Socialist Seattle council member whines that massive budget isn’t enough to address racism

by DCG

Socialist Kshama Sawant

This past week the Seattle City Council passed a $6.5 BILLION budget. With a population of approximately 745,000 that equates to a little over $8,700 taxpayer dollars to be spent per citizen.

Ballotpedia cites an April 2015 study which found that the country’s 100 largest cities by population spent an average of $2,605 per citizen in the most recent fiscal year for which reports were available. The average city budget in the largest 100 cities was $2.14 billion. Seattle was one of six cities which spent more per citizen on average than the states in which they are located.

Fast forward to 2019 and Seattle is still on track to break large-city budget records.

Earlier this month three Seattle council members were seeking re-election and they all wonIncluding socialist Kshama Sawant.

The socialist was the lone dissenting voice in approving the city’s new budget. Her reasoning?

The budget is “not a moral document.”

Apparently $6.5 BILLION doesn’t go far enough in addressing the social needs of the city and the “deep inequality and racism” in Seattle.

Odd how such a liberal and “progressive” city – which has been run by demorats for decades – could still possibly have a problem with inequality and racism.

Anyhow, back to Seattle’s budget.

As an “economist,” socialist Sawant should know a thing or two about financial documents. She says the $6.5 BILLION budget still “fails to meet human needs.”

The socialist is intent on squeezing more money out of taxpayers: “I don’t want us to rest on our laurels, and I hope that when January comes around, we will get back to serious organizing to win taxes on big business, to win rent control, and to make this city affordable and livable for everybody.”

As an “economist,” I wonder how she calculates how much money is necessary to address subjective and unquantifiable budget line items such as racism and inequality?

And what budget line items does she want include to make sure than “human needs” are met? After all, can’t a progressive subjectively make an argument for anything their hearts desire (and that which gets them votes) be proclaimed as a human need?

Seattle progressives DESERVE everything they vote for (homelessness criminals, repeat offenders, etc.) They’ve all failed in economics as they haven’t learned one golden rule:

DCG