.png)
Dewey Bartlett is the mayor of Tulsa, Oklahoma. You probably have never heard of him unless you live in the area. The issue that Mr. Bartlett is facing is a budget issue. The mayor entered office just around two months ago and stepped into a budget crisis that was not properly explained to him, as he states. So now he is faced with the reality of having to layoff 150 police officers and make budget cuts that will effect other city workers, including firefighters.
Mr. Bartlett and his mayoral staff have come up with an option that instead of laying off 150 police officers, and thus help crime rise even more in Tulsa, would cut the pay of all officers. It would also include reduction of hours and shifts on the part of the police officers. These two options, as Mayor Bartlett has said, are the only options. Mayor Dewey Bartlett is indeed an idiot.
I don't mean to attack the man, but before he was even elected, I knew he was an idiot. Why? One day in the mail I found a flyer advertising the campaign of "Dewey Barttlet" or "Dewey Bartlett," whichever you'd prefer. At that point I knew a person that did not catch that mistake or at least have someone employed who could catch that mistake would be a person who lacked a spirit of excellence to have the job as mayor. However, I was not a fan of his opponent either.
Now please understand that I realize that the new Tulsa mayor stepped into this problem and did not create it or have any hand in it, just in trying to fix the problem. However, when you're faced with the problem and you can only come up with two options, both that hurt the people that work so hard to help the city and the city itself, and say "these are the only two options," you are an idiot.
It's a lack of options that I have a problem with. If Mayor Bartlett was faced with the issue of fixing a problem that would save his job--his only means of income, he would do everything in his power. But he is not, and I think because it is because either he doesn't care that much about it (which I really doubt) or hie and his mayoral staff are so closed-minded that this is the only option that he can think of or wants to allow in the discussion.
Today on the news he was interviewed and the news anchor asked about a group on facebook that was petitioning to have $5 added to their electric bill to save police officers job. He was asked his thoughts and replied that he didn't want to look at that because he wanted to show the citizens of Tulsa that their government can run on it's own, be self-sufficient, and successfully get through this and operate (paraphrased of course). The only problem is it can't, it hasn't. It's going to lay off 150 police officers (I believe that is 1/8 or so of it's force). It can not operate on it's own. It has failed. And those who will pay will not just be city employees but citizens of Tulsa when they are robbed, murdered, killed in car accidents because there are not enough police officers (or firefighters or another needed city employee) because the city has managed it's money poorly and the guy brought in to fix it can only think inside a small box that constrains any thought of creativity in dealing with such a significant mater.
My question is this: How come politicians can have $500 plate dinners to raise money for their campaigns when running for office, but can't call those same friends back in to buy a $20 dollar steak at $250 to help save a police officer's job that has worked so hard to protect them and other citizens of the city. How come with all the information out there, all the different things at his disposal to find an answer to this question, he can only come up with one option? I do not know how the city budget is laid out, however I do know that to only come up with two options--both of which will surely lead to a rise in crime--is idiocy.
Every year I pass firefighters on the streets holding boots filled with cash taking donations for charities. They ask for donations, they hold fundraisers, they reach out to the public to help those in need. Now when they are in need, the government are going to let them hang out to dry. Now the one person who has been elected to deal with the budget crisis is letting both firefighters and police officers get laid off (or reduce their paycheck) all because he refuses to look at options that would help save jobs, and more importantly lives.
On one hand I feel sorry for Mayor Bartlett. He walked into a problem and is expected to be the savior who can fix the budget problem, keep the streets safe, and keep police officers on the street and on the payroll. However, he is no savior. He really has no answers. He has an option that is almost no better than the first choice. I feel sorry for him because he "inherited" this problem, but at the same time, I feel upset because he's trying to give an easy answer. Instead of working hard to come up with options that would save officers jobs, such as fundraisers, donations, and so forth, it seems he's taken the easy way out. Is it really easy? No. But if his job was on the line and it meant either a job or all income was taken away with no bright out look, he'd find another way. But he hasn't. Am I against the man? No. Am I for him? Yes!!! But it seems that his outlook on the issue has been narrowed down to "this or this and nothing else will work." There are more options, even if he won't look at them.
