I suppose this will be an annual post... - Granite Grok

I suppose this will be an annual post…

…at a minimum.  Last year at this time, I wrote "Not mine to Give" which included:

  • One general reason is the socialistic nature of Progressives (think mostly Democrats, but can be Republicans too – those that believe that only Big Government can make the right decisions for us all).
  • Lastly, another is that too many folks are too lazy or unwilling to live up to their own responsibilities – easier to outsource the fulfillment of a need to others (both the service and the cost). 

What was it about this year?  Once again, coerced charity at the end of last year’s Budget Season as "outside agencies" (think charities looking for property tax monies from towns) want the Budget Committee stamp of approval.  This year, same thing. Tonite was the Town budget Public Hearing on what the Budget Committee would be presenting at the Deliberative Session.

Sidebar: the P.H. is where the BudComm sits and does nothing but  listen to what people think we have done with the Budget (There is no discussion from us – ONLY listening).  Afterward, we may change our budget (or not), based on their input.

Deliberative Session: when the Townfolk actually debate the budget line items and vote to either add to or delete from them.  The final resulting budget is the one that is actually secret ballot voted upon by all the voters.

Well, I thought it was going to be like this past Tuesday for the School Budget – no one spoke up so we all went home (nothing controversial).  It ALMOST happened again tonite except one of the "outside agencies" came begging for us to change our recommendation for her group (which was "Not Recommended").

She did her spiel, lamenting that cuts in Medicaid had devastated their budget.  We listened and with no one else speaking, the Public Hearing was over.  However, since there was input, we had to have meet afterward to see if we wished to alter our budget based on this input.

And that’s when it got a bit interesting.

Right off, I made the motion to NOT reopen the budget which was seconded quickly.  That then brought up the discussion phase and immediately, Phyllis Corrigan brought up the story of a friend that had just taken in a young mother and child for the night as they had run out of heat.  Phyllis was called and asked "Who do I call for help for this young lady even as I put her up for the night?".  Phyllis then declared "we HAVE to help people".

My response was along these lines:

I agree.  Phyllis, your friend did the right thing by taking her in – we all, as individuals, should be doing more and NOT by relying on government.

She seemed exasperated at that (she knew what was coming).  I continued:

We should do more as individuals and not leave it to Government.  I am against using taxpayer money in helping out charities.  In essence, that becomes coerced charity in that it is the same as if Dave there forced me to give to the charity of his choice which I ordinarily would not.  Further, it would be the same if I, by my choice, forced Dick to give to yet a different charity to which he would not ordinarily wish to.

That just isn’t right.  We should not be forcing people to give.

Her response was effectively:

"That doesn’t matter, people like this need help and no one is stepping up to do it"!

And seemed very perturbed that I would even oppose her.  But it DOES matter – it matters a lot!

  • First, it shows a lack of discernment of what Freedom means
  • Second, it shows a high disregard for what others have for priorities; in this case, only her’s mattered and overrides mine.
  • Third, it shows that your need to feel good about your action outweighs my choice for the use of my money. 
  • Fourth, it shows a willingness to force others (for Government is nothing but force in requiring you to do something) to do what you want; what someone’s notion of what is correct to do with their own money doesn’t matter.
  • Fifth, it also shows a lack of compassion for those are struggling to make those payments.  In essence, Phyllis (and others like her) may well be putting others into more fiscal straits in trying to help others.

That last one is an instance of The Law of Unintended Consequences – why is it right to take from Person A, to give to Person B, which then puts Person A into the position of now needing help?  There was no recognition of this scenario.

When it all comes down to the nitty-gritty, freedom can be measured in terms of the choices I can make for myself.  What Phyllis is advocating for is reduced choice – she is advocating that Government take that choice from me in donating my way away from me.  She is advocating that I should be put into the position of not being able to make ANY choice in this regard.

Now, many may say that people aren’t giving – yet, the statistics say that Americans are the most giving people in the world.  That is not the problem.  The problem HERE is that people are not giving to the charities that SHE (and other politicians) are demanding that we support.  Therefore, forcing people to do so is seemingly ok in her world view.  Yet, few speak of the problem of "crowd out" as Government does more and more, people do less.  And frankly, why should they?  They are being forced to outsource their ability to help via "crowd out" – for very few of us have the resources to give to everything that everyone wants us to fund. 

My response? It’s not her’s to give.  And that is one of the major problems

Land of the Free and home of the brave?

It’s only an empty sentence if it isn’t true.  And when choice is taken away, the word Free (and it’s idealism) means just that much less.

Now, tonight was only in discussing whether or not the BudComm would reopen its previous decision on this charity; the final vote was to NOT change our previous vote (Phyllis being the lone vote in opposition).

All of this said, the final decision lies with the townfolk and their use of the ballot box.  I hope some of them read this and ask themselves:

Do I really like being told I have to give my $$ to someone I don’t want to? But if I’m ok with that, am I ok with effectively telling my neighbor s/he has to give $$ to a charity and they have no choice?

At all?

>