This is the vast "Three Shell Monty" played at the governmental level. You send me your taxpayers money for my project, and I’ll send you my taxpayers tax monies for your projects. We’ll hide it using other governmental agencies, but we politicians (wink, wink) have set the rules – just watch our hands. And we’ll sell this game as "Free Money" – hey, it doesn’t cost US anything, right?
Once again, we run into the case that when the locals either don’t have the money or are unwilling to ask their taxpayers for more to pay for what they want, they go for the "free money". From yesterday’s Laconia Daily Sun (P. 9):
Pulling together the funds to buy Colonial is going to be complicated
In the next town over, Laconia, there is an old building that houses what used to be an old style stage theater that, now that its run as a converted "multiplex" is over, has now sat vacant for a number of years. Simply, no entrepreneurs wanted to buy it for any purpose. Yet, there are those in town that just want to see it restored to its former magnificence and start doing plays and such. However, I do think that the sub-head says it all:
Formation of non-profit corporation seen as needed because for profit business is not going to step forward
Ya think? If folks, over the years, are not willing to ante up their own personal money (most people, even the uber-rich, are loathe to just throw their money away) for a project, it generally means it is a loosing proposition. Loosely put, if there is no profit, there is no need there for which people are willing to spend (unless it is flat out given to him). Yet, there are those that still want to City to buy it?
“Where do we get the $1.4-million to buy it?” asked City Councilor Bob Hamel (Ward 5). “It’s not coming from the city.”
No one questioned Hamel’s presumption that the city would not contribute to the cost of purchasing the property.
So what does it say when even the City Fathers won’t ante up? In short form,
only one thing: "I want what I want – now, let’s find the ‘free’ money!" (when the shorter form should be: stop!). What does it say when those that might benefit from such a purchase aren’t even willing to ask their own taxpayers for what they think is right? Or know that they would be refused?
Greedy.
Instead, they seem to have no problem in wishing to foist the cost onto others:
Cabanel explained that funds would be gathered from a combination of different entities, including the Land and Community Heritage Program (LCHIP) and the Community Development Finance Corporation (CDFA). LCHIP, assuming the Legislature adequately funds the program, may award grants of up to $500,000 or half the assessed the value to purchase property. Each year the CDFA distributes $5-million in credits against the Business Profits Tax, offering private companies a means of reducing their tax liabilities over a five-year period in return for investing in a qualifying project like the renovation and reopening of the theater. Cabanel said that the balance of the funds could be raised from a series of partners, including groups seeking to use the theater.
“We’re not looking for a sugar daddy,” Cabanel said. “We’re going to fill a pot of gold to do a project that wasn’t feasible for the private sector.”
Oh, but you are, Ms. Cabanel, you are. Only it isn’t just one sugar daddy, it is LOTS of them. Once again, we see Government spending for something it can neither afford or wishes to not afford itself? Selfishness is a word that comes to mind. For that is what it is, simply put – "I want what I want even if I cannot afford it".
Silly thing, the private sector. Capitalism is nothing more than the free exchange of a good or service for a trade of equal value (either using money or other forms of barter). And that is the essence of it – a voluntary trade without coercion. Now, that might mean if the price is too high, you may have to go without no matter how much you may want something. But that just means that the other side of the trade has voluntarily priced themselves out of YOUR market and not necessarily out of someone else’s (and are willing to wait, for a time, for that someone else to show up).
In this case, however, look at the entities she referenced, LCHIP and CDFA. Each is, by law, funded by taxpayers in one way or another. A few from Laconia to be sure, but the majority amount of money from these two (and other "non-profits") will come from other taxpayers. Without their consent.
Thus, the "free money" game is played because politicians have made it so. Simply put – "I want what I want even if I cannot afford it – I’ll just make others pay for it". This use of free money, this free spending way, isn’t that what has gotten us as a country into such desperate straits financially? It fosters a sense of entitlement – "why should I count the cost when someone else is going to pay for me"? Sure, we want things for our towns, but just like we see with the welfare system and the movement of more and more people off the tax rolls, where is the sense of restraint that ownership can bring? Who can tell me, with a straight face, that people value things as much, if given to them for free, as if they actually pay for it?
For instance, I do believe this notion to be true – in my own hamlet, the huge jungle gym called Imagination Station was voluntarily put up and has served the community well – and skinny in the game. I’m betting that has more "value" to the community than the "Sidewalk to Nowhere" that DOT money pretty much paid for a little bit ago. Sure, the price of the latter was far more than the former, but again, with little to no skinny in the game, who cares (except for the teacher that showed her students how to acquire other peoples money in the first place).
If the locals aren’t willing to pay for their own project, be it Laconia or elsewhere, shouldn’t that be a good sign that the project should be stopped? Why should someone else be forced to pay for something they won’t? Or have we all, as a society, fallen for that line from Dire Straits: "Money for nothing and chicks for free". The lure of something of value without payment.
TANSTAAFL – There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
Except for the Politicans – until we turn them out. Remember, OTHER peoples’ free money is actually yours – until you start saying No!
