WHEN IS A

DEAL NOT A DEAL?

"I'm the first to say we can't afford

generous agreements offered in

better times."

- George Leventhal (D-At Large)

The current budget crisis in Montgomery County is outrageous enough. But what are we to make of the bizarre negotiations over contracts agreed to by Ike Leggett and the all-Democrat County Council with the unions of county employees?

What is the point of a negotiated deal or a contract, if one side does not live up to the agreement? This is exactly what has happened. Mr. Leggett and his Democrat allies on the council made these deals for political gain. In return, they had the full political support of the unions.

Now that they have mismanaged the county budget, Leggett & Co. want out of the contract. The amazing part is, the unions apparently are going to let them.

Are these the same union leaders and employees who battled and heckled their way through tense negotiations and hearings earlier this year?

Why no more Mr. Nasty Guy? Well, it appears that once again it is politics first, safety last in Montgomery County.

The unions and their members wanted 8% increases. They got them for political reasons. But now, they are willing to give them up for political reasons. They recognize that if the county goes bankrupt, their Democrat buddies will be pushed to the curb by voters in 2010. So now they will forsake the 8% to save the Democrats.

There are a number of problems here besides politics first, safety last.

1. There is something morally bankrupt about taking away increases from firefighters and police officers. These were agreed to, and the county must live up to its end of the bargain. Our public safety employees take on life-threatening tasks, and therefore more financial risk.

2. If the union leaders are willing to give away their members' money, what is their reason? If not politics, then what?

3. How can the county be trusted at all in future negotiations? It seems they can agree to anything and go back on it later if they need to politically. Is that satisfactory to union employees?

4. Now that the Democrats have broken the agreement, will the unions support Democrats in 2010? If so, why?

Here's the bottom line. The county executive and council taxed and spent their way into a $450-$650 million dollar shortfall. This was caused partly by agreeing to large union contracts, for political reasons, when it was assumed that the taxpayer's dime would cover the cost.

That is the most basic failure of our elected officials. It is fiscally irresponsible to agree to contracts without considering at all that revenues could fall in the future. A fiscal conservative would not assume that today's revenue would be tomorrow's; it is as simple as that. Leggett and the council made that assumption, and now they must pay the price for that in 2010.

Secondly, even if the Democrats succeed in breaking the union contracts, they will save only $125 million. Out of up to $650 million needed to balance the budget. Given that the only other big item put forward - and rejected by the council - was a $19 million dollar MCPS budget cut, it is mathematically impossible for the county to balance this budget. Or at least, to balance it and still get reelected in 2010.

What are they going to do? Seriously.

Finally, how about that quote from At-Large Democrat George Leventhal?

What is a "generous" agreement? Does that mean "paying out more than necessary," or "more than we can afford if the economy changes for the worse?" Was there a political motive for being so "generous?" I dare say, yes there was!

What does Leventhal mean by "offered?" I thought the unions asked for the increase. Was the 8% number brought to the table by Mr. Leventhal and not the unions? That would add another twist.

And the most important phrase is "in better times." That relates to what I said earlier - that a true leader, a safe money manager, and a fiscal conservative would give our public safety employees increases they deserve - and direct funds wasted elsewhere to police and fire budgets. But such a leader would never, ever, agree to increases that could not be delivered when times change. And Democrats, awash in your taxpayer funds, agreed to such irresponsible increases.

"I'm the first to say..." Leventhal said. So why wasn't he the first to vote against reckless fiscal decisions when they were made by the body on which Leventhal sits?

The chickens have come home to roost. Will UCFW Local 1994 MCGEO, and the police and fire unions let Leggett, Leventhal, et al, get away with breaking a legal agreement?

Stay tuned.

However this chapter ends, you get to write the ending in November 2010.