Photo by Chris Rief aka Spodie Odie.

Over the last two days, we’ve featured two distinct views on the District’s growing budget deficit — Councilmember Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6) on why higher taxes are needed and Councilmember Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) on why more cuts are necessary.

Both Wells and Evans made valid points. Wells is right to argue that we should all be ready to pay for the amenities we enjoy in the District, be it bike lanes or all-day three- and four-year-old programs. Moreover, not everything is equal in the District — there is certainly a growing class of residents that was left behind in the boom and devastated by the bust, and a diverse and vibrant city demands that they be offered assistance to live to their full potential. On the other hand, Evans correctly points out that the District is broadly uncompetitive when it comes to taxes, driving away potential taxpayers and businesses who might otherwise call the city home. Additionally, the 65 percent growth in government spending since 2002 simply isn’t sustainable, and every dollar allocated to the bureaucracy or specific programs must be efficiently spend and scrupulously accounted for.

Both Councilmembers admit that the city is out of balance, but they disagree on the direction in which the balance now mistakenly falls. Wells is more likely to claim that the cuts in social services that have been made over the past three years have been substantial, while Evans will claim that they haven’t even really started. Evans will complain that taxes are too high as it is, while Wells will admit that he and his wife would be happy to pay more into the system if it meant keeping some programs funded. Their respective claims are certainly informed by who they are — Wells is a former social worker, Evans a corporate lawyer; Wells represents Ward 6, Evans, Ward 2.