My rebuttal to Greg Kyntych, The Blogging Councilor in Laconia on his post on the outcome of the Belknap County budget Public Hearing.
My summary: Greg misses the point – it’s not the legislation, it’s the COST!
His claim: A Partial Success
My opinion: Not so much. No, the taxpayers lost.
Here’s the stats that he has on his site before Tuesday’s meeting:
County Budget: $26.6 million
Amount to be raised by taxes:
Commissioners Budget $14,271,909
Convention’s Budget $14,940,632 $668,723 more than Commissioners
(4.68% rise)
Property tax to be raised:
2007 $13,213,199
2008 $14,940,647 $1,727,448 more than 2007 (14.14%)
Per capita cost 2001-2002 $181
2008 $246 35.9% rise in 7 years
SO, here’s the upshot – the County was demanding 14.14% more in taxes in one year. Effectively, this is a inflation rate multiple of 4! Why does government always rise much faster than inflation rate (and generally, far faster than most peoples’ income)? Where is the fairness to the general taxpayer in that?
Even Greg says: The financial impact to Laconia is the equivalent of 7 or 8 city employees being laid-off.
Root cause – expenditures EXCEEDING revenue. County Convention: No problem! Amp up the revenue, right? Well, can government sell a service or a product to do that? Er, no. When politicians set budgets that are more than expenditures, they simply raise taxes.
So, what happened at the meeting and what is Greg’s (wrong) take on it?
Greg has the following to say:
The other night at the public hearing on the Belknap County budget Commissioner Daigneault let everyone in attendance know that they had increased their revenue projections. This has a direct affect on the amount to be raised by property taxes through each town and Laconia. The revenue increased is $100,000 from the Surplus Fund; 5% ($100,000) from Gunstock, who had a banner year; and $151,000 in Medicaid payments from the state.
Great – the State is giving money that they don’t have to a County that shouldn’t be spending it in the first place. Remember, the State is already in the throes of a deficit to the tune of $50 million with expectations of it going to $150 – 200 by the end of next year because they’ve raised their revenue projections way too high to support their additional $475 million spending over the State’s last budget.
Besides, where did that Medicare money come from. No, you are wrong if you say the Feds. The startk truth is that it is ALWAYS the taxpayer that has to foot the bill. We have to pay it – this is not new money – it is simply an "account transfer" from one level to another. This is a thinly covered "fix" in the works.
The taxpayers also paid for the Surplus Fund, so to claim that as "new found revenue" is still a crock.
And it’s about time that Gunstock pay off – but only $100,000 in an absolutely BANNER year for snow (we may have had the 4th or 3rd most snow in recorded history this season)? THis is the only place that the "new found revenue" is not coming from taxpayers (although we certainly fronted it a few years ago, didn’t we?).
My take: Greg, how can you call this a Partial Success? For WHO?
For when it all comes down to it, from the individual taxpayer looking upward to Town, County, State, and the Feds, whenever one level of Government is giving another one money, it is STILL coming out of that taxpayer’s pocket.
How? A tax on a product or service, taxes taken out of their earnings, or a tax on their real property; you get the idea. We at the bottom of this pyramid always pay upward – this account transfer is just letting some dollars fall downward a level or two, but never all the way down.
There were a lot of questions about the expenditure side of the budget. It is valid to ask these types of questions but looking at an expenditure increase of 3.9% seems fairly reasonable. When you take into account the relatively small level of increase in the expenditures I believe that you are never going to see a significant impact on what is to be raised by taxes.
You don’t believe that a 10.425% increase in taxes is NOT a significant impact on the property tax rate of the County? This is the first big mistake in the reasoning.
True, overall expenditures increases were up 3.9%. The problem is the COST of that increase! With the "new found revenue", it still is an increase of 10.425% to tax payers – still an inflation rate multiple of between 3 or 4 times! This is the problem of just examining the budget of expenditure year over year. Or the revenue year over year. In governmental spending, one ALWAYS has to look at the COST to the taxpayer, year over year.
That’s what the Laconia Tax Cap is doing! That’s why we probably need one at the County and State level so that free spending politicians will be forced to think well and creatively to live within their means.
Like all of us.
He continues on:
It was mentioned that the Commissioners and Convention should have taken the shortfall in revenues into account when preparing the budget.
That would be me….and Doug! Over and Over, Commissioner Daigneault repeated
"revenues are not keeping up with expenditures", "revenues are not keeping up with expenditures"
As I tried to point out during the meeting – if you know that revenues are not up to expectations, then why the heck are you still spending more than you take in and forcing taxpayers to pay for your mistake? It is automatic that when one gets elected that the basic laws of supply and demand are suspended?
With increases in prices for goods and services (fuel, repairs, etc…) and contractual agreement increases for wages it would be extremely dangerous for the county to run a flat line budget equal to 2007.
Absolutely not. We ALL face the same thing – why does government get first pick? Why do they receive top priority? What too many people forget is the reason for government – it is to do things that are not possible for us as individuals but also to exist for our benefit.
And not the other way around. And then politicians raise taxes over and above the rise in ordinary incomes, they turn that around, twist it, and make the proposition change to "taxpayers exist to feed government." Why should taxpayers have to hunker down when the economy slows down – and government doesn’t have to?
The sensible thing would be to ask yourself "what is the proper role of government at the County Level"? and prioritize those things that are the main responsibilities. In this case – Sheriff, Deeds, Corrections. A lesser degree would be the Nursing Home. Anything after that should be examined closely for elimination.
Note: there are always things to spend more on – those are wants. It is the easy road to "go along and get along" especially with other peoples’ money. It takes a courageous person in politics to be able to say "no" and protect the ordinary taxpayer.
Why is is dangerous? After all, their laxitude is going to force you, as a Laconia City Councilor, to now cut your services back, or lay some of your employees off because they were NOT courageous and principled. Why do they get a pass from you?
That being said it is important to take the revenue side into account when determining expenses when preparing a budget. There is nothing to suggest that this wasn’t done with this budget,
Oh please – "nothing to suggest that this wasn’t done"? Look back up and see what Chair Daignault said "revenues are not keeping pace with expenditures". Sure they looked at them – AND IGNORED IT!
If I am wrong, PLEASE tell me where? I challenge you to go through the minutes of meeting (heck, if they even kept any – THAT was brought up too by Doug) and prove me wrong.
You know, I cannot WAIT for Doug to process the video from that Public Hearing….
Much of the problem in revenues was placed on HB2, which shifted costs between the state and counties for Medicaid/Medicare reimbursements, which was sponsored by Sen. Sgambati. A lot of questions were answered about the caps in place under the new legislation that takes effect on July 1, 2008, which is the start of the 2009–10 state budget year. This was very confusing to me because of the “hold-harmless” portion of the bill.
You spent a lot of time on this – and I believe it to be a "red herr
ing". This is nothing more than account transfer gooble-dee-gook from the individual taxpayer level. No matter what, the taxpayer still has to ante up lots more, one way or another.
I don’t care about this squabbling – I do care that I see politicians whose answer to a budget crisis is never to cut back government – just raise taxes.
In the mean time we need to be cognizant of who we elect to represent us in the State Senate, State House, Executive Council and Governor’s Office.
The County budget is only going to cost me once as a Gilford / Belknap County taxpayer. Greg, you REALLY need to take your own words to heart – not only will it cost you as a Laconia / Belknap County taxpayer, but it will cost you as a City Councilor, as now YOU are going to be forced into making hard decisions that you would not have to otherwise.
Because others refused to do it when they should have.
