And another point about the 10 points

A Spectrum, by Sarah R. Welton

The "10 Point Budget Proposal" has again been touted in letters to the editor as an "articulate" worthwhile "plan!" I have refuted the plan previously as "not well thought out." I didn't go into depth because it is not a viable plan nor does it have 10 identifiable, definable points that make sense. It is a hodgepodge of ideas, thrown willy-nilly together without thought for lumping apples and oranges in the same basket, and without concern for the end results.

The second point in the budget proposal is an example of the mish-mash of categories. The author lumps "Reject New Taxes" in with the "Protection of the Permanent Fund," "Contract Services" and "Eliminate Laws and Regulations." These cannot in any way be addressed as one point -- and in fact they are not even addressed just listed. They are only related in "bottom line" thinking. "Bottom line" thinking, while representing financial interests, ignores human factors and does not provide for any thought to the future.

There is no mention as to how to eliminate the laws and statutes. It would be a monumental task requiring much funding to decide which half of all statutes and 80 percent of all regulations would be eliminated. Who will make these decisions? Which laws and statutes will go? Shall we get rid of civil codes and only have criminal codes? Could licensing of all vehicles go the way of snow-machine ordinances? Wait a minute, licensing helps fund safety and puts accountability on to the individual. Do we want to get rid of that? How about regulations for commerce, transportation, housing, healthcare and personal property? Where will the line be drawn? Will the citizens of Alaska be served? I think not. Each and every law has been enacted due to a need. While some needs do change, and regulations may be out of date, arbitrarily stating that half of statutes and 80 percent of the regulations should be eliminated makes little sense.

Another point combines cutting public assistance and funding to cities in the same sentence. They are not related and again only are connected in the "bottom line."

Cutting welfare hurts only the poorest of the poor and these include children. Children are our future. They are the future parents, educators, politicians, health care providers, lawyers, public safety officers, business people, bankers, etc. They also may be the future uneducated, unemployed, impoverished, health challenged and drug addicted. We, as a community, have a responsibility to plan and provide for the future. The "bottom line" connects here, too.

The revenue sharing that the cities receive helps provide services that the community wants and/or needs. Taxes from the local community will increase to provide some services if this is eliminated. What about communities that do not have a viable tax base? The people in those communities are still people who have needs, and again, the poorest of the poor are the ones who are hurt. The "bottom line" neglects the people and does not plan for the future.

My previous article to the Frontiersman on the budget proposal, specifically dealing with school vouchers, was discounted as 1950s liberal thinking in a later column. I discussed the issue of vouchers with the focus on the "we and they" attitudes that arise when we have separations. I related unifying experiences that combine people to form healthy communities as part of the reason that we have public schools. The truth of the matter is that studies done in the 1990s continue to report that when children are segregated by socio-economic status, race, gender, ability and other classifications, there is a much greater tendency for intolerance and violence.

I was also criticized for suggesting that greed motivates people. It does. Yes, there are those who are successful and should feel good about their success. There are some in our community that do not have the tools, knowledge or capability to succeed without help. Our faith communities, social service agencies, philanthropic groups and individuals are part of the system because it is part of being in a community. I am not saying that a person should be enabled to stay on assistance, but there are some that have greater needs for assistance because of life's circumstances. Any one of us could find ourselves without a job, food, shelter or support from family due illness, death in the family, divorce or accident. Some of us have the tools to survive without much help, but others do need help, and it will get worse if we don't work on the problems today.

Reasonable people understand that the purpose of government is to provide services and infrastructure that the community wants and that individuals cannot provide for themselves. Reasonable people understand that some things in life are not free. Responsible leaders look for revenue sources to provide the things that citizens need and things that communities want. Responsible leaders look at the future needs and concerns of all of the citizens not just the wealthy or powerful and not just here and now.

Sarah R. Welton is a Wasilla resident.