Quote:
Originally Posted by Argie's Wife
Please forgive me for also responding to this - I don't want to seem like a "know it all" but I have sat through four years - going on five - of the budget process for both the school districts and the town budget for Alton. This will be my first year as a board member. I've had four years to watch and learn, as I was a recording secretary before I ran for office and was elected. I can't speak for other towns but I do know that our town employees have forgone raises or cost of living increases, presented a level-funded budget, etc. Our schools have cut spending in numerous ways - from supplies, to going in on a co-op like buying situation with other towns for oil, to getting grants, and coming in last year with a budget at almost -6% less than the previous year's budget. It's a strange reality when your default budget is MORE than your proposed budget that's on the ballot!
Now, keep in mind, this is small town government - the local of the local... not the state level of the budget...
I will admit I don't know much about the state budget. That's one budget session I'd be interested in attending. We assume there's fat in the budget but do we know that for certain? Really, how much do we pay attention to what happens beyond our local control? Again, I admit that's an area I know very little about... but I know that on our local level the budget is reviewed by many people, cut, re-cut, and well justified before it's brought to the voters in March.
Ultimately, the real power is executed at voting time. That sorta brings us full-circle, doesn't it?
|
I think the town of Alton must be the exception rather than the rule if the budget has been controlled as you indicate. However, the problem is that spending should be limited at ALL times, not just when the economy is slow because spending committed to in the fat times is still around when things slow down. It is too easy for government officials to see "need" for one thing or another and I would be the first to say that the need may be real BUT we simply cannot afford to do all "good" things. Politicians, by wanting to help and by the pressure of the election process to provide good will among the voters are driven to spend money with limited concern for long term consequences or viability of such spending. The only real solution to to keep government OUT of as much as possible. If it isn't government's responsibility to fix something then they can't spend money on it. Unfortunately, the population at large has a credit card mentality and thinks the bill will never come due. As you say, ultimately the power rests with the voters. However they don't show up to vote and they keep passing bloated budgets. If people were really fed up with the spending you would see a wave of town budgets being defeated but that happens only occasionally. Frankly people have become dumb and lazy. They have left it to the politicians to "take care of things" and the politicians have a HORRIBLE track record with most things they do. We probably have the government we deserve because we have been careless and foolish as an electorate.
As to the original topic, I worked in Mass most of my career but lived in NH and paid 6% income tax to Mass, far more $$$ than I pay in property tax. Mass spends money like a drunken sailor on LOTS of stuff that I would never receive benefit from and would not support and yet I got no vote in Mass either. I can't think of a single tax where it entitles someone to voting privileges no matter how unfair or significant the tax is. I could have found a job in NH but Mass has a wider variety of opportunity so I worked there and paid the tax, without a right to vote. The same is true for property. NH property is apparently attractive enough to bid the prices up to the level they have reached even with the existing property tax burden and no vote in the local government. If the system was so onerous people would not be buying up here and people wouldn't be saddled with million dollar properties.