about Clay Bennett...
The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...
Not so you could tell and not for long.
Didn't know this. Thanks for the reminder.
VW and Amazon are nice, aside from their special tax breaks, but he ran for re-election without bringing up annexation or a tax hike or stormwater fees, and his response to the recall was to hide behind legal technicalities.
Think politicians take too much on themselves? The Libertarian Party of southeast Tennessee meets tonight ( https://www.facebook.com/LPSET. ) Last month Clay and sandyonsignal spoke to us.
Temporarily would be more descriptive. The mayor and council refer to the increased cost to citizens and businesses to live or operate in the city as "modest". This proves they are out of touch and insensitive to the impact on many citizens and struggling businesses. Increases in Property tax, sewer tax, storm water run off fees, permit and licensing increases plus EPB and TAWC rate increases amount to more than a 20% increase in the annual cost to live in Chattanooga. $2000 becomes more than $2400 or at least $400 less spendable income per household. The mayor and council brag about how they have "grown" Chattanooga but never address why that growth doesn't generate sufficient revenue to avoid increasing the cost of those already here? The mayor and council are either unwilling or incapable of addressing the root cause of the need for the increased cost to live in Chattanooga.
Blaming the Mayor for Federally mandated laws like the stormwater fees makes as much sense as blaming him for all the rain we had this week.
Bret said...
Blaming the Mayor for Federally mandated laws like the storm water fees makes as much sense as blaming him for all the rain we had this week
There is more to it than that. It is my understanding it started with the city seeking a grant from the federal government and making promises to do a number of things. Knoxville, Nashville and other cities don't seem to have the problem Chattanooga has. To avoid fines and penalties the city has to fulfill promises made to get the money. Prostituting yourself to a broke manipulative fed is not smart.
Unbelievable! On the day when lieberals celebrate aids, no depiction of a "homophobic", Bible toting Republican or Tea Party member.
harp3339 said... There is more to it than that. It is my understanding it started with the city seeking a grant from the federal government and making promises to do a number of things. Knoxville, Nashville and other cities don't seem to have the problem Chattanooga has. To avoid fines and penalties the city has to fulfill promises made to get the money. Prostituting yourself to a broke manipulative fed is not smart. December 1, 2011 at 8:17 a.m.
Reply: harp3339, Yes there is a "lot more to it" regardless of who the Mayor is.
There are many "players" taking part in what has to be done or is not being done. Who gets the tax payers' money and what happens to influence the amount of money the residents have to pay for their conveniences has other circumstances when the residents and the governments have to "cater" to the private sectors in getting them to locate manufacturing plants or other distributing buildings in the area for the creation of jobs. We have to pay or do without our conveniences and it has not been too many years since the old "outhouse" days, with the lack of everything that we now take for granted even as the price being paid keep going up. Can or does anybody care about what is causing our loss of private sector manufacturing jobs and the increase of hardships for people living in poverty?
@AndrewLohr said... VW and Amazon are nice, aside from their special tax breaks, but he ran for re-election without bringing up annexation or a tax hike or stormwater fees, and his response to the recall was to hide behind legal technicalities.
Those stormwater fees came about as a federal mandate. If you think that small increase you're paying now is significant, just think if the federal government had their way and the city was fined thousands, maybe millions, by the mayor had sat back and done nothing. If you're going to gripe, make sure you get all the details. As for the recall why shouldn't he have the right to fight it, the same as you and yours had the right to bring about the recall? Isn't that what this nation supposedly stands for?
Well, not until you posted this comment.
The TFP backed Littlefield 100%. They are a part of the good old boys system here and the toon is ha ha he's still the Mayor--so what you gonna do next suckers! The crooks will win and he will stay in office till the end or close to it.
What good did Senator Corker do for the "City" while he was the Mayor?
What good has any repugnant ever done for anyone that wasn't a payoff?
CLAY brain lock? Amnesty International is trying to get bush & cheney arrested and you go for Littlefield.
BORING
BORING
Vacation is over, get to work exposing sleazey, bible toting, right wing, idealogue, ignorant, unevolved, mostly southern, married to their sister, repugnants for what they are. Shallow minded, racist, liars.
Newt has decreed himself THE NOMINEE! It's over people. Pick up your teabags and get the hell off of his coronation street.
Newt Gingrich, No Hat, No cattle, just a 40 Ton EGO !!!
carlB ask....
Can or does anybody care about what is causing our loss of private sector manufacturing jobs and the increase of hardships for people living in poverty?
