Dear Editor:
What is it about a budget that people don't understand? It is so simple, you designate "x" dollars to a given expense, then see to it that amount works. It is doesn't work, you adjust it accordingly, but not every time you feel you want to buy something that don't fit into the money assigned.
I worked in the corporate world. I had a sales force. I had a goal plan. A budget was assigned to my department. I saw to it the budget was handled efficiently. Other department heads did not. I received static from my fellow managers about the handling of my budget. When they had a meeting with their subordinates, they found the best place in (and sometimes out of) town and ordered the best of everything. Around the end of October my fellow managers would be either low, or out of, budget. If they were close to not using it all, they were instructed everyone to spend the money that was left on something whether they really needed it, otherwise they would not get a budget with the usual increase the following year. I had money left in my budget and received a bonus for not spending it all.
You are asking, "Why didn't you spend the whole thing? It was there wasn't it?"
I was brought up to be realistic, but not cheap! If there was money left over, it was left in the category it was intended for. If an adjustment was needed, the money was moved to that line item. If there was no need for change, the money was added to my savings for future reference.
This is how most government and corporations work. Every year they are given a budget. Every year toward the end of the fiscal period, they look at it and are told to spend it or lose it. They spend it!
Wouldn't it be nice if common sense would prevail and the excess money, rather being spent on things unneeded, was placed in a special fund? A few years of that kind of conscientious caretaking would probably pay for much of why those same corporations or governmental agencies need and ask for.
It is for this reason I suggest voting "no" on propositions "C" and "J."