The Journal has a very predictable editorial this morning which is called "Reasonable fiscal choices".  The only problem... what they think is reasonable is not making any choices at all:

You can agree with County Executive Scott Walker that it's fiscally irresponsible because it raises the tax levy by nearly $9 million and is likely to "blow up" next year because Walker says it's not balanced.

Or you can argue - as we would - that overall it is a fiscally responsible budget and, that by restoring cuts Walker made for pools, parks, transit, public safety and arts, the budget reflects the fact that many county residents, while certainly concerned about taxes, are weary of cuts in service.

The County board didn't just restore some of the cuts.  At least you could debate that as making "choices".  Choosing some things as more important than others.  But the board restored all of the cuts.  What fiscal choices did they make?  Not only that... they did it peace meal over a couple of weeks.  Voting to restore one cut, then waiting for the news to settle.  Then they voted on the next cut.  Each of the cuts individually garnering praise from predictable sources, and all the while slowly building like a snowball rolling downhill until it adds up to a $9 million avalanche.

And while $33 a year per household may seem like a drop in the bucket to some, what will happen next year when it will likely go up again $33.  After only a couple of years, the increases will add up such that they will look at their tax levy and say, "Wow, I could have paid for two months of health insurance with that."