A winning 2009-10 issue: I'm not paying for that!

[integrityticket]

Chatham County people are angry. We need a creative way of harnessing that anger and giving the voters a weapon to fight the Chatham Coalition’s agenda.

Chatham Coalition and Pittsboro Together endorsed Randolph Voller won with a minority of votes two years ago. The Chatham Coalition candidates, Starkweather and Rubinas, lost in last year's county election.

It is clear that the Chatham Coalition backed politician currently in office are far to the left of the average Chatham County resident.

The Coalition politicians gave us:

• The ICE Resolution
• A Human Relations Committee who does what for over $80,000 a year
• A Sustainability Director who does what for over $100,000 a year
• A transportation coordinator who does what for over $60,000 a year
• A Major Corridor Ordinance which will do what?
• A Economic Development Committee that has done what?
• A near-empty Pittsboro-Chapel Hill Magic Bus that does what?

We elect mayors county commissioners every two years but we pay taxes every year. I propose that we create a Check-Off on our County Tax Form like the Presidential Campaign Fund. Every year all the major expenses our County and Town Politicians commit us to would be listed and we could check off if we want our county tax money to go towards it. If our County Tax Form listed the Magic Bus, the sustainability coordinator, the human relations committee, how much money do you think these programs would be able to spend if we had a say in it?

There is precedent. States use this type of check off on their tax returns to raise money for a many charitable and social causes. Some states have programs to fund the Olympics, veterans, disease research, prevention of child abuse and senior programs. California, of course, has a check off for sea otters. Many people don’t care about sea otters and don’t want their money spent on them. But those who care, can check it off. That’s fair!

Of course the Coalition led County Commission will never enact this. They don’t want to give all of those angry Chatham County people power.

[mary51802]

Simple solution...vote them out! I decided that after the ICE resolution.

[ChefMenteur]

Chatham County people are angry. We need a creative way of harnessing that anger and giving the voters a weapon to fight the Chatham Coalition’s agenda.

....

We elect mayors county commissioners every two years but we pay taxes every year. I propose that we create a Check-Off on our County Tax Form like the Presidential Campaign Fund. Every year all the major expenses our County and Town Politicians commit us to would be listed and we could check off if we want our county tax money to go towards it. If our County Tax Form listed the Magic Bus, the sustainability coordinator, the human relations committee, how much money do you think these programs would be able to spend if we had a say in it?

There is precedent. States use this type of check off on their tax returns to raise money for a many charitable and social causes. Some states have programs to fund the Olympics, veterans, disease research, prevention of child abuse and senior programs. California, of course, has a check off for sea otters. Many people don’t care about sea otters and don’t want their money spent on them. But those who care, can check it off. That’s fair!

Of course the Coalition led County Commission will never enact this. They don’t want to give all of those angry Chatham County people power.

Would you also include check-offs for:  schools, police, fire fighters, water treatment, local roads, and sidewalks?

[peacefulcapitalist]

Add a checkoff for the War in Iraq on our federal returns, and I'm right there with you.

[integrityticket]

Would you also include check-offs for:  schools, police, fire fighters, water treatment, local roads, and sidewalks?

Sure, if it would make you happy.

[ChefMenteur]

Would you also include check-offs for:  schools, police, fire fighters, water treatment, local roads, and sidewalks?

Sure, if it would make you happy.

Great. It just seems to me that it only makes sense if every government expense were subject to a checkoff. I suggest listing each expense by budgetary line item. This would make the ballot several dozen pages long, but it seems worth it! Furthermore, I don't think the checkoff should be restricted only to a yes-or-no proposition of whether to fully fund an item or not. For instance, I should be able to indicate that I want to pay for fire protection only at my house, and if I do not use that service during the year I expect to have my tax contribution refunded to me, or put away in a Fire Security Savings Plan. The same would go for police protection too, of course:  if at the end of the year in the department's report to me, they are unable to show how their activities made me specifically (and not "the community") and tangibly safer, I'll be forced to assume that they made me less safe and I'll expect a refund. And so on. You're right, this is a winning issue!

[belle]

real, true democracy, we elect representatives to pass the budget. then we check squares on the tax form to endorse it. that'll work.

[integrityticket]

Would you also include check-offs for:  schools, police, fire fighters, water treatment, local roads, and sidewalks?

Sure, if it would make you happy.

