Republicans and “Fiscal Conservatism”
Holy cow…I’m a little slow posting on this but Rob Miller left the coolest comment on Tyler Farrer’s Davis County Watch blog. Here’s a snippet of the comment that made me smile really big:
…Davis County citizens need to prepare for continued property tax increases.
The reason for these continued tax increases are simple; our current elected officials need more money to pay higher administration costs (salaries) to themselves and their friends, while they continue to ignore, and /or reduce real services that are so badly needed for seniors citizens, mental health, law enforcement, and infrastructure of Davis County.
…the Davis County tax payer…can look forward to higher taxes with less services and increased administration costs (salaries) as long as we continue to punch a straight party ticket. Diversity is a necessary component in government, and if applied will take Davis County in a much needed new direction of fiscal responsibility and conservatism.
We cannot continue to build convention centers that need to be expanded after only a few years standing, or waste money for studies to increase speed limits when a qualified commissioner could do the same study with no additional cost to the tax payer. That’s why we elect qualified people, to spend our money wisely, not irresponsibly.
Davis County citizens should also ask their commissioners why the flood control facilities have not been maintained by the money bonded to do so back when these controls were first put into place.
Amen Brother!
The County Commissioners in Davis County sign my small bi-weekly paychecks so I like to be careful when talking about this subject…but lets just say they are very well rewarded for their public service with a six figure salary and enormous benefits package. When Rob says administration costs are out of countrol he’s not just blowing smoke. When there isn’t any partisan competition for seats on the County Commission there isn’t anyone there to put pressure on administrators to keep them from giving themselves huge salary and benefit increases. Thats bad news…and its the way things currently are in Davis County.
This is yet another example of Republican lip service to the principles of fiscal conservatism. Republicans always talk a really big game about making government smaller. In real life a vote for Republican government is a vote for larger yet less useful government than ever before. You guys on the “right” may not like it…but history shows this is the way things have been for a long time. Do you really think things will change if you keep electing Republicans to government at every level again and again? I know you guys are smarter than that! I’ve read your blogs!
6 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
“as long as we continue to punch a straight party ticket.”
That, for me, is the clincher. I had a good freind who voted a straight republican ticken on principle… her husband did too. They told me I was going to hell because all Democrats believe that abortion should be legalized.
How on earth can someone grow up in America a beleive that it’s wise to vote entirely in accord with one political faction, on principle?
And I agree that limiting govt would be a nice goal… but I’m not sure, yet (I’m still young, politically speaking) that the libertarian method of eliminating government is the way to do it. But my dh would agree with you, for sure.
Comment by Sare — August 15, 2006 @ 10:05 pm
The question I would pose to Rob Miller is, if elected would you take a pay cut?
Comment by Tyler Farrer — August 16, 2006 @ 8:37 am
Boiling it down to “will Miller take a pay cut?” misses the whole point. The problem is the lack of partisan opposition to never ending administrative costs brought on by one party government that has no incentive to change.
Tyler, I’ll bet that you wouldn’t support Miller even if he did promise a pay cut (which he shouldn’t unless he can get the whole commission to do the same).
You’re snipe here is indicitive of the problem we are facing. Even in the face of an excellent argument about why yet another term of one party dominance on the County Commission would be bad for all of us Republican diehards refuse to concede for even a moment that their opposition might have a point. Party over principle.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — August 16, 2006 @ 9:40 am
For a significant number of our Utah Republicans, social conservatism far outweighs fiscal conservatism. A lot of them don’t necessarily see the GOP as good, but more like the lesser of two evils. Since they are admonished to be politically active, they feel compelled to select the one they see as more socially conservative.
You can lecture folks all you want about the morality of environmentalism, corporate greed, universal health care, etc., but the social conservatives aren’t buying any of it. It comes down to the litmus issues of abortion and welfare, and increasingly national security. Attitudes on these things aren’t going to change any time soon, so don’t look for a major Utah shift toward Democrats until demographics change (a process that is underway).
I would love to see some fiscal conservatism exercised at all levels of government. But I’m not very hopeful that I will.
Comment by Reach Upward — August 16, 2006 @ 3:58 pm
Social conservatives who don\’t care about how their government is run or about the corruption and inefficiencies that are bred by a one party system just need to be educated. That’s what this blog is all about
Reach Upward, if you won\’t consider voting for Democrats on the principle that you think you can assume you know where we all stand on abortion, gay marriage and other social issues then you aren\’t following the council of our church leaders:
Rob Miller (quoted in the post above), Jim Matheson, Christian Burridge and many other Utah Democrats clearly tow the line on the social issues you consider your \”litmus issues\”. They are “‘wise,’ good,’ and ‘honest’” and they have campaigned on the platform of making Utah a safe and successful place to be. To automatically write off candidates who support your social views and who could help put a stop to the problems inherent in a one party system of government seems rather shortsighted.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — August 17, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
I never said anything about my voting patterns; I’m presenting an analysis of how I perceive that a number of Utah voters think. As for myself, I’m pretty chapped about the lack of fiscal conservatism among our elected ‘conservatives.’
Comment by Reach Upward — August 22, 2006 @ 7:30 am