Didn't do much with this blog while it was 'active' for the 23 things project.  May not do much again.  But I just had to share.

I am reading this article in Governing with an interesting take on the most over-used phrases in the past year.  Interesting section quoted here:

'Praise for "courageous" layoffs and service cuts: In its recent endorsement of Houston Mayor Annise Parker, the Houston Chronicle noted her "courage, integrity and leadership" that included ordering the "painful layoffs of 750 city workers." Comments like that aren't unique. Across the country, mayors and local leaders drew praise in 2011 for instituting layoffs, furloughs, pay freezes, benefit cuts, and other moves that aggravated public worker unions. In a different era, such actions would be career suicide for a politician, given the political clout of public sector unions. But during this age of austerity, those maneuvers are now widespread. Yet for some reason, leaders who implement them are still lauded as bold.
Few local leaders are addressing budget shortfalls by looking towards the other side of the budgetary equation and making significant revenue increases. A report released this year found just 15 percent of counties increased their property tax rates in light of  budgetary struggles, and only 2 percent increased their sales tax rates. Just 20 percent of cities increased property tax rates, according to another study.

Yet, at the same time, 72 percent of cities in the report made personnel cuts. As the country struggles with unemployment, there were 535,000 layoffs of public sector workers from August 2008 to May 2010. Personnel cuts are no longer unusual, innovative or particularly courageous -- they're the default option for local leaders seeking to balance their budgets without making significant revenue increases.

What would really take courage -- or perhaps foolish abandon -- would be an elected leader who sought to preserve services and staffing through unpopular tax increases, drawing the ire of a whole community of voters rather than just a handful of employees. Local leaders are required to balance their budgets, and more often than not, layoffs are more palatable than tax increases. "Courageous" may not be the best term for making the easier choice.'

Easier, yes, for the politicians who don't have to answer to the taxpayers for the increase in fees and taxes.  Not easier for those who have to drink the kool-aid, step up and say it was a good idea, and not only that, it was my idea, then make the decisions on who to let go.

Link for the entire article.