I live in Warwick and I'll be damned if I'll sit back and allow my taxes to be raised to continue school sports merely because my neighbor is under the delusion that his little Billy is the next Tom Brady.

There's plenty of fat in the school budget which can be cut--43 million in fact, which figure represents how much MORE Warwick pays than Cranston to educate LESS students. And by the way, not only does Cranston do it for 43 million dollas less, but Cranston does it without cutting school sports. Something for Warwick voters to think about.

Every time I go to Warwick Vet's Administrative offices I see 3-4 people doing nothing. Gee, I wonder how they got, and get to keep, their jobs?

Only the public sector takes the bass-ackward approach of cutting the smallest part of the budget when revenues fall. In the real world (i.e., 95% of the time), everything is on the table and the first thing that is addressed is the largest item in the expenditure column.

So much excellent information on here. I found it on Bing