| OCR Text |
Show THE ZEFHYRSEPTEMBER 1993 PAGE 18 every level, the government is after more and more of our money. I also found it interesting that Ken reported as a "fact" that "running a hospital, especially in rural areas, is invariably a money loser, requiring subsidies from local government" Maybe Allen Memorial Hospital has been a consistent money loser in the past but nothing condemns any enterprise to lose money forever. Perhaps a little' more careful and creative analysis of the operations and finances of the hospital is in order before a taxpayer bailout is called for. If the hospital was a $250,000 problem last year, why is a new tax generating $1,000,000 a year the solution? Without questioning the integrity, competence or good faith of the administrator and the hospital board in foe slightest, taxpayers should expect that anyone asking for a subsidy will seek more (and possibly much more) than tax when nobody they actually need. Why should local voters burden themselves with any new Clintons will the require us to pay for knows what additional "contributions" or "premiums" health care reform and other government programs they think we can't do without? As Ken accurately points out, if local government raises either sales or property taxes (or both), taxpayers are going to be out of pocket a significant amount of money. Paying more taxes to benefit the hospital may be worth the expense, but forgive me if I have my doubts. As a general rule, individuals are better at spending and investing their money than politicians. Ever notice that most government employees seem to be driving newer cars than you do? Did they buy new vehicles with the last tax increase they took from you? What model will they be driving next lmrwrf A Rutter By Hank Rutter year? Big Bill's Tax Plan for years, I recently became concerned about the lack Having read the Zephyr of diversity in the editorial content of the paper. Surely not everyone in Moab voted for Bill Clinton, and is hopelessly politically correct. Surely not everyone in Moab thinks the solution to every problem is more government regulation funded by more taxes, and that private sector growth is detrimental to our quality of life. Surely not everyone faces the future with the same sense of foreboding which has characterized many of Stiles' columns this past year. Where is the voice of conservatives who love Southern Utah? So I wrote several letters to the editor - one about why I didn't vote for Clinton, (me about the Lani Guilder episode, and the last in jest suggesting die formation of the Zephyr Thought for a liberal, printed each of them in the Police. Stiles, showing remarkable Feedback section. He also provided a little feedback of his own to my last effort, calling it "an diatribe." I gave him a telephone call to thank him for outrageous, the high praise, and we traded a few polite barbs. We decided to meet, and after I swore on some Clinton campaign literature (I have no problem swearing around that stuff) that 1 never defaced a petroglyph and had nothing to do with the building of the Glen Canyon Dam, he concluded I might be a homo sapiens after all. So I got to be the Zephyr's token conservative. I feel like Bill Clinton when he spoke to the Vietnam veterans cm Memorial Day. It seems like taxes are a hot topic in Grand County these days, and taxes are just the sort of thing that gets a conservative's juices flowing. Ken Davey's column last month examined the proposed 1 sales tax to fund local health care. The gist of Ken's article was that an increase in foe property tax would be preferable to foe imposition of a sales tax because a sales tax is regressive and a property tax would hit the wealthy harder. In his zeal to take more from the affluent, Ken completely missed the boat First a sales tax can be structured to reduce hardship on those with lower incomes in several ways, perhaps by exempting purchases of food and medicine, for example. Second, the property tax only reaches tangible property, thus benefitting the most affluent people who tend to hold more intangible assets like stocks, bonds, and certificates of deposit The property tax makes no allowance fat the amount of debt encumbering property, and increasing property tax will make it harder for many families already struggling to make their mortgage and car payments. Most importantly, raising property taxes will exacerbate Moab's most critical problem - foe lack of affordable housing. Landlords can be expected to pass along the increased taxes in higher rents, and the dream of home ownership will become just that much more elusive for the average Moab resident Low income folks can moderate their behavior somewhat to avoid an increased sales tax by making fewer purchases and making do with what they have. They can't fail to pay foe rent or make the mortgage payment, each of which will be higher if property taxes go up. Raising property taxes is one of foe best ways to accelerate the "Aspen ization" of Moab. The beauty of the sales tax (if there is anything beautiful about a new tax) is that it will principally be paid by tourists who come here for a few days of sightseeing, and who are, for foe most part, still pleasantly surprised at how inexpensive a vacation they can have here. The best argument for raising the property tax is that at least individuals who itemize can deduct property tax on the federal tax returns, but nobody can deduct sales taxes. I assume Ken would think that aspect of federal tax law unfairly favors the wealthy, and he might have a good argument if everyone who has property were "rich." But in our country, unlike many others on earth, almost all of us have property, and almost all of us pay more property tax than we would like. Ken really got exercised about the "outrageous" tax break Columbia Gas and various hotel owners would get if a sales tax were enacted instead of increasing the property tax. Only in the Zephyr do businesses get a tax break by not having a new tax imposed on them. Based on the recent tax notices most of us received, only in Grand County is it possible that both a new sales tax will be imposed and property taxes increased by over 25 ! I think its outrageous that, at semi-religious- ly open-mindedne- one-side- ss ve d, K-A-- 1 MOVNTA-I391 S. MAIN ST. N &IKET0U&4 259-74- 23 featuring: or 800-451-11- 33 SALSA - SLINGSHOT - BONTRAGER FAT CHANCE - TREK - SCOTT President Clinton's tax plan has become law, and it looks suspiciously like the 1990 plan that didn't work. It will be hard for Democrats to blame Republicans for raising taxes next election, and voters hopefully will have a long enough memory to send Democrat legislators home in droves when they get the chance. The Democratic Party can't be seriously expected to reduce the size and cost of government, since public employee unions are its largest funding source. To reduce the federal tax burden, some government programs have to be eliminated and some government employees have to lose their jobs, neither of which will occur under Clinton's "business as usual" plan. Clinton's commitment to "reinvent government" is as real as the "middle class tax cut" he promised. It is true as din ton suggests that most of foe direct burden falls on those with higher incomes. He doesn't tell you about the indirect harm to the middle class that fewer jobs and a slowing economy will cause. He makes light of foe very real gas tax he has imposed on everyone by saying foe average direct cost to taxpayers is a "dime a day." He doesn't tell you about the higher shipping costs that will be passed down to you every time you buy groceries or clothes. And he acts as though he really cut federal spending, but neglects to mention that most of the cuts are reductions in increases in federal spending and aren't scheduled to occur until at least three years from now. Not a single government program was eliminated, and not a single government employee will be laid off. If this is the "change" he promised, I would have preferred foe status qua Would foe Republicans have done significantly better if they had the absolute power the Democrats have today? Republicans are our best hope, but foe reality is that bureaucrats run the show. We don't elect them, we can't fire them, our elected officials can't fire them, and nobody can get them to take a pay cut. They get more holidays, better pensions, and make higher salaries on the average than we do. The huge excess cost of foe federal bureaucracy just gets passed on to us in the form of endless tax increases. We know the Democrats are in their hip pockets, but what if the Republicans can't control them? Politicians come and go, but bureaucracy is forever. |
