We’re not going to endorse anyone in the DA’s race — our mayoral recommendation will appear in the Nov. 3 edition — however, this point is worth making. Busting street criminals is important and laudable, but carries not much in the way of political risks. (The impact of losing the Bloods vote figures to be minimal.) Going after the people in power carries tons of political risks, potentially making dire enemies in high places. In the final analysis, which approach is more courageous?
* * *
Mayor Sottile took an interesting approach in his final budget by maintaining the status quo by using just under half of the city’s unallocated fund balance. I could not help but be reminded of that Looney Tune where Daffy and Bugs keep trying to upstage each other on a vaudeville stage. Daffy wins, finally, by donning a devil costume and drinking any number of explosive substances and then swallowing a match. As his post-exploded soul rises heavenward, Daffy laments he “can only do it once.”
So it is with the budget, though maybe next year, assuming nothing unexpectedly costly has happened at all in the whole city, they could use the other half of the fund balance. No, I wouldn’t know off the top of my head what to cut, either, but something has to give somewhere before this time next year. Either services have to go, taxes have to rise — it’s not much of a trick to get a supermajority vote of the Common Council to exceed the tax cap — or unions will have to take less. They say 2012 will bring Armageddon. That may or may not be true, but a reckoning looms for Kingston’s finances.
