News & Politics

Georgetowner • December 8, 2010

Like many jurisdictions around the country, the District again faces both a decline in tax revenue due to the economy and a number of “spending pressures” that need to be addressed. Just prior to the Thanksgiving break, Mayor Fenty submitted his proposed gap-closing plan for FY 2011, which began on October 1. In addition to this plan, the Mayor also immediately placed a freeze on payroll, hiring and new procurements at the start of the fiscal year. As an exercise in financial management, it behooves all of us to make these important budget decisions early in the fiscal year in order to achieve the highest level of annual savings possible. The Mayor’s plan can be accessed online at: tinyurl.com/27n3cr9.

The Council held a public hearing on the Mayor’s proposal on November 30, which lasted well into the evening. Chairman Gray (now Mayor-Elect) has also held informal conversations with Council members, which will lead to his own plan, a revision of the Mayor’s plan, on which the Council will vote on December 7.

The budget gap we face in FY 2011 is a relatively manageable $188 million. I am, by and large, supportive of the Mayor’s approach, although there are cuts I have concerns about as every member does. To some extent, it would be foolhardy to restore some of these spending cuts now only to have to address them again in April. At that time, Mayor Gray will submit his FY 2012 budget to the Council, and these programs will likely be on the chopping block all over again to address what will be a $350 million shortfall in FY 2012.

Several principles are guiding my thoughts on our budget deliberations: 1.) We cannot continue to live beyond our means, which means not raiding our much-depleted fund balances. 2.) We need to plan for what I think will be continued austerity and a weak recovery from the recession. 3.) We need to focus our resources on the core functions of government.

During the “boom years” of the 2000s, before the financial crash, we added all kinds of new spending and programs to the District budget. We need to take a good hard look at these programs and ask ourselves whether they are absolutely necessary.

The challenges seem daunting on their face, but I believe we can successfully address them in this round. I do think the FY 2012 budget will be a far bigger challenge, but Mayor Gray will have a few months (rather than a few weeks) to look at programs citywide in a systematic way. But for the moment, I think we are moving in a prudent fashion to address our immediate problems in FY 2011.

Gary Tischler • December 1, 2010

-Georgetown resident John Hlinko, founder of the Adrian Fenty write-in-campaign for mayor on Facebook, offered an objection to my take on the write-in campaign, including my opinion that the effort appeared to be “peculiarly un-democratic” (“The Fenty Write-in: A Democratic Success Story,” from the November 16 issue).

I don’t mind people objecting to my analysis and opinion—it’s an opinion page after all. And I only mildly mind that opinion being called “Orwellian” or that I saw the write-in as some sort of attempted coup complete with tanks.

But there’s one hyperbolic description too many in his rebuttal: that’s the claim that “it’s hard to see how this was anything but profoundly democratic” (His words).

Let’s also admit that while the primary was not the final or general election, it was indeed a democratically conducted election, meant to choose the Democratic Party’s standard-bearer in the general election, and the principal candidates were Mayor Fenty and Chairman Gray. The fact that DC is a heavily Democratic city has historically made the primary winner the winner of the general election. To use a fine democratic American phrase, Mr. Gray won fair and square, for a variety of reasons, most of which were documented in the Washington Post and other media, and they were born out in the result. The election was not a verdict on education reform. It was a verdict on Mr. Fenty’s political and leadership style, and the autocratic way that education reform was processed.

That’s what primaries are: an electoral method to choose candidates to represent political parties in a larger election.

I don’t have an objection to people offering up write-in candidates, or candidates unhappy with the results of primaries attempting to do the same. Nobody likes to lose, by twenty votes or by thousands. It’s been done before. Up in Alaska, one candidate lost the Republican primary for a senate race, took on the Tea Party-backed candidate in a write-in and won in the end. Joe Lieberman, ousted in a Democratic Party primary in Connecticut by an anti-war candidate, ran as an independent and won. And several years ago, Mayor Anthony Williams was forced to run as a write-in candidate due to a technical foul up by his campaign. Two years ago, Carol Schwartz, the lone Republican on the DC City Council, was undone in the primary by a young GOP candidate backed by the local business community and ran a write-in campaign and lost. Michael Brown—the one on the council—ran as an Independent, even though he’s been a heart-and-soul Democrat from practically his first breath, and he won.

