@njudah: Not sure why you'd say that, NJ. Commuter checks are bought with pre-tax dollars, so we SF taxpayers are providing a subsidy to everyone who uses them, in New York and Houston and elsewhere. And vice-versa. That's not only a silly subsidy, it's regressive in that it's worth more to people in higher tax brackets. It's wasteful to do it through a specialized bureaucracy rather than by simply making commuting expenses tax-deductible. And as you point out, it's unfair to the self-employed.
Thank goodness for this federal program that has us subsidizing New Yorkers' commuting expenses, and vice-versa. Imagine the chaos if everyone just paid their own.
As one of the voters who passed prop A, I can assure Mr. Jackson and Mr. Gonzalez that my intention was to give CCSF time to clean up its act, not to either grow the college nor to provide a windfall to the students.
Let's make CPMC subsidize affordable housing, transportation, jobs, and healthcare, and then moan about the ever-escalating cost of health insurance. From the way SF has been shaking them down, I've gotten the impression that they're not building a hospital on cathedral hill, but rather a giant cash register.
The gay rights battle is all but won, so now Mr. Milk must be rebranded as "an inspiration for all individuals who are bullied, discriminated against and abused?" And those people will somehow be helped by the renaming of an airport?
Have taxpayers realized they're paying Mr. Campos a salary for this nonsense?
What a shame. Obviously we poor yokels can't build complicated sidewalks and bike paths without federal help.
@Columnisttopoopon: Good points, Columnist. I can't understand the disenfranchisement argument that I've seen Mr. Garcia make repeatedly. If you vote for three people who don't make the final runoff, you've still voted your piece. Your vote has counted just as much as it counts in any electoral system when you've backed losers.
All Comments »
The San Francisco Examiner
Website powered by Foundation