The Spectrum: A prescription for saving money

An article published today confirms my statement of yesterday that the prescription drug program does not cost the county money and, therefore, does not belong in the column justifying a tax increase.

"There's absolutely no cost to the taxpayers at all."
--Alan Gardner

I'm just saying that when you look at all the small pieces of the proposed tax increase they do not justify an increase. Again, Federal programs, Volunteer work, and duplicate services do not justify a tax increase.

When you take a broader view of the proposal it is socialistic, and unnecessary.

The Spectrum: A prescription for saving money

The shirt off our backs

I was having a conversation with some folks last night who were trying to describe the charitable character of their father (now deceased).

"He would have given you the shirt off your back."

That slip of the tongue caused some laughter, but on second inspection it is a universally true aspect of socialism.

The socialist will take from one party and give to another. They would argue that to have the everyday man do such a thing would be a crime, but to have the same act perpetrated by the government is not. Why?

Because those in the government cannot commit crime? Because of the rubber-stamp that is embossed with the word "law"?

This is a perversion of the law.

Those arguing in favor of the Senior Citizen tax are raising the socialist banner.

There is an alternative. Proponents of the tax increase would say that there is no other way. The director of the Davis County Health Department, Lewis Garrett says there is a "shortage" in these services. Here a a few examples where that statement is wrong, yet these are touted(pdf) as areas that will be covered by the tax increase.

• Prescription Drug Cards --Our cost for participation in this program is paid out of existing funds. Does the cost for these cards increase with our population? No. This program was piloted in Davis County under the direction of Dannie McConkie, and he has assured us that it is free, except for our membership dues to the National Association of Counties. Why should our membership dues increase with a natural growth in our aged population?
  
• Senior Employment --No assessment has been made to determine whether more funds are required for this activity. Which of the growing Senior population will desire employment. Which will need it?
• Aging Waiver is a program administered to those who meet existing Medicare guidelines. --This means it is federally funded. No local tax increase is required.
• Title V --Again is Federally funded as per the CARE Act. No local dollars are required.
• Volunteer Opportunities --They must be joking. Volunteers will continue to not be paid despite the growth of the aging population.

I could go on, but why should I? The argument that I'm making is sound, and is fully illustrated by these examples.

Is Tax deferral wise?

The suggestion is floating around the legislature that Senior Citizens over the age of 65 should be 'allowed' to defer their property taxes until they move or die. When paid, the taxes would have interest added.

Citizens for Tax Fairness.org has made an effort to expose the fallacies inherent in the defered-tax proposal. It reminds me of an experiment, often perpetuated on children, in which they are offered fifty cents now, or five dollars later.

The children, unwisely, choose the fifty cents.

Flood control foresight

I remember a conversation that I had in May, 2005 with Steve Rawlings. He intimated that the County owned land, purchased subsequent to the 1983 floods, to allow for natural run-off. If Rawlings were to have his way much of this land would be sold, to developers, for revenue for the County.

I don't know how much land has been sold, and what pressure has been placed on the flood-control infrastructure? Where have the revenues gone from these sales? Should they have gone towards the repairs that now require 1.5 Million per year?

Now we're faced with the prospect of a tax increase for flood control, and I wonder if Rawlings was wise to encourage the sale of land, while ignoring the protection against flooding that these lands represent.

Selling a tax increase: Behind the curtain

The Davis County Commission is concerned about the proposed tax increase. They're worried that we might not like it. They're probably worried that we don't trust them.

I have some good evidence to support this claim.

Could it be because two out of three commissioners are out-a-here come January?

Not really, although that is true.

Now, this next part is going to sound pedantic at first. Stay with me.

Davis County's website it touting one page among its most "popular" links. That is supposed to mean, I think, that a lot of people have clicked on this link. Frankly, the County wanted this particular link to be popular. It was strategically placed so to influence a decision that will be ours to make. It's sitting out, in full view, in the middle of the page. You know, so people will click on it.

Let's break down this page into its most basic elements.

Its title is: " Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting (PDF)

That sounds innocuous enough. Impressive, actually.

Now the rub.

The URL, (that's the location of the file), for the page exposes the Commissions real intent. Here it is.

http://www.daviscountyutah.gov/tax_increase/financial_reporting_certificate.pdf

Did you see that? (I tried to make it obvious by making it bold) It's in a folder called "tax_increase". Someone must think that this particular document will influence the citizens of this county to vote for a tax increase.

The reality is that this certificate has nothing to do with whether this particular tax increase is
good or bad. It has everything to do with how good Steve Rawlings is at his job.

Where would our Commissioners be without Rawlings?