But write-in campaigns are usually run by candidates themselves, not their supporters. Mr. Fenty repeatedly said he was backing Mr. Gray in the general election, even if those assertions were not made with any great passion. It is not productive or very reasonable to vote for someone who is not even running.

The write-in supporters often claimed that while they liked Mr. Gray, they feared he would not continue the education reform efforts begun in dramatic fashion by Mr. Fenty and School Chancellor Michelle Rhee, who resigned before the general election.

In effect they, like Mr. Fenty and Chancellor Rhee and national media types, were claiming that Mr. Fenty was a victim of an anti-school reform effort, and they were trying to save reform, which apparently only Mr. Fenty would pursue with enough rigor, energy and vigor.

This was, to begin with, a misreading of Mr. Gray, who has repeatedly insisted he will continue reform, that there would be no going back.

What was undemocratic about the write-in, to my reading of it, is that it cavalierly disrespected the primary vote results and those voters who supported Mr. Gray. If the primary election and the Washington Post polls that preceded it showed anything, it was that DC was a city dramatically divided by race, class and wealth.

What exactly did the write-in accomplish? The write-in effort proved to be very effective indeed, racking up solid numbers in the very same white and affluent Wards 3 and 2 which had given Mr. Fenty a solid advantage in the primary. In short, the write-in exposed again the racial and economic divides in the city.

But there was never a chance that the effort would actually succeed in coming up with a win for Mr. Fenty. That was always a fantasy. Elections are about consequences, winners and losers, as well as risks. This write-in accomplished nothing that was constructive, or anything resembling clarity. It muddied the outcome, suggested that the primary result was somehow illegitimate or beside the point. Far from being “profoundly democratic,” it ended up being an exercise in electoral peevishness.

Georgetowner •

Earlier this week, Mayor-Elect Gray had a press conference and briefing about the upcoming challenges the District faces in readdressing our FY 2011 budget (and beyond) in the face of continued decline in revenues. I felt reassured by his comments, specifically his pledge not to use shortsighted budget gimmicks to close the gap. I believe he is also very aware of the tax burden faced by our residents and small businesses and recognizes that we cannot balance the budget on their backs. Raising taxes and failing to curtail spending is a recipe for disaster—and you would find next year we would be back in the same place, at which point taxes would likely be raised next year and the year after that. Fundamentally, we need to restructure what we’re doing.

We have difficult decisions ahead, particularly with respect to rightsizing the government to fit our revenue base. We will need to look at what core functions of the government we cannot do without, and look even harder at those things which are perhaps not as necessary. With two-thirds of our spending attributed to public safety, education and human services, we have to keep everything on the table when considering cuts. Looking at deficits of $188 million in FY 2011 and $345 million in FY 2012, we have simply run out of other options. We must curtail spending now. As the Mayor-Elect rightly pointed out, we have been overspending our revenue for each of the past four years, and this year we will no longer have fund balance or federal stimulus monies to paper over the problem.

I will be making a number of recommendations to help close the budget gap, including across-the-board freezes and cuts as needed in both personnel and procurement expenses. I will also be looking long and hard at spending on discretionary items—those things which we want to do, but which in tough times such as these may not be possible. With election season over, it is time for all of us to step up to the plate and make the difficult decisions we were elected to make. We no longer have the option of waiting until next year, and residents and business owners in the District are counting on us.

Let me end on this note: while Thanksgiving is but one day of the year, I have to say I am truly thankful everyday. Thankful for my family and friends. Thankful for my colleagues and staff. Thankful to have the opportunity to make a difference every day in what I do. So don’t let the week go by without a little reflection and hopefully a nice meal with family and friends too!

John Hlinko • November 29, 2010

-This letter is in response to Gary Tischler’s editorial of November 3rd, “Congrats to Gray: Election Day and Beyond.” As a Georgetowner myself, and as the founder of the Facebook page Mr. Tischler referenced, “Run, Fenty, Run”, which helped jumpstart the write-in campaign, I thought it would make sense to address some of the points Mr. Tischler made regarding that effort.

Overall, there are a lot of good points made in the piece, and we too have joined in congratulating Mayor-Elect Gray on his November 2nd victory. We’ve posted it right on the page, and even offered Gray use of the page to reach our supporters.

My only quarrel with Mr. Tischler’s piece was with the section apparently ghost-written by George Orwell:
“It is a peculiarly undemocratic approach that says: We won’t accept the election results that we don’t like and we’re going to try and change them.”

