Tax cap would be sensible way to curb government

Tears and bleeding hearts have been running rampant from your elected and hired "double-dippers" and civil servants. They would like you to believe their empire will crumble rapidly if you vote yes on the tax cap (Measure 4) on your Nov. 7 election ballot.

Please be informed and aware, that as the old adage goes, hogwash. No matter how you vote, yes or no, your civil servants may select and direct other avenues of endeavor for themselves to supplement their created empire of benefits, perks and egos. They also have the power - which you have bestowed upon them - to cut, axe, withdraw, reduce any way they see fit. They will sting you where they believe it will hurt you the most, unless there is an approaching election.

To identify a few:

Funding, grants and all monetary considerations, and

Improvements, projects, and services

What Mr. [Uwe] Kalenka has obtained for you may be a once in a lifetime opportunity to attempt to apply some minimal curtailment on the growth of government.

This tax cap measure for you to vote on is similar to California's Proposition 13. It was approved overwhelmingly by the citizens of their state. It applied throughout the state and had minimal effect on existing services.

You see, without the citizen taxpayers, government has no money of its own. The land is yours. The government then administers and taxes you to support their empire, but you own them! You pay their salaries/wages/benefits and perks! So, do you not have the right to provide civil servants with wisdom and direction? You did it with the permanent fund, but mark my words, they will be back again and again until they get it all!

It is estimated that the state gets 50-70 percent of your oil and gas revenues now and in time will squeeze for more until the fund is taken from government and placed in private enterprise.

Take note: now that Mr. Knowles has appointed Mr. Botelho to "guard the chicken coop," see what you receive in 2001 and thereafter. Just think, if your hired civil servants would graciously decline their PFD check each year and in turn would donate all or a portion thereof, it would reduce the burden on your tax dollar!

Also, please remember, voting "yes" on this tax cap does not and will not prohibit your civil servants from assessing your property each year. Government may still assess your property at 1 percent minimum of the market value each year, whether you make improvements or not.

I ask you, "Is this fair?" Who established the market value? Again, it's your friendly civil servants whose salaries are satisfied by you. This is like sending the fox to guard your chicken coop. Our responsibility as citizens is to monitor and control our elected civil servants and the scenario in which they expend our tax dollars. This is our charter and prerogative, to monitor and direct.

Now let's take a look at the banners, the "no tax cap" educators, civil servants and government sympathizers are crying about. You see, you never have had and never will have a direct say on how your tax dollar is expended. This is supposedly what you elected your civil servants to do - but remember, human nature and egos dictate what avenue they will proceed upon once elected to office.

I was fortunate enough to serve as a volunteer on Howard Jarvis' Proposition 13 edict to government to control spending.

Howard aggressively pushed this edict to the extreme for all home and property owners. It cost him his life, may he rest in peace. His supporters and constituents will always remain deeply grateful. Men like Jarvis, Braveheart, and Kalenka pass through once in a lifetime - don't miss it!

Here in Alaska, even Mike Doogan enjoys rapping about the "tax cap" and how civil servants are kind enough to provide the taxpayers with a portion of the oil revenues. Hey Mike, it's our land that the oil is being derived from. It is bad enough to have to buy it back from government, but that was long ago and you must sell newspapers.

Here are a few of the services identified by your bleeding hearts:

Issue - corrective action/alternatives

Education: fewer administrators would provide more funding to teachers and students and classrooms.

Education facilities: funded through state, borough, and city government and federal grants, all of which are taxpayer monies. Less repair and refurbishing dollars would be required when those who may be responsible for more than normal fair wear and tear make restitution. If new painting became necessary then parents, students, teachers, principals and administrators could satisfy same. After all, they are the cause and effect. More responsible care equates with longevity of facilities.

New education facilities: not required. Issue vouchers to private parties, institutes, home school, and take education away from the government. It has been proven by survey and statistics - better education at home and private institutes.

Public safety (police): What they lose as a result of budget cuts, they will make up for on traffic citations. After all, they make the rules - DMV. As for equipment - officers, supervisors, and chiefs would not have their own private patrol car for 24-hour use, 365 days of the year. The message is sharing, your father did. State and local public safety should share facilities and equipment, thus cost savings. No need to have their own separate empires. This is redundancy in its most visual and monetary form. Merge - think public safety first - cross-train.

