Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Where would you cut government spending?

Much has been said about the rise of property taxes, the cutting of levys, and where to cut government spending. One of the Libertarian campaign statements has consistently been Less Government.

At a summer council meeting, when tax statements had just come out, current Council warned us to be careful what we wanted to cut in government, lest we be without police, fire or other city services.

Indiana Barrister has a good summary of what the solution to property taxes to be in his article "Be careful what you wish for" (http://www.indianabarrister.com/):

"To solve the property tax problem, I go back to my old premises, there is too much government and too much spending in Indiana. There are too many taxing districts, too many counties, and too many elected and appointed officials. If you want lower taxes, you have to have less government to go along with it. Property taxes are not evil. There is certain logic to the land helping pay for benefits it receives. Schools, police, fire, roads and sewers are all paid for with property taxes. And if you reform the government, you can get the tax relief."

Where would YOU cut government spending? How would YOU reform government?

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

You should ask Abdul to talk up the HS situation on his radio show. Lot's of state insiders have their ear to 1430 AM WXNT from 6 - 10 AM.

Jennifer Jeffrey, Chair LPAC said...

He has been extremely supportive of the "Enough is Enough" in Government throughout the state, indeed.

He has listed our local Libertarian candidates on his website.

I will have to call him up and suggest it!

J Q Taxpayer said...

Let me see.... City Council seems to be a bunch of rubber stamps. We could save a couple hundred grand a year.....

Just kidding but I do feel like it.

When is the last time they told the Mayor "NO"

Tim Zank said...

Here's a start....
http://www.legistorm.com/member/Sen_Richard_Lugar/68.html......over $2 million a year for support staff

http://www.legistorm.com/member/Sen_Evan_Bayh/7.html also over $2 million a year for support staff....

How can the job be so complex it requires that kind of support staff?

This doesn't include the millions spent by both Senators on benign crap like offices, transportation, hell it goes on and on....

Go to http://www.legistorm.com/ and start adding up the ungodly amount of money spent on just "support staff"....It will make you physically ill, I promise.

herdgadfly said...

The school systems are eating up taxes also. Now that Brown vs Board of Ed has been put to sleep, let's return to neighborhood schools and shut down the busing routes. Heck, we might be able to afford to fix a couple of schools.

Jeff Pruitt said...

JQ,

To be fair the city council did tell the mayor "no" just last week when they cut the general fund to keep the property tax levy flat. The mayor and city controller were both against this yet the council did it anyway. I happened to believe the mayor was right on that one however...

J Q Taxpayer said...

Jeff,

You and I disagree on this one...

The Fire Cheif was there and said he had no real problem with the cut My bud, John Crawford made a comment I believe he had talked to Chief York and he was not opposed to it.

While Roller and the Mayor had a problem with their slush fund being cut everyone knew it was not a big deal.

In the last couple of months of a year Roller comes to the Council and rquest to move money from department to department. Not, within a department from line item to line item. You ever hear them talk about how much or what departments this is going to happen to?

Anonymous said...

I would cut money on those God awful Vote For Bob signs

Jeff Pruitt said...

JQ,

I suppose we do disagree as the money that was cut was not supposed to be "slush fund" money. It was money that had been earmarked to pay down our $218 Million worth of fire and police pension debt.

Having said that, since the money was not in a separate fund designated for pension debt, as Mike Sylvester said it should be, then I can understand how one would view it as a "slush fund".

J Q Taxpayer said...

I look at this way, "If you don't own it, you don't control it!" Which in this case if the money is not locked into the pension account then it is not in control. It can be spent any way some people want. Like maybe finding enough cash laying around to pay for a walkway. Then it will not cost us taxpayers anything. LOL