Is there any other kind of Taxpayer? Is there any state whose taxpayers aren't weary of paying taxes? Some states have lower taxes, per capita or per income or per whatever criteria you choose to use. What cannot be compared is, are you paying more taxes per unit of quality of life, not necessarily quality of life for you, but the quality of life of all citizens, as a whole, for the state.
There are states that have lower property taxes, lower sales taxes, lower income taxes, lower gas, liquor, cigarette, public transportation, inheritance, and business taxes. There are states that for your income bracket and life style, are more fair, in your mind.
The real issue is, if you enjoy where you live, the lifestyle you have generated, and the services that are available, why constantly whine about the taxes that help those that serve you, work for you, are for your less fortunate children and neighbors, are incarsirated and have tried to hurt you and yours. Is it really important that your BMW can drive down the freeway at 50 mph during rush hour while your subordinates can only drive 25 mph in their Toyotas. Is your time worth more to you than the landscaper, making a tenth of your income, when he spends half of his day on the roads going from job to job.
If you love the evergreens, mountains, lakes and sound, the cost of living here is what it is. Is it more expensive here than elsewhere, maybe, but you have a choice.
Our short-sighted lawmakers packaged a transportation proposal that failed miserably. Was it too much public transportation, too much for roads, too much or the wrong type of funding. It was all of those things. But what it really was, was a statement to all those people of other states that might consider moving here, that there are costs to enjoying our bountiful environment. It is also a statement to those that complain the most, that if you don't want to pay your share, fair or not, you can take your selfish ass and move it to California, Idaho or New York City.
Economists will all agree that growth is good and necesary. But too much, too quick, or unplanned growth can be more costly than the benefits derived. Californicators want to cash out their piece of the inflated pie and move here to buy their chunk of heaven, only to find that due to growth manganment mandates they have to buy 30 acres, 50 miles from their job, to build their McMansion on 3,000 square feet of non-wetland buildable land. Well, too fricken bad. You screwed up your state, don't come here and screw up ours.
Did Bill Gates set up headquarters in W. Virginia, or Tennessee, or wherever, to avoid the exhorbatent taxes we charge here? No, he is a Washingtonian. His foundation, along with other super-rich, like Warren Buffett, believe they don't even pay what those of their ilk should pay.
Nobody should pay one dime more in taxes than they are required to pay, but do you have to bitch every time your cost of enjoying the Northwest quality of life goes from the dime you were paying to a dime and a penny.
So, Mr. Eyman, and others like you, I am sure that the cost of being a watch sales and repairman have increased over the years, but the folks that are buying your Rolexes can surely afford to spend a few more cents per thousand dollar value of their mega homes, to do their share to continue to line the pockets of their lobyists, the lobyists who insure that you can drive your SUV's and BMW's and light and heat your mega-homes. They actually can also afford their share of the cost to protect the environment, take care of our children's health and put away all the bad guys that 'really' want to take your money.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Friday, November 30, 2007
The power of the shouted word
If you are reading this posting then you are most likely politically aware, civicly involved, tax challenged or just very bored. I would hope that it is a combination of the first three rather than the later.
The question I am posing is, who or what do you listen to, when trying to develop a considered opinion about the issues that affect us.
The news today is rarely 'news'. It is usually some oblique description of what or who is making news, framed in a headline designed to generate ratings or circulation.
Is the Seattle Times a conservative outlet and the Seattle PI a liberal rag? How do you make that judgement? Do you base it on the news stories reported or the by the editorial page, the political cartoon, or what 'letters to the editor' are selected for print.
Do you watch TV News? Local, national or both? Do you believe that CNBC and Fox News are news reporting agencies (like the AP, Reuters, and UPI) or are they agenda based ratings generators that look for stories to support the position they hope to engender? Is local news an actual news source or just hype headlines to get people to watch their soft, public interest stories and commercials?
If you listen to news radio, who do you listen to? Do you listen to a station that is all 'conservative', all 'hype' or one that provides a balance of opinions. If you pick a station that provides a balance of positions do you pick and choose the host that most closely mirrors your opinions, or do you listen to those of differing opinions? Do you listen critically to the opinions and the facts that are presented? If it is a host that you align with, or one you disagree with, do you attempt to verify what you have heard.
The truth is that most people that want to tell you something, count on the fact that very few of us take the time and effort required to make a truly informed decision. Most of us, even if we are informed and involved, only follow the news that supports our preconceived political bent. If you are a die-hard Republican do you listen to the Democratic debates, and vica versa?
To our great misfortune, those politicians and policy makers that we have charged with the responsiblilty of making decisions for us, are reduced to soundbites. The average person never has a chance to go to a town-hall meeting, a caucus, or grange meeting, and actually listen to or make comments to those that represent us. If the representative is for a local office, the only contact we might have is through a community newspaper (most of which have dissappeared in the last year or so). If the politician is a state politioian we receive updates occasionally, touting their voting records, all produced by the party committee to which they are beholding.