It’s hard to know where to begin with this sentence. First, when this was written (as Mr. Tischler notes), the election for mayor hadn’t actually happened yet. The September election was a primary to choose party nominees. The November 2nd election was when the mayor was chosen. That’s why they called it an “election.” Call me old fashioned, call me sentimental, but I kind of like the quirky American tradition of waiting for the actual vote before declaring a winner.

The truly confusing part, however, is the claim that this effort was somehow “undemocratic.” Which part was undemocratic? The part where we tried to get more votes in the actual election? The part where we tried to run a campaign for our preferred choice for mayor? The part where volunteers stood out for 10, 12, 14 hours or more, trying to convince other voters to consider writing him in as well?

Now, in fairness, I was out of town for a few days, so I apologize if I missed the part where write-in supporters rolled out the tanks and declared a coup. And if they made Fenty “Generalissimo for life” in my absence, well, my bad.

But otherwise, it’s hard to see how this was anything but profoundly democratic. A group of grassroots supporters rallied behind their preferred candidate, and, with almost no budget, miraculously convinced
23% of voters to write in the name of that candidate. No, Fenty wasn’t on the ballot, and wasn’t running. But that’s the whole point of having a write in. If a voter thinks the best choice for that office is not on the ballot, he or she writes in the person they think is best, even if that person would need to be “drafted” to accept the office. The vast majority of people written in on Election Day are in fact not running.

Was it a long shot? Absolutely. Was it a pain in the neck for Mayor-elect Gray, and even Mayor Fenty himself? Almost certainly. Was it undemocratic? Well, since when is democracy “undemocratic?”

Veena Trehan • November 17, 2010

-“Save Your Pennies.” Families save for big purchases or tough times. States similarly create “rainy day funds,” and the federal government spent less in prosperous times and more in difficult ones (per Keynesian theory). The New Deal, with its creation of jobs in the Great Depression to rebuild and restore America’s infrastructure, typified this approach.

President Bush came to D.C. with projections of a federal government surplus but eliminated it by cutting taxes and starting two wars. With 20 percent of citizens un- or underemployed, now would be the perfect time to use savings. Its absence allows Republicans to create an issue of debt reduction rather than recognizing the cyclical nature of our economy.

“Make Good Choices.” Brutal war actions like drone attacks, nighttime raids and random civilian killings led Afghani and Iraqi leaders to ask America to shrink its presence overseas. For Democrats, America’s continued involvement is a regular sucker punch. President Obama’s lack of haste in exiting the wars dampened the enthusiasm of these ardent supporters, whose energetic canvassing led to 2008’s record voter turnout.

“How Did You Do?” Government agencies and businesses have their own report cards, measures and plans. But somehow this seems to break down for our country as a whole.

American’s lives are affected by unemployment, excessive bank fees, growing difficulty in paying mortgages, health care expenses and coverage surprises. These were tackled through major legislative initiatives, though it’s generally agreed all areas need more work.

Many candidates ran on shrinking government and repealing health care. But these steps won’t improve most daily realities. In fact less protection through less regulation, less help to the states, and lower budgets will make things much worse for most middle-class Americans.

“Let’s Ask the …” We seek help for kids from doctors or coaches, and for ourselves from plumbers or attorneys. There is a great deal of expertise and consensus among researchers and economists. As an example: most economists say extending the tax cuts are a relatively ineffective way to create jobs, with tax cuts for the rich being far worse. Experts also recommend short-term government investment to create jobs, and investments in renewable energy and infrastructure. But candidates relied very little on these experts in the past election cycle.

“What’s The Teacher’s Pet Doing?” Imitating and measuring oneself against a good set of peers can make one soar, while a bad peer group can sow the seeds of destruction and failure. Businesses speak regularly of “best practices” or being “world class.” Governments also look for leaders to emulate.

But the election featured surprisingly little discussion of the priorities and programs of growing, successful countries overseas. For example, China and India are investing in high technology, transportation, education, and health care. Yet many successful candidates advocated cutting the same areas that are helping these countries thrive.

“Sticks and Stones …” Actually, names do hurt. Calling health care reform “Obamacare” was critical to turning people against it. People aren’t refusing to put their unemployed child on their insurance, or insisting that their cancer treatment not be covered by their insurance company. “Death panels,” Obama as a Muslim and the demonization of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi galvanized a frustrated base that agreed with the substance of many recent reforms.

