How Much Is Too Much?????

If you make a budget that is more than you actually have and must use the reserve funds that have been saved for hard times does it seem reasonable to keep adding expenses to that budget?
The current budget that was approved just months ago has already required using the reserve funds. Last year the commissioners approved $110,000.00 for the stadium. That money was left out of the actual budget presented for approval by the commissioners, yesterday it was put back into the budget. Was this a simple mistake or a simple slight of hand. The budget as presented was already bloated and unrealistic, did the absence of these monies make it appear less problematic?
This wasn't the only item left out of the budget $18,000.00 approved to reimburse Lynnville was also put into the budget yesterday. A 15% increase in the amount given to the libraries in Lynnville, Ardmore and Minor Hill was added. Up to $23,000.00 was approved to move the bleachers from Sam Davis to Richland was approved.
The question that keeps coming to my mind is how when you have no money do you keep spending? The Budget Committee seems unable to say no to anything with a price tag. Will the full commission follow this destructive pattern or will common sense step up and say no? At the rate of current spending and raiding of the reserves can there be a reasonable expectation of less than a ten cent tax increase next year? When everyone else is required to say no in their personal budgets, when unemployment is so high, when jobs and the tax base are shrinking should government not show a greater restraint in spending our money? Allen Barrett

More Janitorial Help????

At the Budget Committee Meeting on 28 October it was agreed to take $20,000.00 form the county maintenance funds and hire either a part-time or full-time custodian. The reason I state either part or full-time is because the County Executive has not decided. As I stated in the meeting this would bring the custodial staff up to the very number proposed and turned down by the commissioners less than a year ago. If you can't come in the front door I suppose the backdoor is just fine. The justification for this expenditure was that the chief custodian was hurt and "might" not be able to do all his job.

Pay Raises For Some?????

At the Budget Committee Meeting on the 28th a request was made for a 10% salary increase ($6,175.00) for the Circuit Court Clerk. While Mrs. Greene gave a reasonable and extensive justification for the salary increase it seems that life is not as simple as "A" is followed by "B" and "C".
The question is not one of whether Mrs. Greene deserves, needs or should have a raise. Her salary is paid out of the fees charged by her office so a raise would not be taken directly out of taxpayer funds.
Here's the problem, the state has a structured pay schedule for some officials. By law the county executive most make at least 5% more than any other elected official in the county. The sheriff and the Highway Supervisor must make 10% more than any other elected official excluding the county executive. These salaries are taken out of the general funds of the county, which means a near 25% of these salaries would be an annual liability against an already broken county budget. By state mandate elected officials received a 4.89% salary increase earlier this year. In this time of financial crisis when many can not even find a job is it reasonable to give a near 15% salary increase to anyone especially those already making in excess of $60,000.00 a year from taxpayers.
This matter was tabled by the Budget Committee Tuesday until Mrs Garner could provide a more exact dollar amount the county would be responsible for. Look for this to come up in the November County Commission Meeting. I urge everyone to call their commissioners and the county executve and voice your support or dissatisfaction with this plan. Allen Barrett

WILL GILES COUNTY HELP ELECT A SOCIALIST TO THE PRESIDENCY ????

With only a few days of early voting left will Giles County be part of an Obama election or will common sense and love of freedom prevail? Senator Obama has made it very clear that his agenda is that of a socialist seeking to take the earnings of some and give to others. It's amazing that he claims to only want to tax the rich but then proposes higher withholding on payroll taxes (for those who are unaware that's social security). A man claimed to be the Messiah but whose history reveals only a cheap Chicago politician, drug addict, who never had a real job except with ACORN and even that is suspect, a friend of terrorists, slum lords, racist and criminals. A man who made over four million dollars last year but gave less than ten thousand dollars to charity, the year before that he and his wife gave less than four thousand to charity yet wants to take other people's money and give it to those he considers needy. The man is an unrepentant liar who claims to be a Christian but it's "above his pay grade" to say when life begins however it's OK to kill unborn children and in some instances born children for the convenience of the mother at government expense.
Senator Obama has the most liberal voting record of any legislator in the congress, his running mate is number three with the openly socialist Bernie Sanders coming in at number three. The senator is in the top ten at getting earmarks including a huge one to pay his wife's salary. If this man is elected along with his buddies Nancy Polise and Harry Reid heading up the House and Senate does anyone think those responsible for this financial crisis will ever be brought to justice. Franklin Rains made over nine million from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae before they went broke, Sen. Chris Dodd (D) got huge loans at bargain basement rates from Countrywide as it was filing for bankruptcy, Barney Frank and Maxine Waters prevented any action being taken to control the worthless loans. This is just the tip of the iceburg of corruption surrounding Sen. Obama. Allen Barrett

MORE POLITICALLY CORRECT INDOCTRINATION IN GILES SCHOOL SYSTEM

Why has the school system chosen to allow the film "An Inconvenient Truth" to be shown to students as a factual representation of global warming when well over 80% of it has been proven to be nothing but a lie? In Great Britain and a number of other places the film can only be shown in schools when a disclaimer accompanies it.
At Richland recently not only was there no disclaimer but the film was presented as 100% factual. Families have complained to the administration as many are very unhappy with this kind of distortion and outright lies being used to pervert the minds of their children. In many places schools have become the breeding ground for political correctness instead of education I had hope this school system would be able to avoid such perversions, sadly it seems I was wrong. Allen Barrett