K - RE: baseball park. It seems like it is a vote on a huge $27 million expenditure. The concept sounds cool if I had a son that played baseball. What do you think?
I don't like any of these things. I am surprised that Dave Petersen likes it. The vote will secure funding for construction. Doesn't sound like a bond issue, just more city taxes. Gilbert builds the park and hires the company to run it. Why not sell the park and let the company build their own park? You get revenue from the sale and you can still tax the sales if the town needs cash. I don't like development projects. Well, not true. I love them. I just wish they weren't all run by the government. City parks, city pools, skateparks, malls etc etc. If these are such great ideas then let the companies spend their own development money and recoup their costs later. I don't using taxpayers as credit as though all government has deep pockets. Other alternative is to develop the park with donations. If people want a park they can pay for it with grants and donations and then later tickets to get in. Name the park after the largest donor like the good old days.
K- How about the middle of the road agreement that was made by moderate senators yesterday on Judicial nominations? I worry about the verbage of no filibusters except in the case of "extreme" circumstances. That just left them a way to default on their agreement.So to get this straight, do you not like bonds for things like education, road building, etc?
I must admit: I am too far right compared to these guys to see this as middle of the road agreement. McCain and the others are liberals, left whatever name fits.
I think the agreement is silly. Its a bad idea and McCain typically got it wrong. He said that people are tired of the stalled nominations and upset by the process. I interpreted that to mean that people want action. Every nominee should get a vote. He thought it meant time to compromise. He has been talking compromise for months. This isn't a compromise really. Democrats are giving in a few votes and maintaining their threats. I think they should take the votes, approve the 3 judges that can agree on and then start the fight again. Call their bluff, "shut down Senate business". So what? Make the votes against the nominees.
The deal doesn't hold much weight really. Every Senator can do what they want. This is only a deal that they won't change the rules on filibusters if they pass the 3 judges. Fair enough. Accept the 3 judges and keep voting, let them filibuster if they want. Democrats lose with that tactic which is why they are trying to compromise.
I don't like bonds. I don't like property taxes. I think taxes should be as painful and personal as possible. Just like an electric bill. Comes every month and changes depending on my usage. If I turn the lights off and adjust the thermostat I can save money. If you turn your house into an icebox I don't have to pay for it.
If I want to go to the park - I will pay admission as a tax. Tax my gas to pay for roads etc. Pay monthly tuition for schools, to the teacher. Making taxes painful keeps them low. Spreading payments over 20 years is just like using credit cards. It is wasteful and deceptive spending.
No comments:
Post a Comment