K-Mack's Bias Laid "CLEAR"

» Chron: City budget shows how mayor will campaign (Kristen Mack)

Once more, Kristen Mack continues to amaze me.

A budget is a moral document, as Democratic gubernatorial nominee Chris Bell liked to say. It is a clear indication of an institution's priorities.

The budget passed by Houston City Council on Wednesday also tells us a lot about Mayor Bill White.

Kristen starts off with a curious parallel. Will she go on to demonstrate how Mayor White's 4th budget is moral or immoral in some regard? Well ... no. She just includes a reference to morality as little more than a banality. A pointless comparison that never again re-emerges to be substantiated in the remainder of her column. What a way to kick this off ...

This budget, his fourth since taking office and more than any up until now, reflects him and his aspirations for higher office.

As Matt Stiles more aptly demonstrates, Mayor White is already past the point of keeping any future ambitions a secret. That fire's been burning since he chaired the Texas Democratic Party. Alas, if Mayor White uses bullet points derived from COH budgets as his campaign platform, I'm guessing it'll be either a very boring campaign or a very quick (and unsuccessful) one. I'm just curious where K-Mack gets around to thinking "Aha! A budget pretty much dictated by personnel needs is the basis of a Gubernatorial campaign!" Simply amazing.

White will no doubt point to an increase in public safety funding. For the first time, the city has devoted more than $1 billion to public safety spending for the police, fire and municipal court departments.

But any mayor would have been obligated to meet those fixed costs, largely associated with personnel. Spending more money does not mean problems are being solved, particularly the city's violent crime. And council members still contend that it is not clear how the police department is allocating resources.

See, this is where K-Mack gets lost. On the one hand, the budget reflects some sort of "Revelation to K-Mack alone" concept that Bill White is out to secure his record for spending big on public safety. Yet, on the other hand, "any mayor would have been obligated to meet those fixed costs." Brilliant!

The mayor also will highlight a reduction in the property tax rate, which he has passed every year since taking office. But the rollback is meaningless. It translates into a $1.25 annual savings for property with a $100,000 assessed value — that won't buy a Happy Meal.

Building it into the budget gives cover to conservative council members who have promised to reduce taxes and it avoids extensive debate at the table.

Of course, depending on the year and the way the winds are blowing, that buck-twenty-five might also represent a major point of principle to the right (as it did during the Brown years). K-Mack flat-out ignores the fact that as values go up, the total intake of tax revenue increases. Frankly, I'm a little surprised she couldn't have her play-date, Michael Berry, explain that to her.

While the mayor supported the nominal tax decrease, he was raising fees elsewhere. White was counting on a trash fee, what the city called a "waste-reduction fee," that would guarantee money for some solid waste services, including recycling.

Council, however, nixed that plan, eliminating the creation of a dedicated fund and calling for public hearings should the city consider it in the future. It's not likely that it will.

The Metropolitan Organization came out against the fee, calling it regressive and dubbing it a de facto tax. Fees hurt poor people most, because everyone would pay the same cost and they affect those with the least ability to pay.

Again ... amazing. The mayor is raising fees everywhere else, and to prove that point here's a great example of one place he's NOT. Seriously, Chronicle ... it's time to consider an upgrade or go back to editing the holy hell out of K-Mack's work. Much like the "moral documents" example, K-Mack needs a little bit of work on her use of examples and parallels.

Council members, meanwhile, continue to acquiesce to the mayor, making few significant changes during the budget process, their one opportunity a year to influence the city's agenda. By the end of Wednesday, many members were tabling their amendments, rather than bringing them up for discussion.

This is one perfect example of how some context might have helped. Is this different from year's past? Is this a function of the strong-mayor form of government or one of Mayor White's ability to accomplish things in negotiations rather than extend the budget hearings over several extra-long days of hearings, discussion, and procedure? Granted, getting that sort of context woven into a K-Mack article would mean work on the part of K-Mack. Kinda ironic that she seems to suggest that Council ought to do more work when she seems so unwilling to do some herself.

While there is little wiggle room in a city budget, White has been in office long enough to make his own stamp on the city and budget.

White continues to play it safe. He went out of his way not to offend and to build consensus, which led to an unambitious budget. It lacks an overriding mission.

Part of that is because White, who is a micromanager, appears to be out of new ideas. His most significant policy initiative was Safe Clear, a mandatory towing ordinance, that went into effect more than two years ago.

White also lacks an organization. It's never been clear who he seeks input from or turns to for advice. What's becoming increasingly clear is that the mayor is so concerned with image, he's reluctant to take a risk — with the recent exception of his initiative to regulate out-of-city polluters. But he appears to be backing away from that, instead waiting on the Greater Houston Partnership to come up with a proposal.

This budget is merely a reflection of how he plans to campaign, as a tax cutter who has made public safety his top priority.

And there you go ... a knife in the back. Suddenly, the mayor is out of ideas. He's playing it safe. He's calculating and cautious. So sez K-Mack.

Maybe she could bother herself to read Matt Stiles every now and then. I seem to recall reading how the mayor's preservation of the Old Sixth Ward is "controversial."

Likewise, the reference to Mayor White's "recent" move to regulate non-Houston air polluters who are clogging our lungs. That strikes me as a funny way of being safe and cautious and overly-concerned with any future race for higher office. As K-Mack may or may not recall, that was a big issue in his State of the City address in 2005 ... the same year that SAFE CLEAR was implemented. And last I checked, SAFE CLEAR wasn't exactly well-recieved when it was rolled out. Oh, that's right - Michael Berry led the charge on that issue, didn't he? Hmmm, wonder why that issue is glossed over and all the rest are panned?

Had Kristen wanted to be thorough and complete her polemic, she might have spelled out some sort of basis for which the city budget might have been more ambitious on the part of Mayor White. It's not clear whether the $1 billion for public safety is something that marks a calculated effort on Bill White's part to paint himself as a generous benefactor of public safety, something that any mayor would have done anyway, or does it reflect the reality that Bill White and Bill White alone demonstrated an understanding of in the 2003 campaign? Check back to the PBS debate's "$100 Game" for evidence of that.

If Kristen Mack wishes to demonstrate that Bill White is out of ideas, then at least ask the editors at 801 Texas to be consistent. If continuing the long hard fight of finding long-lasting solutions to keep Houston air clean, tighten rules for neighborhood preservation, install red light cameras, roll out a citywide WiFi, expand MetroRail and focus on the basics of public safety all represent being out of ideas, then explain them away. Otherwise, I humbly ask the honchos at the Chron to go back to fact-checking Kristen Mack's material.