When I tell my wife she looks amazing, she thanks me, but I’ve noticed it's only when her friends tell her the same thing that she finally believes it. I guess if you expect compliments as part of the marital pact, it's only when "outside validation" occurs that something becomes really true.
Bloggers have that same kind of relationship with the mainstream media.
Earlier this week, the Indianapolis Star's Francesca Jarosz wrote a stellar analysis yesterday detailing how the Mayor's funding for sidewalks and roads through the Cit Gas transfer is basically a hidden tax increase because it would necessitate higher future rates.
Both of my closest blogger buddies, Terry Burns at Indianapolis Times and Jon Easter at Indydemocrat, posted praises here and here and Advance Indiana, my colleague from across the aisle, followed suit, as if Jarosz had discovered the rosetta stone of MOU's.
I'm green with envy because here's what I wrote about Citizens Gas and the Mayor’s water deal on March 20, 2010:
Or how about this. Why (doesn't Citizens) just assume the debt and forget the $262 million? [Ed. Note: I never bought the $425 million]. We all know the cash is just an advance against an even higher, future rate increase. Why not forget the cash and have lower rates in the future, Mr. Mayor?
One day you all will believe me when I say your shoes look nice. Sniff.
For his part, Democratic Mayoral candidate Brian Williams continues to raise pertinent questino about the deal, and the one that's captivated my imagination at the moment is the fact that City-County Councillor Mike Speedy's resolution has the council voting on a memorandum of understanding (MOU), NOT the final agreement. What is the difference? An MOU is how the parties hope things will work out. A definitive agreement contains the actual, final terms, so we'd know what we're actually getting, not a guess.
Think about that. There are members on the City-County Council who are voting for a "general idea." Can you imagine a Republican member of Congress voting for "healthcare reform" generally with all the actual details to be worked out later by the Obama administration? Of course not.
You say, yeah, but iPOPA, I'm sure votes were definitely cast with an intent of changing the reform bill later. Fair enough, but you prove my point. Congress can always make a law better. Once the City-County Council says, "Do the deal," they lose authority to say anything. What Councillor in his or her right mind would totally abdicate his or her oversight role by voting for something that is NOT the final product?
Stay tuned for...
...who in the Democratic caucus is looking to jump the fence on the Mayor's water deal; and
...iPOPA's Weekend Political Round-Up (an overview and commentary of all pre-primary political activity at all levels)