Fire safety: What is lost or reduced as a result of budget curtailment may provide the department with an Explorer instead of an Expedition. Require them to take better care of their taxpayer-provided equipment for longer service life. In their many down-time hours they might engage in eliminating/reducing potential fire hazards. In addition, as with police, it would not be necessary to provide the chief and assistants with their very own Expeditions 365 days of the year. Look at the saving in fuel alone if no personal use were allowed. Reduce the off-site training sessions and meetings. Look at the travel and per-diem costs that could be realized. Postpone and/or eliminate new head-count forecasts. Cross-train for a true public safety (fire and police), thus reducing overall head and body count.

I ask you, "Why would not the Mat-Su Borough assembly and school board nix the tax cap as well as all other government representatives?" The answer: It's their bread and butter! It might impact their salaries, benefits, and egos.

When Mike Scott stated, "You could eliminate the entire borough government and still we could not satisfy 10 mills." Sixteen mills to 10 mills may require he and his staff and department heads to do a little belt-tightening. You, the taxpayers, all realize that when all departments submit their budget each fiscal year, they boost their submittal, knowing it will be cut. This is standard operating procedure.

It is a known fact that to get a sincere statement from a civil servant, he must be a very sincere friend and confidant, and the odds may still be 50/50. Look at former president George Bush and his "no new taxes!" You, the interested tax-cap voter, might ask yourself, "This measure is for the future and should have no effect on their present empire unless they are overstaffed to begin with."

This equates to poor management, budgeting, and planning. A "yes" on the tax-cap will only slightly curtail your civil servant providers. They will reduce as they see fit and add as they so desire. You have had no control where your tax dollar has gone before and you will have no control now. Whether you vote "yes" or "no" will have little effect on your present way of life.

Your elected civil servants will hit you where they think it will hurt the most, but only briefly, for when you recover, the next election will be on the horizon and so they will impose other monetary escalations. A sales tax is one solution.

By this method all citizens, noncitizens, visitors, and tourists will feed the government coffers. All this tax cap will do is send a message to government: Take a second look at their empire growth and development in their long-range planning scenario.

Another SOP by department heads in government is whatever allocated funding you are provided, spend it - even if there is no need - because you will be directed to refund it or will get less the next fiscal budget submittal.

So when you vote "yes" my concerned property owner, you will be assured of an interim measure of control on your big spenders. The Fairbanks North Star Borough senior advisory commission has recommended a "no" vote on the tax cap and the opinion is purely speculative. No one in your not-so-friendly government bureaucracy knows where the final changes will be made, if any, until after a successful "yes" vote.

Another source for expenditure of your tax dollar is known as "the study/analysis scenario." The same as budget analysis, cause and effect.

A writer for a senior newspaper notes the things/areas that will suffer:

If you have children in school - no change from what they now have. Things could even improve.

Adequate police, fire, EMT coverage - no change or reduction but maybe a slight decrease if department heads overbudgeted or made a speculative forecast due to population increases.

Bus transportation - use school buses for all citizens. Share, as they are minimally used only twice a day now and mostly idle on weekends. Making them available for use by the citizenry would at least offset operational costs.

Social services - no change from present, just no new enrollees.

Mayor Wuerch has the right approach. Take a look at your budget now, a good look, and if the tax cap is successful, take another look. A word of caution, though, George . . . the first time one of your constituents calls you about snow removal on the Hillside, you may again redirect your budget appropriations or plan only one term in office.

No recall, though, because the majority could care less. Have you, the taxpayer, ever asked yourself, "Why does the civil servant like home and property taxes so well?" Well, it's the easiest to get and easiest to increase! Two lump payments each year they can increase as they see fit, even without any change or improvements to your home or property.

Weren't you raised that way, to get the most for the least amount of effort?

By the way, Prop. 13 has been tested at least a half dozen times in California courts as unconstitutional. It was tossed out each time. The people have spoken!

This privilege may never come again and may only place very limited control, but on the other hand, a "no" vote will give your civil servants a license to run rampant - for they will then know their scare tactics worked once and will work again.

In closing, if Howard Jarvis were still present he would have turned [Mat-Su Borough Manager] Mike Scott into melted butter with his wit, knowledge, and forceful presentation of facts. A "yes" on the tax cap will benefit all home and landowners. It's your last and only chance to vote "yes."

Ed. J. Tremper is a Wasilla resident.