Georgetowner •

-The Georgetowner’s editorial, “The Perpetually Delayed Waterfront Park Turns to the Community for More Money”, (November 3, 2010) could not be more wrong. The funds are in hand to complete the Georgetown Waterfront Park in the Spring of 2011. In the past several months, work on Phase 2 of the park has been moving full-steam ahead. The river steps are in place, the pergolas have been erected, and a construction of the fountain, pathways, and riverside promenade is well underway.

Despite the progress, the editorial mistakenly reported that Friends of the Georgetown Waterfront Park continue to seek additional donations from the community to complete Phase 2 of the Park. Not true. The Friends continue to recruit new members and to solicit efforts, but thanks to the Federal and District governments and private donors, sufficient funds have been raised to complete construction of the entire Park.

The editorial posed the rhetorical question: “Is this troubled park currently worth the efforts and resources of an ailing economy?” First, the Georgetown Waterfront Park is not “troubled.” The Park has been a long time coming, and the path forward has not always been straight. But with full funding the park will be completed, as planned, by mid-2011.

More importantly, is the Georgetown Waterfront Park worth the effort and resources, particularly during the current recession? Absolutely, unequivocally, “Yes.” In times of economic hardship, when recreation budgets are stretched, city residents and visitors rely increasingly on public parks and recreation areas. Were the resources of the Federal and District governments and corporate and individual donors that have been used to build the Georgetown Waterfront Park well spent? Take a walk through the park along the glistening Potomac, on a crisp November morning. Priceless.

Georgetowner •

Last Tuesday, we elected the people who will lead the District of Columbia starting in January. My colleague, Vince Gray, will take office as our new Mayor and Kwame Brown as Chair of the Council. The challenges before elected leaders are tremendous, and the next several weeks will be crucial in determining the fiscal future of the District.

Although the city is in good financial shape overall, we learned from Chief Financial Officer Natwar M. Gandhi in September that we are facing a $175 million shortfall for the fiscal year that began October 1. This shortfall comprises approximately $50 million less in sales tax revenue, $50 million less in income tax revenue, $35 million in federal stimulus money the city anticipated but did not receive, $25 million in spending pressures in our public schools, and other costs. We face another $135 million shortfall in fiscal 2012, when one-time stimulus money is no longer available.

When the mayor and council faced similar shortfalls over the past three years, we relied largely on spending our reserves to close the gap. This was possible because by September 2005 the District had built up reserves totaling $1.6 billion. But year after year, as revenue slowed and spending increased, we drew down our savings. Over the past three years, the District has spent almost $1 billion in reserves, leaving us only $611 million today. No more of this amount can be used because it supports our revenue bonds and other debt commitments. The District also continued to borrow for capital investments and has increased its outstanding debt to the legal limit of 12 percent of annual debt payments to revenue.

Without reserves available to close our spending gap, and no more room to borrow, we must either raise revenue, cut spending, or both. Because our rates in commercial property tax, personal and corporate income tax, and sales tax are already the highest in the region, and in some cases the nation, it is difficult to ask our residents and businesses to pay more, particularly in these tough economic times. Raising taxes might help to close the shortfall now, but it will also put us at a greater competitive disadvantage with Maryland and Virginia in the future. It’s no secret that new residents and businesses that relocate to the region go elsewhere to save money. This hurts our long-term ability to expand our revenue base and pay for government — including the social safety net — that we want and need.

On the expenditure side, more than 85 percent of our budget is dedicated to social services, education, public safety, and debt service. Reductions in these areas are very difficult, again because of the times. But these areas must be reduced if the city is to balance its budget. Keep in mind that we spend more money on education per student, and on social services and public safety per resident, than most cities and states, and we are consistently ranked as having one of the highest rates of government employees per capita.

We cannot afford to jeopardize all the progress we have made with our bond ratings and investment climate. Now is the time to right-size spending, no matter how painful the decisions might be. Postponing this downsizing by using tax increases and one-time fixes will only lead to larger deficits. I continue to assert — as I have for the past 3 years — that this revenue downturn is not a one year phenomenon. I believe the economy will continue to grow anemically, and we certainly cannot count on a big turnaround in revenues to save the day.

The experience of the District in the 1990’s continues to serve as a cautionary tale. Back then, we used one-time fixes and ended up with a control board. The board then made the hard decisions that the elected government would not make. I will not allow something like that to happen to the city on my watch.