The process of being an office holder has been reduced to running for election against an incumbent, and if lucky campaigning as an incumbent from their election day to remain an incumbent. The day of politicians running for office, to represent the public good, has been relegated to those secure and rich enough to run for 'public acknowledgement' rather than public service.
It is for that reason, I believe, that politicians, and their decisions, are so open to public critisism by the cheap-shot artists that have become the commentors of our public reporting outlets.
The result, in the Seattle-King/Pierce County-Washington areas, is that we have allowed special interests to completely dominate the political arena. We are no longer governed by City councils, County commissioners, and Stete legislators. We are being governed by single issue Initiative genererators.
What I am truly tired of, are all those that use the power of the media (their 'bully pulpit' to shout their opinions, use derogatory names, and selfish and hollow arguments to advance their agenda. In this area the shouters are the Tim Eyman (professional intiative writer), Dori Monson (KIRO radio), John Carlson (KOMO Radio) and Rush Limbaugh (sydicated) and politicians such as Dino Rossi. They all choose venues where they control the discussion and avoid the opportunity to interview or include others, with contrasting opinions, in a discussion of the issues.
I am no less critical of politicians such as Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, King County Executive Ron Sims, or the whole of the Port of Seattle commissioners. They are of the catagory that serve for public acknowledgement rather than public service. Their positions on the issues wash in and out like the rain clouds that maintain the reputation of rainy Seattle and PC politeness.
The question I am posing is, who or what do you listen to, when trying to develop a considered opinion about the issues that affect us.
The news today is rarely 'news'. It is usually some oblique description of what or who is making news, framed in a headline designed to generate ratings or circulation.
Is the Seattle Times a conservative outlet and the Seattle PI a liberal rag? How do you make that judgement? Do you base it on the news stories reported or the by the editorial page, the political cartoon, or what 'letters to the editor' are selected for print.
Do you watch TV News? Local, national or both? Do you believe that CNBC and Fox News are news reporting agencies (like the AP, Reuters, and UPI) or are they agenda based ratings generators that look for stories to support the position they hope to engender? Is local news an actual news source or just hype headlines to get people to watch their soft, public interest stories and commercials?
If you listen to news radio, who do you listen to? Do you listen to a station that is all 'conservative', all 'hype' or one that provides a balance of opinions. If you pick a station that provides a balance of positions do you pick and choose the host that most closely mirrors your opinions, or do you listen to those of differing opinions? Do you listen critically to the opinions and the facts that are presented? If it is a host that you align with, or one you disagree with, do you attempt to verify what you have heard.
The truth is that most people that want to tell you something, count on the fact that very few of us take the time and effort required to make a truly informed decision. Most of us, even if we are informed and involved, only follow the news that supports our preconceived political bent. If you are a die-hard Republican do you listen to the Democratic debates, and vica versa?
To our great misfortune, those politicians and policy makers that we have charged with the responsiblilty of making decisions for us, are reduced to soundbites. The average person never has a chance to go to a town-hall meeting, a caucus, or grange meeting, and actually listen to or make comments to those that represent us. If the representative is for a local office, the only contact we might have is through a community newspaper (most of which have dissappeared in the last year or so). If the politician is a state politioian we receive updates occasionally, touting their voting records, all produced by the party committee to which they are beholding.
The process of being an office holder has been reduced to running for election against an incumbent, and if lucky campaigning as an incumbent from their election day to remain an incumbent. The day of politicians running for office, to represent the public good, has been relegated to those secure and rich enough to run for 'public acknowledgement' rather than public service.
It is for that reason, I believe, that politicians, and their decisions, are so open to public critisism by the cheap-shot artists that have become the commentors of our public reporting outlets.
The result, in the Seattle-King/Pierce County-Washington areas, is that we have allowed special interests to completely dominate the political arena. We are no longer governed by City councils, County commissioners, and Stete legislators. We are being governed by single issue Initiative genererators.
What I am truly tired of, are all those that use the power of the media (their 'bully pulpit' to shout their opinions, use derogatory names, and selfish and hollow arguments to advance their agenda. In this area the shouters are the Tim Eyman (professional intiative writer), Dori Monson (KIRO radio), John Carlson (KOMO Radio) and Rush Limbaugh (sydicated) and politicians such as Dino Rossi. They all choose venues where they control the discussion and avoid the opportunity to interview or include others, with contrasting opinions, in a discussion of the issues.
I am no less critical of politicians such as Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, King County Executive Ron Sims, or the whole of the Port of Seattle commissioners. They are of the catagory that serve for public acknowledgement rather than public service. Their positions on the issues wash in and out like the rain clouds that maintain the reputation of rainy Seattle and PC politeness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)