I have been reading many of the posts over the last few months and am excited by the level of interest and energy so many have for improving our lives.
I think many have talked about the cost of corruption and “pay to play”. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a real cost to tax payers. What I don’t think has been explored is the cost of poverty, not just to the low-income families but to the working poor and middle class as well. And I don’t understand why that is.
For example how much of ones gas bill is because a certain law firm was bond counsel and how much is do to people not being able to pay their bills?
Bond counsel costs are less than 1/2 of one percent of the gas rates, 1/3 of our PGW bills are the cost of people not making enough to keep up.
Similarly with social services, how much is the cost to the city for social services caused by " corruption” how much is poverty?
I would hope that as we discuss the issues and candidates that we don’t lose sight that it is not just the process by which we govern that is important it is also important what polices we govern with.
I think part of it is that
I think part of it is that many people see the corruption as an inhibitor to effectively helping the poor as well. More straightforward and civicly minded officials would allow the channels of support to open wider and cheaper. Many people feel the corruption issues are a chokepoint affecting everyone.
As a theoretical example, how much does it help the poor if out of $500,000 earmakred for a program, half of it gets misappropriated or used up because of inefficiencies and red tape?
I don't think people are overlooking the poor, I think they see a problem that is a significant inhibitor to recovery.
--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.
Longacre Website
I don't think Lance is posing it as an either/or question
but just as a counterbalance to views that seem to be expressed here sometimes which give a pretty low priority to the programs. And to show that the programs themselves are important not just to the poor, but to all of us.
Lance said that
Adam, Lance said that corruption costs poor people. In fact he said:
That means that when we clean up corruption, which clearly we will based on the will of voters, we'll still have a poverty higher than in other cities of our stature and size.
And it still has a human and economic cost. Lance is asking what that cost is. It's an honest question that I have heard too few answers to.
Sorry, so many topics on the
Sorry, so many topics on the forum are "either/ors" you sort of get into that expectation pretty easily.
I think the problem is the cost is hard to calculate. Besides just money lost from filtering, I couldn't imagine how we could track money lost from people not even willing to deal with the government to come into the City to help.
Trying to find the right balance is definitely tough ... but I agree it can't be an eitehr or ... both need to be addressed.
So, in a nutshell, I have no answer and you just wasted 30 seconds of your life reading this post. ;)
--------------------------------------------------
Staff member of Longacre for 5th Council District.
Longacre Website
Leaving aside empirically
Leaving aside empirically where we are at on the Laffer Curve, here's the dilemma of poverty, as I see it.
1. Poorer people need more services. Those services cost money. Lots of those services, and the City budget, are subsidized by state/federal dollars. So even though those services costs money, many of the social services cannot be cut b/c you would lose corresponding state/federal dollars.
2. The City has an infrastructure for 2.5MM, and 1MM left. So, there are rec centers in low population areas -- as an example. Polling places every ten feet, seems that way. The City has an aging infrastructure -- trolley lines peaking through streets -- that costs a lot to maintain.
3. The City has a brutally high tax burden.
4. Key point, to me, if you cut taxes, you must cut City Services, unless you find alternate forms of revenue to make up the difference. I don't think that there is any enough compelling data to show that cutting local taxes alone will raise revenue, b/c I think that Philly's tax structure is so brutal that reduction in taxes get you only to where the City is not completely uncompetitive for businesses and residents from a tax perspective. (I believe we are on the wrong side of the Curve.)
5. A lot of the City budget is fixed, i.e., debt payments, city contracts, etc. So there is not a lot of room to shrink, including corruption related costs, that would make a difference.
6. PICA and City Council have a lot to do with the City budget, so it is not something that can be unilaterally changed.
7. That box of needing more services, b/c the City has trash in lots of poor neighborhoods, crime that is ridiculous, and fires in abandoned buildings everywhere, and the inability to raise taxes to pay for it, leaves most looking for alternative revenue sources -- selling the Airport, asking the state federal government for more money, building casinos, legalizing marijuana (ok, just kidding). But it puts the city in a hobsons choice of looking for exotic revenue streams.)
7. The City has borrowed a lot for cash now that compromises the City's budget later.
To me, that's the cost of poverty, needing more city services to lower crime and increase public safety, and no ability to ask for them.
(Also, Philly has a lot, lot of public institutions that have huge landholdings and pay limited taxes -- they call them universities.
__________________________________________________________________________
I do not work for/support any candidate for any office in Philadelphia.
Lance Is Right: The Policies Are Important
Too much discussion here and elsewhere is on political processes and the need to reform them. Processes can always be reformed,but reform of processes does usually not solve problems.
The public policies are important, and have been given far too little attention in this campaign. The balance between tax cuts and service cuts, the balance btween job creation and housing and neighborhood creation, the balance between current realities and potential realities, all deserve more attention than they have been given in this campaign.
good jobs FIRST
OK, here's a public policy suggestion, as Rep Cohen calls for:
Philadelphia (and Harrisburg as well) needs to make it a matter of public policy that any tax breaks or incentives be tied to the creation of good jobs. We taxpayers have given tens of millions of dollars in tax breaks to corporations like Comcast and our sports teams with no requirement that the jobs created as a result of those breaks be good, family-sustaining jobs with benefits. The City has given incentives to corporations like Wal-Mart to set up shop in Philadelphia, but the jobs created are lousy jobs.
The best anti-poverty program is a union card. Philadelphia is a union town; over 150,000 workers in this City belong to a union. But tens of thousands of workers -- security officers, retail clerks, home healthcare workers, nursing home workers -- are often denied the basic right to organize by employers who get public funds. The next mayor needs to work with labor to create *quality* jobs. And Harrisburg needs to make sure that state-funded work is paid at a rate that can sustain a family. NO MORE CORPORATE WELFARE!
SEIU Local 32BJ is supporting Chaka Fattah precisely because he agrees with us on these crucial issues.