A good question, do you have an answer and how to correct it? Company or business profits are a good thing but the CEO and high level managers benefit at a cost to workers and those investing in the company. No CEO or manager is worth the compensation many get with the board of directors approval. Some have contracts that make them wealthy for life even if they drive a company in the ground. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are two examples. Both would be bankrupt without a $151 billion with more to come from government/taxpayers. The executives will be getting $100 million in bonuses with the reason being they are doing less bad, which is questionable and unprovable. The same has been seen by the big banks that were baled out. I wonder if there are even a few D.C. politicians that are not bought and paid for?
carlB states...
We have to pay or do without our conveniences and it has not been too many years since the old "outhouse" days, with the lack of everything that we now take for granted even as the price being paid keep going up. We have to pay or do without our conveniences and it has not been too many years since the old "outhouse" days, with the lack of everything that we now take for granted even as the price being paid keep going up.
The city government taking more from citizens will put the citizens back to the old out house days while the leaders and their aflluent supporters continue their country club behavior. We can have good fire and police protection including the cost of incarceration, refuse handling, roads and streets maintenance and other administrative necessities and services without increased cost of being a city resident. It would not be easy or popular with all voters.
Some departments and administrative services are over staffed, under worked and over paid. An effective and credible consulting firm used by businesses to identify inefficiencies would be a good thing that the council is afraid to do. This and a compensation survey to adjust government employees to the top 10% for like work in the MSA would yield major savings. The city owns a number of businesses that pay no taxes, and in some cases are subsidized directly or indirectly by city government, that should be divested. The city owns significant real estate that yields no property taxes plus the cost of maintenance that should be sold at fair market prices.
You want to scare the socks off of residents insist on the city council publicizing what the future unfunded obligations of the city are. This includes but not limited to bonds, pensions and pensioner benefits, cost resulting from government grants once the grant money is spent and the city assume the cost etc. etc.
When people have increased income and buying power, low unemployment, increasing property values there is no city budget issue and no need to increase the cost of being a city resident. When these things are not happening it is not in the best interest of city government to increase the cost of being a resident to citizens and businesses. Those in office brag about how they have grown the city. Why has that organic growth not generated sufficient revenue to prevent the need to increase the cost to those already here?
Take a long drive throughout the city and notice the number of empty business locations. It may be interesting to see how many of them became that way after the over 20% cost increase of being there. Many were empty already but the number has increased. If you owned a large for profit business would you hire the mayor or any member of the city council to manage it for you? The logical answer based on their experience and performance is NO but we keep electing them to run the largest business in the area, our local government. Go figure.
harp3339 said... carlB ask.... Can or does anybody care about what is causing our loss of private sector manufacturing jobs and the increase of hardships for people living in poverty?
harp3339 said... A good question, do you have an answer and how to correct it? Company or business profits are a good thing but the CEO and high level managers benefit at a cost to workers and those investing in the company. No CEO or manager is worth the compensation many get with the board of directors approval.
Reply: harp3339, as you and other people have pointed out, for the last thirty years there has been an increasing wage gap between the workers and the CEO's. What made it possible for this "class warfare" to occur over the years should now be obvious. How many of you people look back at the well designed propaganda plans put out to convince the US consumers into accepting the unfair free trade setting up Global Economy, made up by International companies with the help of our lobbied Congress?
Do any of you associate the $600 Billion Dollar per year trade deficit with these global corporations as an indication of the loss of our manufacturing base and the loss of our middle class tax base?
At this time, we have had the opportunity to see what the "cost" is going to to be for getting our manufacturing plants back in the USA after they have been closed in other cities.
carlB said....
Do any of you associate the $600 Billion Dollar per year trade deficit with these global corporations as an indication of the loss of our manufacturing base and the loss of our middle class tax base?
Calling the deals our politicians agreed to "fair trade" is an oxymoron if ever there was one. I think it was Ron Paul that said we need to go to each of them and tell them we want to change it so we take your end of the deal and you take ours. Between these deals and congress not differentiating between taxes on CEO/management compensation and company profits plus other imposed cost not to mention the graft of contributions they leave those companies little choice but to seek places where they are treated better. Canada figured it out, Ireland and others figured it out and their economies are improving. Reasonable regulations that protect workers from injury and illness and the environment are not objected to or detrimental to businesses. I don't understand why the big banks and other financial institutions, insurers and service operations are favored by congress while they kick the heck out of manufacturing.
For the little good it does Corker and "Flash man" Fleischmann have heard from me several times on the subject.
Elizabeth Warren in 2016!
shoe_chucker said... Elizabeth Warren in 2016! December 2, 2011 at 6:55 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Reply: Yes, but she needs to win her race for the Senate.
The "crooks" certainly do not not WANT HER IN THE OFFICE.
Or login with:
New Account