|
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 30-June 5, 2002 hall monitor Scrooged
For Mayor John Street, it’s déjà vu all over again -- only worse. Another bill to reduce the wage tax has cleared committee and is scheduled for a vote at the full Council session May 30. The administration says the city can’t afford to lose so much revenue. But asking City Council members to vote against Councilman David Cohen’s bill is like asking them to vote against mom, the flag and apple pie. That’s because this wage-tax bill provides tax relief to those who need it most -- the working poor who bear the brunt of the city’s regressive flat tax on earned income. How can a Council member or the mayor oppose the bill without looking like a scrooge? In hopes of avoiding a potentially embarrassing veto, Cohen and Street met last Thursday to discuss the measure. Cohen tried to sell his bill to the mayor as "the strongest pillar of his NTI plan," referring to the anti-blight Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. Cohen says that if residents of blighted neighborhoods got a tax break, they would spend their money locally and boost struggling neighborhood businesses. Later that day, Cohen called the meeting a "very constructive, pleasant discussion" and expressed hope that the mayor would reconsider his opposition to the bill. But at press time, administration spokesman Frank Keel reiterated the mayor's original position. "It would bring the city to the brink of [financial] ruin," Keel said. The administration estimates the bill would cost the city roughly $200 million over five years. An estimate provided by the city controller's office, which Cohen considers more reliable, put the price tag at $110 million over five years. Because the bill is so difficult to oppose publicly, an effort to table the bill could be in the works. A likewise motion failed by two votes in the Committee of the Whole. If the bill passes with a veto-proof 12 votes, the mayor could throw in the towel, or veto the measure and hope to persuade a Council member to change his or her vote. If the bill passes with a simple majority, Street will face a difficult decision. The mayor's spokesman will not say definitely whether Street would veto the bill. Keel says it's "more than likely" the mayor would veto the bill if it passed, but Street is "taking a wait-and-see attitude." Keel says it's a decision the mayor won't have to make, because "cooler heads" on Council will prevail. | ||||||||||||||||||
