used for art, bike
Re: Optional sales tax
This can be the year of lower taxes in Sheridan County. The one-percent “optional” tax comes up for a vote in November and we have a chance to lower the sales tax to five percent. While we can’t lower our federal income tax, user fees or payroll (FICA) taxes, all we have to do is vote, to lower the sales tax burden.
Imagine the relief of keeping hundreds or thousands of dollars more of your money, in your pocket. A lower tax rate will attract new business and spur the local economy. Lower taxes are a proven economic method of boosting the economy. After five years of declining sales, we need a new approach. Re-imposing the state’s highest sales tax has not been working, since the 2008 “crash.” It’s time for lower taxes.
Since we get to choose our sales tax rate at the polls, a robust debate is needed. Informed voters make the best decisions. We will present the “low-tax” side of the debate, in a series of letters to this editor, in hopes of getting the “high-tax” side, to offer their justification. Waiting for the last minute and getting only the government supported, high tax side of the debate is a dis-service to voters. A vigorous debate that considers all sides of the sales tax issue, will produce fully-informed voters and the best outcome at the polls.
So to kick off the discussion, I offer reason number one for lower taxes: less force. Since all taxes are collected by threat of force, lower taxes reduce the amount of force applied to citizens. Force is not the preferred method of fund-raising in a free country. Free people rely on voluntary means to pay for needed services, especially for “nice to haves” like those specified in the one-percent “optional” Tax.
You see, the funds collected under the one-percent optional tax are only to be used for things in addition to “needed” items, which are already paid for with other taxes. Using government force to collect taxes for art, bike paths and other niceties is counter to the American ideal of voluntary cooperation.
Are we really a “community” if we rely on forced contribution instead of voluntary donations? Do we want to live in a place that forces people to support the arts? Wouldn’t Sheridan be an even nicer place with lower taxes and happy people, voluntarily donating their money?So, low-tax reason number one: less force.
What do you say?
RE: Dana Milbank column in SP
Dana Milbank has embarrassed himself yet again in public by attempting for the 1,372,569th time (give or take), to use his moronic attempt at humor, to deflect from the Congress’ attempt at getting to the bottom of who was behind the laughable alibi of an “anti Islamic video” as the supposed cause of the terrorist attack on our facility in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012.
Milbank gleefully cites numerous remarks by frustrated Republican congressmen in his latest sycophant article as (supposedly) “evidence” of the futility (in his opinion) of continuing to wade through the bureaucratic cover up surrounding the tragedy in Benghazi. In doing so, he shows only that either he has no clue as to how such operations work in Washington, or that he is so far in the tank for the Democrat Party in general (and Hillary Clinton in particular) that he’s willing to accept former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell’s laughable assertion that there was no political reason for editing the CIA’s “talking points” on Benghazi. Nope. Not a “smidgeon” of foul play here, to borrow a term used by Barack Obama as any possible corruption at the IRS. Anyone who has a “smidgeon” of knowledge about human intelligence operations knows that Morell’s lame excuse about taking the word of bureaucratic “analysts” at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, over the reports of the chief of station on the ground (in Libya) is not a CIA operation, but a CYA operation. The entire Benghazi mess reeks of political corruption and anyone with a modicum of common sense knows it.
I’m not sure what is more disgusting – the effort at deflecting attention from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, or Milbank’s column attempting to do so. If this is what passes for journalism in contemporary America, little wonder our country is in the shape it’s in. A constitutional republic can only survive if an informed citizenry has access to credible information based on which to make informed choices at the ballot box. Clearly, we were deprived of the truth during the 2012 election on this major foreign policy disaster by the “mainstream” media who have been more interested in protected their preferred politicians than in informing the public of the facts surrounding important events such as Benghazi. Milbank’s latest caricature of a column is a perfect example of the toadyism which has replaced journalism in America today.