Corrupt Politicians and Fiscal Responsibility

By Douglas V. Gibbs

cor·rupt (kə-rŭpt´) adj. 1. Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved. 2. Venal; dishonest; a corrupt politician. 3. Containing errors or alterations, as a text. 4. Archaic Tainted; putrid. --- v. -rupt·ed, -rupt·ing, -rupts (+) 1. To destroy or subvert the honesty or integrity of. 2. To ruin morally, pervert. 3. To taint; contaminate. 4. To cause to become rotten; spoil. 5. To change the original form of (a text, for example).

The above definition of the word "corrupt" is meant to clarify what the word truly means. It is used often in politics because politicians have a tendency to promise one thing and then do another, or act dishonestly in the performance of their office duties without regard of the ethics they swore to uphold. As a result these "corrupt" politicians destroy, or subvert, the integrity of the office they hold. Corruption can be criminal activity, or simply unethical or questionable actions.

I write this because a person who is constantly in search of vicious ways to discredit me, decided to take my words from an article I wrote about Term Limits and take them to mean that I was acting in a libelous manner towards current members of the Murrieta City Council, specifically because I did not provide evidence to support my accusation.

People like this very small man that has made destroying another's character his prime directive in life are unreasonable, and will use any means to achieve their ends. Such persons need be handled with care, and their arguments need to simply be met with the truth.

As you can see above, when I made the statement in that article that the current Murrieta City Council, with their rotation of the same people in the same group of elected positions, are allowing to occur "the same irresponsible spending, the same corrupt activities, and the same lack of vision for the City of Murrieta," there was in no way a direct accusation to a specific individual of criminal activity. The threat by the accuser that I was guilty of libel was just that, an empty threat.

However, to be fair, I will state some of the activities that have led me to believe that some of the members of the Murrieta governmental body are indeed acting in a way that condones my use of language that includes the word "corrupt."

The overall picture is that Murrieta is currently spending more than it has coming in. The excessive spending has reached the point that the city government is now dipping into its reserve fund, among others, to be able to pay its bills. The problem, I believe, is not a revenue problem, but a spending problem.

The City of Murrieta has a special property tax allocation for Fire Services that was voted on by the people that ensures that a portion of their property taxes goes to a special fire services fund that is separate from the general fund. This was done because we live in a high fire hazard area, surrounded by various rural areas that consist of, among other things, dead brush during the summer months. Fearing that fire services may be at risk should the city run into a fiscal crisis, the voters overwhelmingly approved the separate allocation of property taxes to this special fire services fund. The current elected officials have been dipping into the special fire services fund to help pay the city's bills.

A recent "fact finding" trip to Palm Springs was paid by the city taxpayers in full. The problem is that the entire council took the trip, and took their families too, all on the taxpayer's dime.

Temecula, our neighboring city to the south, on average brings in more revenue than Murrieta, partly because of a booming industrial sector, and a major shopping mall, that Murrieta had a chance to procure, but allowed to go to Temecula instead due to the city's lack of vision. Recently, to help Temecula with a project, Murrieta approved "giving" Temecula $200,000 to assist them, with the explanation that "Temecula will return the favor if ever we need them to." Considering Murrieta has more money going out than coming in, the $200,000 was not exactly money we had to give away.

The City Manager's salary, not even including the value of his perks like health insurance, is $210,000 per year. That is only $2,000 less per year than the Vice President of the United States makes. City Council salaries and stipends are too high as well. Money should not be the motivating factor to serve one's government. Though I support compensation for our elected officials, if the amount of money offered as compensation is too high, the motivation for office becomes more about money, than doing what is best for the city. This is why I support Murrieta Initiatives B and C.

The obvious danger for a city to spend more than its incoming revenue is that eventually it will catch up to you, and the ability to maintain the cost of running the city will become impossible. Once the crisis point in an economy is reached, without choice the governmental entity is forced to make painful spending cuts. But there is even a larger reason why we, as a city, should not spend more than we have coming in.

Recently, Calexico was hit with a major earthquake, and a series of strong aftershocks. The damage to the city was extensive, and the cost to repair the damage is beyond Calexico's ability to pay. Two earthquake faults are near our fine city, and we live in a high fire hazard area. Should Murrieta be hit with an earthquake of that magnitude, or should the fire season burn through the city as one did a few years ago in Rancho Bernardo, does Murrieta have enough money in its emergency fund to pay for the repairs to its infrastructure? I am guessing the answer is no.

If faced with such a disaster, and the City of Murrieta does not have sufficient funds in its emergency fund, and there is no surplus to draw from, where will Murrieta get the funds to make the repairs necessary? From the State of California? We know that Sacramento is broke, thanks to decades of fiscal irresponsibility at the state level. And we sure do not wish to ask the federal government for help, because that would open up an unconstitutional can of worms that would put the U.S. Government smack-dab in the middle of our business, and it would encourage the feds to initiate a pattern of control over our region that we do not want. If faced with disaster, we MUST be able to handle our own affairs.

Fiscal responsibility is an important aspect to running any government, be it a federal system, a state, or a city. I believe our current group of leaders are not acting fiscally responsibly, and I aim to turn it around with fiscal conservatism should I be elected. No more will we dip into funds that are not designed for general fund expenditures. No more will we simply give money away to other cities. No more will our city leaders go on vacations to other cities on the taxpayer's dime in the name of city business. We cannot continue to spend as we have been. We cannot afford it not only for the sake of fiscal responsibility, but because we owe it to ourselves to be ready for whatever looms on the horizon, should it be a natural disaster, or an economic tumble on the national level. We must be able to take care of our own affairs, because if we don't, our city will become nothing more than a footnote in history.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary