My response to Lee Matos’ Letter to the Editor:
Mr. Matos makes what I consider an immoral plea at the beginning of his Letter, send tax money to my employer, but for a moral good: charitable works. Helping people is always a moral good but should ask: is forcing people to do so a moral act itself? For the charity’s good intentions, I twice am made out to be immoral: first for apparently being a skinflint (being a member of that committee) and not wishing to help people and secondarily, taken to woodshed for NOT doing what I consider an immoral act.
In a larger sense, I must act immorally by giving my assent to the taking of more of someone else’s private property (their money) than otherwise necessary (in supporting Lee Matos’s charity). For doing this on a street corner, this forceful taking (often called stealing), I would be correctly labeled a thief. As a politician doing so, (or even as a voter) I am called a "good man". Dichotomy, anyone?
This really is not about charitable giving (by definition, as paying a tax bill is not a charitable act) but is all about my respect for the property of others. How can I, in good conscience, recommend that property taxes be raised beyond what is absolutely necessary, and over which good folks in Gilford would have no recourse, to send money to a charity to which they otherwise might not give? How is that morally correct, to take that which is not mine to give?
Or is it a case of "the ends justifies the means"?
When all of the arguments for and against such actions are cleared away like leaves on a fall day…
…we finally get down to the actual issue. Is it morally correct to demand that someone else’s money be taken from them to support a charity of your choosing simply because you believe it to be a good idea? Perhaps, good works and a good cause may result (and in this case, perhaps provide Lee Matos with continued employment), but does that ever justify that taking of private property perhaps against their will?
The topic of the political day, with the rise of the TEA Party movement is a renewed emphasis on the question of "What is the proper role of Government"? Allied questions concern the coercion that can be legally executed by Government as well as increasing dependencies upon Government. In this case, we see all three combined into one stew pot. Plainly spoken, we see charitable agencies that have become too dependent upon the government tax teat crying out for politicians to keep that spigot open, and asking to use the force of Government (go ahead, try NOT paying ones property taxes) to lay claim to that money. Should Government be in the practice of taking money from some to give to others no matter how good the charitable cause?
Shouldn’t this be left to individuals to decide for themselves?
Lee Matsos Letter (page 6):
To the editor,
I am writing this letter as someone who has lived and been employed in the Lakes Region for several years. I am also someone who is very concerned with the Gilford Selectboard and Budget Committee’s recent decision to not recommend funding for a number of social services agencies, including Child and Family Services, my employer.
It is my hope that the citizens of Gilford will recognize the ramifications of such a decision and vote to continue supporting our much needed and valuable programs. Many families in Gilford have benefitted from our services and the impact that such a loss or decrease in funding would have on our entire Lakes Region Community is great. More than ever, we need this support to continue to provider much needed services to the Gilford community.
Child and Family Services offers a broad range of programs such as substance abuse treatment, counseling and child abuse prevention and treatment services, all of which are made possible because of a carefully structured funding mix. The loss of any one funding source, such as local funding, would have a devastating impact on other funds. In some programs, local funds are necessary to leverage grants from other sources ($1 brings in $4 from other sources). In other areas, such as counseling, local dollars make our sliding fee scale possible for our low income and uninsured families.
The difficulties we all face in this challenging economy are daunting and we must all look at ways to decrease spending. Critical, lifechanging services to our citizens are not what we should be cutting back. Denying our friends and neighbors, children and families in their time of need is not a wise investment in our community. I ask you to consider the devastating effects a loss of funding will most certainly have on our Lakes Region Community and ask that you vote NOT to reduce funding for Child and Family Services as well as other social service agencies serving the Gilford community and the entire Lakes Region. Our children and their families need our votes.
Lee Matos
Meredith
