
This city is broke. Bankrupt. A ward of the courts. The police have pared their ranks, and every day two fire stations temporarily close, a rolling blackout of basic services.
Do we bailout Vallejo?
What about Philadelphia, Atlanta or Phoenix? They want $50 billion in emergency loans.
Years ago, when a close friend of mine lost his 75-year-old family retail business in Pittsburgh with the collapse of the steel industry, the federal government was nowhere to lend a hand to small business owners.
When aluminum factories in Spokane, Wash., folded after a corporate raider picked them to the bone, destroying the best middle-class jobs for blue collar workers in the city where I grew up, the government's advice to people losing their homes, cars and dignity was: Learn how to say, "You want fries with that?"
If you’re a taxpayer without health insurance, or paying $12,000 a year on the open market to cover your family’s health, you wonder why you should offer bailout billions for somebody with a rich safety net.
Am pondering whether it is more economically responsible to turn to a program like universal health care or to bail out companies that pay out more to retirees than they do to their employees?
As this drags on I am reminded of an expression may dad taught me: "It's hard to remember the objective is to drain the swamp when you're up to your ass in alligators."
Ha! You have me alternately laughing and crying, urb. This situation also brings to mind the image of "whack-a-mole" when you look at the some of the approaches government is considering. A very frustrating mess. Thanks for sharing your dad's wisdom.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |