The Dallas Morning News published an editorial, "Make the Iran nuclear deal better, but don't scrap it" that I found to be, well, muddled.
Editorial board member Mike Hashimoto expanded on the editorial in a blog item, "Where does the ed board come down on Obama’s Iran deal? Read on." Sadly, I was no better off understanding the News's position after reading this. And even a Twitter conversation with Mike Hashimoto failed to enlighten me.
Friday, August 28, 2015
POTD: Saigon Motorbike Chic
From 2015 03 21 Saigon |
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Richardson's Budget - Black or Red?
It's August and that means it's time for Richardson budget roulette. Will the proposed city budget be balanced? You'd think that would be a simple question. Isn't the city required by law to have a balanced budget? Well, yes, but it all depends on the meaning of "balanced".
Last year when I looked at this question, I concluded that the city's 2014-2015 budget was indeed balanced and didn't require use of that sneaky asterisk ("plus reserved fund balance and other financing sources").
After the jump, reviewing that conclusion and looking ahead at 2015-2016.
Last year when I looked at this question, I concluded that the city's 2014-2015 budget was indeed balanced and didn't require use of that sneaky asterisk ("plus reserved fund balance and other financing sources").
After the jump, reviewing that conclusion and looking ahead at 2015-2016.
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Point and Shoot (2014)
IMDB |
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Debt is Good
The Richardson City Council voted to hold an election in November to issue new bonds totaling $115 million. The four propositions residents will vote on:
I haven't studied the details, but the numbers seem to be in the right ballpark for my support. Should the total be a little more...or less? Perhaps. The total seems to be of a size that doesn't require a tax increase. That's important to many. Should buildings get less money and streets get more? Perhaps, if the money for streets goes not to building more streets but goes instead to filling potholes and reconfiguring existing streets to improve walkability. That's important to me. I'll have my ears open for discussions along these lines, but I expect that I'll support all four bond propositions regardless whether the numbers are exactly what I would have come up with myself.
There are some people who don't just want to fiddle with the numbers. They want to cut the numbers to zero. For them, debt is evil, or at least bad. This attitude provides us with another opportunity to challenge conventional wisdom. Public debt isn't evil. It's not even bad. In fact, debt is good.
- Public Buildings - $67,000,000
- Streets - $38,570,000
- Parks - $7,230,000
- Sidewalks - $2,200,000
I haven't studied the details, but the numbers seem to be in the right ballpark for my support. Should the total be a little more...or less? Perhaps. The total seems to be of a size that doesn't require a tax increase. That's important to many. Should buildings get less money and streets get more? Perhaps, if the money for streets goes not to building more streets but goes instead to filling potholes and reconfiguring existing streets to improve walkability. That's important to me. I'll have my ears open for discussions along these lines, but I expect that I'll support all four bond propositions regardless whether the numbers are exactly what I would have come up with myself.
There are some people who don't just want to fiddle with the numbers. They want to cut the numbers to zero. For them, debt is evil, or at least bad. This attitude provides us with another opportunity to challenge conventional wisdom. Public debt isn't evil. It's not even bad. In fact, debt is good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)