Cost of Government Deniers

Folks have been reacting to the comparative budget analysis performed by Lopezian Nick Jones. Most people have been very supportive, and many citizens think Nick did a heroic job that is long overdue. For those who haven't seen the analysis, Nick computes the cost of government here versus other counties in Washington. He finds that costs are significantly higher here than in all other counties. Surprised?

Nick's clearly stated and well supported claim has brought out the traditional County apologists, who are attacking Nick's analysis on a variety of dimensions. One of the people trying to "set the record straight" is Sharon Kivisto of sanjuanislander.com. In the past, she has been fond of saying that we have the lowest tax rate in the state, and when you look at the tax rate on a per parcel basis, there is some support for her claim. However, when you look at tax rates on a per capita basis, the view is completely different. We have the highest, not the lowest, tax rate, and that is the gist (and genius) of Nick's analysis. Since it is people who pay taxes, not parcels, the better benchmark is to examine the burden on the taxpayers.

In her response to Nick's analysis, Kivisto uses many of the same arguments that we've heard over and over, especially during the solid waste fiasco: we have higher costs here; we have triplication of facilities; we have to ride the ferries. All have a grain of truth to them, but these "reasons" for our higher costs are overused and abused excuses. Ultimately, the public grew tired of these excuses for solid waste incompetence, and I think the same is happening with respect to the County as a whole.

More and more people are refusing to buy into the County's schtick. The County is about to pass a "tax" (CAO/SMP) that will cost private citizens a whopping amount off their personal "balance sheets." It will provide essentially no revenue to the County, but increase government's enforcement responsibilities and associated costs. The County is committing itself to what amounts to a no growth strategy, but they still want increased tax revenue too. We hear some Councillors say we "need to at least maintain what we have" regarding county infrastructure. But the County is not equally committed to the premise that private citizens should be able to "maintain what we have." In fact, via non-conforming policies, buffers, etc., it seems the County is doing everything it can to make sure we are forbidden from maintaining what we have. The County has shown no respect for maintaining the capital infrastructure of people's lives.

With no growth, all taxation efforts are a zero sum game, and government revenues can only be increased at the expense of the rest of society. It turns into "us versus them." Speaking of "them" (see attachment), how many people do you know who work 20 hours/week and get $753 per month paid by their employer toward health insurance (and dental) AND $3,000 for a spending account?  How many people do you know who work 20 hours/week (or even 40 or 60 for that matter) and get their kids covered UNTIL THEY ARE 25????

And a 3% COLA ... or full-time pension benefits?