reality is that it's more important for an elected official to spend money than it is to try and save. Trimming 10% off of the budget gets less press coverage than spending an additional 10% to help save the squirrel population in one's district for quality of life reasons.
The problem is emotive voters like squirrels and they like big shiny trinkets which make them feel good about themselves. Does Houston really need an art installation saying "I 'heart' Houston" looming over a freeway? Of course not. But it's purchase allows elected officials to give good campaign glossy so it gets funded while the coffers are increasingly drained. Houston may be broke, but, by God, we have the finest example of a public art installation in a dog-park that you will find anywhere. Dare we say it: It's world class.
Which, if things don't change, will be Houston's future in a nut-shell. Full of World-Classiness and shiny trinkets but broke as hell and trying desperately to keep the police and fire departments minimally staffed.
