. . . demanding more government spending and regulation, but the third person of the newspaper's holy trinity -- more taxes -- gets far less ink. Who, after all, wants to admit that flinging ever more taxpayer dollars into the wind necessarily requires . . .
. . . ever more taxpayer dollars to be vacuumed from our pockets and trucked over to the flingers?
Sunday, however, the editors spoke forthrightly about how wrong it is for some city taxpayers to keep the loose change behind their sofa cushions when the Chronicle's true constituents, the ruling class, could spend the dimes and quarters ever so much more wisely.
The occasion was a recent Houston city council budget meeting that voted to bump the property-tax exemption for geezers from about $70,862 to $80,000.
(For the record, UncaDarrellville would have low property tax rates and no exemptions for anyone, old or young. What's at issue here in the real world, however, is a modest tax cut for a group with the political clout to get it, which we are entitled to take as a marker for the larger issue of whether taxes should be cut, ever. Yes or no?)
The Chronicle votes no.
"With a projected $81 million deficit for the next budget cycle, now is not the time to reduce city revenue" by $3.9 million, the outraged Chronicle thunders.
How about cutting spending by $3.9 million or, given the projected deficit, even more?
One must not, of course, even joke about such radical nonsense. The city budget is lean, don't you know? There is no sign of government waste. In fact, what's really needed is more spending, not less. "[There] are some areas where necessary city services are still underfunded."
Examples?
Those millions could go toward the $400 million in immediate facility repair requirements, not to mention a much-needed new police campus.
. . . .
. . . . Houston's future won't be built on tax cuts, but on a solid, sustainable budget and reliable city services.
The Houston Chronicle does not understand how Houston's past was built, so one should not be surprised that it imagines the city's future built on a foundation of higher taxes and ever more spending.
The essay contains the usual quota of irony and unintended humor, as when the editors -- whose bread and butter are race and gender preferences slathered on the burnt toast of white guilt -- harrumph about "identity politics," whatever that may mean in the context of cutting Aunt Mabel's property taxes.
Biggest hoot: "Come November, Houstonians should look for candidates who can balance a budget . . . ."
Just as long, of course, as it is balanced on the back of taxpayers, not the Chronicle's buddies in the departments over at city hall.
The nastiest thing about the editorial, however, is its sarcastic tone toward the often unlovely but always necessary institutions and processes of self-governance -- elections, representatives, meetings, budgets. Snips:
Pet projects or political shenanigans . . . no one wants to be the candidate who voted against senior citizens . . . an attempted political pincer . . . to force budget-conscious politicians like Mayor Annise Parker into casting votes that can be slapped onto attack ads . . . created scandal . . . sideshow of party politics that panders to a fickle base . . . We're lucky they only do this once per year.
Make no mistake: The Houston Chronicle is no fan of self-government. It much prefers governance by self-anointed elites such as, well, folks as clever as its own editors.
* * * * *
The editorial is "Houston budget ballyhoo." Look it up yourself. I'm increasingly fearful that sending my massive cadres of readers to houstonchronicle.com might be an actionable tort akin to intentional infliction of intellectual distress.
Comments