It must be nice to think that other peoples monies is yours to spend. I don’t.
The budget season has just left the starting gate for this year and this past Thursday was the first “get stuff done” (as opposed to organizational stuff). Thus, time for budget sub-committees to start bringing the results of their meetings with the Town department heads (School District happens second in the schedule) back to the full BudComm meeting. Two observations, one brought to my attention and one in which I was front and center.
The Progressive Democrats have taken all but two of the nine elected positions (with appointees from the Selectboard, School Board, and the Village Water district making up the rest); two years ago the voting position was reversed. Thus, what they want, they will get and they do vote in a block about 99% of the time). And most are involved with the Gilford/Meredith Democrat Committee. Frankly, they have, over the last couple of elections, been more energized and out-organized the conservatives that are in town and have like minded base on the school side.
And we saw one part of their philosophy come to the fore this past was, IMHO, dismissing NH’s history of Volunteerism and in this case, citizens volunteering their time and talents – and not expecting to get paid for that that time. De Toqueville, the French philosophy, wrote about this “thing” that totally separated the thinking of the citizens of our country at the time back in the 1830s and 1840s – that free citizens understood that the sense of a limited government won during the Revolutionary War and that Civil Society (citizens acting voluntarily to solve problems) would address most issues. He pointedly made the difference: American citizens just acted – Europeans expected Government to take on those problems. Americans would band together after seeing a problem, do the work, fix the issue, and then disband (until the next issue). Europeans would just wait for “somebody needs to do something about it” and at some time in the future, get around to it (maybe).
So the example was that of the Selectmen deciding to give the Assistant Moderator position a $300 stipend. Sure, short money in the scheme of things but there are times when Principle should outweigh the money. Thus, during our subcommittee in dealing with the change of Volunteer to Professional, we decided to not recommend that budget increase. I’ve watched the slow creep of the changes over the years with two standout examples:
- Football team – started off as a sport and all volunteers. They started at the high school level and only wanted to use the “Meadows” fields for practice and games. They’d have volunteer coaches and volunteer officials at their games. They’d fund it all by themselves and and the organizers PROMISED that tax monies would never be used; some of us were not convinced. And it turned out that we were right (to short circuit a few years). Every year it was one more “ask” until a few years down the line, they asked for tax monies as their “donors” were starting to dry up – HOW COULD WE LET THE KIDS GO WITHOUT FOOTBALL! Finally, it got rolled into the School District budget – and the coaches went pro (stipends) and immediately the “game staff/officials” started to get paid as well. We complained about the cost and complained about the lies.
- Similarly, the Supervisors of the Checklist, an elected position. Short recap: their complaint was, years ago, is that theirs was a position that needed lots of training, needed lots of time, and thus, they demanded to be paid. After a few years, they got paid a stipend. Then it morphed into a stipend + hourly rate (“well, we’re sitting with TC/TC employees being paid at the polls). And this year, they wanted a rate increase for that hourly time.
What got me is that Michael Dowe, activist in the G/M Democrat Committee asked, as we were discussing the the Asst. Moderator stipend if we “are outliers” in this. As if to say – is our hamlet out of bounds when I announced we were against this? Both I and another BudCommer went “huh?” and that’s when the whole Volunteerism vs Professionalization ran its course (sorry, forgot my camera – won’t forget again). From my view, the whole idea of NH small town volunteerism history seems to be very foreign to the Progressives.
It isn’t that you are “giving back” by serving (Oh Lord, how I hate that phrase as it implies an obligation that you OWE something to someone (like ancestor worship?) instead of voluntarily deciding to take on the responsibility of a free citizen to help (in this case, serve my other citizens within an elected role). The “work on your farm, lay down your tools and serve for a bit, and then return to your farm” cycle. NOT being a professional (or, in this day and age, making a career of it and expect renumeration).
Now, to be truthful, the discussion didn’t last long and I was outvoted – the rest of the BudComm decided that spending other peoples’ money on Professionalizing yet another former volunteer position (and the current holder of that office knew that it was a volunteer position from the start and he’s been in it for years). Not once did the though of “well, how about taking up a collection and doing it OUTSIDE of govt ever seem to be a glimmer of real volunteerism on their part).
While it was short, it really showed me the chasm between Conservatives and Progressive / Socialists. I once again bring up the book by Dr. Arthur Brooks: Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. On one hand, Conservatives give more of their money AND time – Progressives outsource their virtue to Govt – and expect Govt to be paid and in charge.
Note: yet the BudComm members are all Volunteers – no hourly, no stipend. That even as we can spend hundreds of hours in doing the job right.
But for Michael, this is par for the course – he just personally endorsed Bernie Sanders for President. A true blue communist (who else honeymoons in Moscow during the height of the Cold War) and in looking at his policies and the cost thereof, will totally invert the Founders notion of free Citizens who have a limited govt to serve them to one in which Govt will establish what you can decided for yourself (very little) and assumes that your money is the govt’s. I’ll address his LtE later but it shows my main point – Govt is the one thing we all belong to; you will be part of it one way or another. There is NO LIMIT to what govt can grow into or the cost involved in that. None at all.
I, on the other hand believe that choice is the quantification of Freedom – and it should be maximized by the philosophy of a limited govt. Setting up a budget does show one’s character and philosophy.
While the Democrats are all about “social justice”, where is the justice in taking more and more from citizens that simply wish to be left alone? The hypocrisy of it all is astounding.
