I think its funny how you see that as any different for you than it would be for me without us even comparing incomes or property values or geographic location.

Now if you compared the amount of personal income that the increase equates to I think you will find that the impact to be a little more than ‘minimal’ for those who are against it.

Admittedly, there was an understanding among Council members that the political fallout for a pro-tax vote would certainly be more severe for those who have to run in wealthier districts, so some of those folks were effectively given a pass — as long as everyone else ponied up the necessary 8 votes.

But I disagree with your take on the tax vote. To me, it’s an act of political courage to vote in support of the best interests of the city, even if doing so doesn’t serve the best interests of the politician — whether that involves raising taxes, lowering them or holding the line.

In this case, virtually every Council member privately agreed — for right or wrong — that a tax increase was in the best interests of the city, but several of them voted against it because they were more concerned about their own best interests.

That’s why I called out Sleepy Jim for cowardice.

Then explain how you are going to privatize your way out of annual pension obligations that have soared from 35 to 100mm in the past few years.

Then tell us what service business – e.g., private colleges, healthcare – operates on lower revenues today than six years ago.

Then report back on how the jobs program at City Hall is actually going. How many employed in General Fund work in 2002 and how many employed today?

If you do all that you’ll see why it’s more fruitful to chase down the massive diversion of taxes that has kept Atlanta’s revenue stagnant in a period of rapid growth. That is forcing ordinary taxpayers to cough up much more for a lower public safety service level.