Great. It just seems to me that it only makes sense if every government expense were subject to a checkoff. I suggest listing each expense by budgetary line item. This would make the ballot several dozen pages long, but it seems worth it! Furthermore, I don't think the checkoff should be restricted only to a yes-or-no proposition of whether to fully fund an item or not. For instance, I should be able to indicate that I want to pay for fire protection only at my house, and if I do not use that service during the year I expect to have my tax contribution refunded to me, or put away in a Fire Security Savings Plan. The same would go for police protection too, of course:  if at the end of the year in the department's report to me, they are unable to show how their activities made me specifically (and not "the community") and tangibly safer, I'll be forced to assume that they made me less safe and I'll expect a refund. And so on. You're right, this is a winning issue!

Let's not get too carried away now.

[BillyRay]

Would you also include check-offs for:  schools, police, fire fighters, water treatment, local roads, and sidewalks?

Sure, if it would make you happy.

Great. It just seems to me that it only makes sense if every government expense were subject to a checkoff. I suggest listing each expense by budgetary line item. This would make the ballot several dozen pages long, but it seems worth it! Furthermore, I don't think the checkoff should be restricted only to a yes-or-no proposition of whether to fully fund an item or not. For instance, I should be able to indicate that I want to pay for fire protection only at my house, and if I do not use that service during the year I expect to have my tax contribution refunded to me, or put away in a Fire Security Savings Plan. The same would go for police protection too, of course:  if at the end of the year in the department's report to me, they are unable to show how their activities made me specifically (and not "the community") and tangibly safer, I'll be forced to assume that they made me less safe and I'll expect a refund. And so on. You're right, this is a winning issue!

Let's not get too carried away now.

I guess we have to limit it to what is important to you, right?

[belle]

personally, I deal with my  own security as I know the cops have to be led by the hand.

so can I get my taxes reduced by the portion the cops take?

[edennist]

Let's not get too carried away now.

That's exactly the problem. I'd say you're already carried away but that's just my opinion. Who gets to say which is which?

[Butterbean]

It seems easy to focus on the items that reasonate with citizens, i.e. smaller amounts when millions and billions are squandered and wasted through poor planning and the failure to account for external costs.  For example, removing cars from the road lowers the cost of road maintenance, the need to purchase extra ROW and widen roads, and helps with air quality. Better air quality is good for public health (asthma) which creates less trips to the doctor and should lower health care costs.  Public issues and decisions do not exist in a vacuum nor are they mutually exclusive.  Labeling a human relations director a "waste of money" fails to account for the work she does that is proactive and preventative in the community--creating a better environment for race relations and identifying trouble areas before they boil over seems to be a public good that the community should endorse and support as opposed to denigrate.

[WolfpackFan]

It seems easy to focus on the items that reasonate with citizens, i.e. smaller amounts when millions and billions are squandered and wasted through poor planning and the failure to account for external costs.  For example, removing cars from the road lowers the cost of road maintenance, the need to purchase extra ROW and widen roads, and helps with air quality. Better air quality is good for public health (asthma) which creates less trips to the doctor and should lower health care costs.  Public issues and decisions do not exist in a vacuum nor are they mutually exclusive.  Labeling a human relations director a "waste of money" fails to account for the work she does that is proactive and preventative in the community--creating a better environment for race relations and identifying trouble areas before they boil over seems to be a public good that the community should endorse and support as opposed to denigrate.

It also seems easy to focus on community good when describing anything government does.  The truth is public good has to be balanced with public cost.  How do you account for external cost?  Have the external cost been calculated before the bus was put on the road?  And time and time again, Gene has been kind enough to put the various cost associated with transportation, and it shows that a bus is not the best solution.

[Beel]

The ICE resolution implies integrity.  They get my vote on those grounds alone.  We all may easily recall what the Bunkey era was like.  The one major improvement on the BOC would be hispanic representation.  Hopefully someone of that persuasion from Siler City will run next time. 

[Elvis]

The one major improvement on the BOC would be hispanic representation.  Hopefully someone of that persuasion from Siler City will run next time. 

Just out of curiosity, why would an Hispanic representative necessarily be a major improvement. Does it matter if he/she were a Republican or Democrat? Wouldn't it be a major improvement to have representation from more than one side of aisle regardless of race? If the Hispanic representative has the same view of government as the existing commissioners why would he or she be an improvement or detriment? And finally, what would you think if the Hispanic had the view of government and governed as Bunky did? Same major improvement? Surely you aren't advocating voting for or against someone based on race.

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- Chatham County Online ----------------------------- => Chatham County Online => Chatham County Schools => Chatham County Food & Drink => Chatham County Music & Arts => Chatham Community Calendar => Free Classifieds & Help Wanted Ads => Noah's Ark - All Creatures Great & Small. => Neighbor to Neighbor => Gardening and Agriculture => Chatham County Real Estate => North Carolina => This, That and Everything Else