Well, Greg has been keeping up his side of the bargain and I can finally start back in. Let’s recap:
Greg wrote this:
…In fact the budget proposed by the County Commissioners is actually more conservative than the budget proposed by the County Convention. The Commissioners budget is almost $700,000 less than the budget being considered by the Convention
My Response was here:
No, not even a partial success – for the taxpayers, anyways
Where my principle argument was:
Methinks Greg and I are going to be having "a discussion" as there needs to be a pointing out a thing or two to Greg. So, let the blogging debate begin (next post)!
My Rebuttal was here:
Blogging Councilor – the rebuttal
…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….
…Great – the State is giving money that they don’t have to a County that shouldn’t be spending it in the first place…
…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….
Well, Greg has had his answer to me done for a while:
my response to that after the jump
First off, I think that we BOTH have to keep these a bit a lot shorter. However, given that, time to discuss!
He has clearly missed my point. There was a partial success in the meeting. I consider a partial success to be the reduction in revenue to be raised by property taxes from 13.047% to 10.417%. This was created by a direct effect of the $351,000 increase in the revenue projections. I wouldn’t call a decrease in the amount to be raised by property taxes a loss to the taxpayers. I wouldn’t call it a victory either. I would call it a partial success
Hmm, a rise in the revenue PROJECTIONS? Gee, ANYONE can play at that game! Once again, I go back to basic economics outcomes for the taxpayer: if that projection is too optimistic, it isn’t worth the paper it was written on. Great for the PR, but will it hold up in real life?
I’m not thinking so. We’ll see – a success ONLY if it proves to actually happen.
Skip goes on to say:
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?
It is true that government, whether federal, state or local increases at a greater rate than what is normally seen. In Laconia we have enacted a Spending-Tax-Cap that ties the growth in government spending to, in simple terms the rate of inflation.
Skip, you are part of the Gilford Budget Committee that has the ability to influence the level of town spending. The residents of Gilford have the final say on approving spending, which may not be as effective as our tax cap but does help keep growth under control.
That’s right – WE are residents and activists and politicians that CAN and WILL watch out for the regular taxpayer. There is no reason that government should grow at rates far faster than peoples’ incomes.
If not US, then who else will? Really, why should the "way it is" be that way in the first place?
Simple answer – because it is allowed to happen. Allow it to happen for too many years, then it seems to be normal and demanding that it not be is treated as the radical idea.
When it should be the norm.
Unfortunately in the world we live in there is very little control over the tax increases we, the taxpayers feel. With a representative form of government the local officials feel the heat and hear the complaints more frequently and often than our state and federal representatives do.
Only because we, the taxpayers that have to shoulder the burden, have allowed it to happen. We, the general public, have become passive and with popular culture, have risen to the nirvana of the short attention span and an amazing lack of historical perspective and context (to which I blame our educational system).
He does raise a good point:
As many of you may know I am originally from Arizona. There are some things I miss in Arizona and many I don’t. One of the things Arizonans have the power to do is offer a petition articles on the local, county or state ballot. These petitions have the same effect as a law passed by the legislative body. If we had the same option in New Hampshire we could find a way to force a Spending-Tax-Cap on our county and state officials.
You have, in the City Charter, the tax cap which helps. In the Towns, it has to rely on the personal responsibility of the Selectmen or BudComm members to voluntarily enforce such. At the County level, this can be done by RSA. Time for either electing those with self-restraint or willing to enact an RSA.
If the revenue projections for the county are accurate then there should have been more of a reduction in expenses, but I will go into that later.
Actually, not right at all! Expense can always be decoupled from revenues – look at the mess we are in now because the got decoupled in the wrong direction? Your argument is nuts – more revenue means less expenses??? Huh??? Remember, there is revenue (which they admit is lagging), the expenses (which they can control but did not), and Taxpayer Cost.
And this is my basic argument, what I see as a major flaw, in your discourse. The Commissionors and the Representatives have the ability to decrease expenses so as to minimize the COST to the taxpayers. They refused to make the hard decisions to do so.
Not only refused to make the hard decisions, but threw more gasoline on the fire by going higher than the original budget!
It is true that the Medicare/Medicaid money is an “account transfer” from one level to another.
And then there is more….regardless of the why and how and history, it is important to just realize it is there.
You using this line of reasoning lets the Reps off the hook by giving them an out, an excuse. To me, it just "is". And if one is trying to be frugal, you deal with the "is" as you can. And when the expenditures outweigh the revenues, you just don’t go and use the taxpayers as an ATM!
The first step in accountability of the Reps is to take away the excuses and the reliance of the argument of "it’s the State’s fault…unfunded mandates….lower reimbursements". Fine, we don’t like it, it’s not fair, yada, yada, yada. You cannot excuse the expense side because of lowered revenues.
According to Bud Daigneault the surplus is running out. I am not certain how much is left in the Surplus Fund but I would argue that this type of use should not be a regular occurrence. After all the County Convention that decides the County Budget is a part of the same group that decides the State Budget. Why aren’t they looking out for the tax payer more vigorously?
Hallalujah! FINALLY, he’s seen the light; the clouds have rays of sunshine; the bluebirds are singing! (ok, I’m over the top a tad).
Maybe we are not so far apart – this is the bulwark of my argument – why AREN’T they, and why are we not keeping their feet to the fire?
I believe the revenue projections were short to emphasize a point.
No, the "fix" came in when the gas got turned up by folks like you and I! No outcry – no fix.
The point deserved to be emphasized, but not at the expense of the people that vote. I also believe that, even with the increase in revenue projections, the County Commissioners and County Convention are still purposely short on the projections to try and keep emphasis on the point they are trying to make.
I disagree….I do not believe that revenue will equal the projections. It will be shown that the Reps have made a move to cool off the bad PR they received – no more, but no less.
I do strongly believe that if these revised revenue projections are accurate then the budget expenses should be cut drastically.
Regardless of the revenue, the expenditures should have been slashed so as to meet the actual revenues. What must I say to get you to realize that the TAXPAYER COST is what matters?
If things were all lovely and equal, and everything was within the inflation rate, I’d be a tad better. However, you continue to not grasp the COST of the expenditure – and it is not the revenues!
The county made the projections look gloomier so the emphasis would be on the additional spending at the state level.
Right. The Reps did this deliberately to make themselves appear to be financial buffons, to accumulate all kinds of bad PR, and finally have people in the general public turn the hairy eyeball on them, and will again and again until this gets fixed?
The people at the State level do not elect them….we do. I doubt this is a PR stunt to make the Dems in Concord look bad. They did this on the bet that no one would notice and have it make THEM look bad.
They lost. And as you said, it may bite them in November.
And now, I’ll go after your next post in the next couple of days…..