Again, I don't know the whole story, just what I hear, read, and see. However, I know this issue at hand is not just about a person's job, it's about people's lives. And that's something too important to be left up to a two option decision.
Mr. Bartlett and his mayoral staff have come up with an option that instead of laying off 150 police officers, and thus help crime rise even more in Tulsa, would cut the pay of all officers. It would also include reduction of hours and shifts on the part of the police officers. These two options, as Mayor Bartlett has said, are the only options. Mayor Dewey Bartlett is indeed an idiot.
I don't mean to attack the man, but before he was even elected, I knew he was an idiot. Why? One day in the mail I found a flyer advertising the campaign of "Dewey Barttlet" or "Dewey Bartlett," whichever you'd prefer. At that point I knew a person that did not catch that mistake or at least have someone employed who could catch that mistake would be a person who lacked a spirit of excellence to have the job as mayor. However, I was not a fan of his opponent either.
Now please understand that I realize that the new Tulsa mayor stepped into this problem and did not create it or have any hand in it, just in trying to fix the problem. However, when you're faced with the problem and you can only come up with two options, both that hurt the people that work so hard to help the city and the city itself, and say "these are the only two options," you are an idiot.
It's a lack of options that I have a problem with. If Mayor Bartlett was faced with the issue of fixing a problem that would save his job--his only means of income, he would do everything in his power. But he is not, and I think because it is because either he doesn't care that much about it (which I really doubt) or hie and his mayoral staff are so closed-minded that this is the only option that he can think of or wants to allow in the discussion.
Today on the news he was interviewed and the news anchor asked about a group on facebook that was petitioning to have $5 added to their electric bill to save police officers job. He was asked his thoughts and replied that he didn't want to look at that because he wanted to show the citizens of Tulsa that their government can run on it's own, be self-sufficient, and successfully get through this and operate (paraphrased of course). The only problem is it can't, it hasn't. It's going to lay off 150 police officers (I believe that is 1/8 or so of it's force). It can not operate on it's own. It has failed. And those who will pay will not just be city employees but citizens of Tulsa when they are robbed, murdered, killed in car accidents because there are not enough police officers (or firefighters or another needed city employee) because the city has managed it's money poorly and the guy brought in to fix it can only think inside a small box that constrains any thought of creativity in dealing with such a significant mater.
My question is this: How come politicians can have $500 plate dinners to raise money for their campaigns when running for office, but can't call those same friends back in to buy a $20 dollar steak at $250 to help save a police officer's job that has worked so hard to protect them and other citizens of the city. How come with all the information out there, all the different things at his disposal to find an answer to this question, he can only come up with one option? I do not know how the city budget is laid out, however I do know that to only come up with two options--both of which will surely lead to a rise in crime--is idiocy.
Every year I pass firefighters on the streets holding boots filled with cash taking donations for charities. They ask for donations, they hold fundraisers, they reach out to the public to help those in need. Now when they are in need, the government are going to let them hang out to dry. Now the one person who has been elected to deal with the budget crisis is letting both firefighters and police officers get laid off (or reduce their paycheck) all because he refuses to look at options that would help save jobs, and more importantly lives.
On one hand I feel sorry for Mayor Bartlett. He walked into a problem and is expected to be the savior who can fix the budget problem, keep the streets safe, and keep police officers on the street and on the payroll. However, he is no savior. He really has no answers. He has an option that is almost no better than the first choice. I feel sorry for him because he "inherited" this problem, but at the same time, I feel upset because he's trying to give an easy answer. Instead of working hard to come up with options that would save officers jobs, such as fundraisers, donations, and so forth, it seems he's taken the easy way out. Is it really easy? No. But if his job was on the line and it meant either a job or all income was taken away with no bright out look, he'd find another way. But he hasn't. Am I against the man? No. Am I for him? Yes!!! But it seems that his outlook on the issue has been narrowed down to "this or this and nothing else will work." There are more options, even if he won't look at them.
Again, I don't know the whole story, just what I hear, read, and see. However, I know this issue at hand is not just about a person's job, it's about people's lives. And that's something too important to be left up to a two option decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment