Saturday, September 26th, 2009...6:27 am
Tea Partiers: Against Tax Increases, ‘Cept When They Are For Them
Jump to Comments
Our local tea partiers showed up in front of the police station at Alvernon and 22nd to protest for Proposition 200. I wonder if organizer Trent Humphries bothered to tell them that 200 would almost surely result in tax and fee increases. Judging from the quotes in the Star article on the subject, I’d say not.
22 Comments
September 26th, 2009 at 9:18 am
I think the ‘tea partiers’ have grossly miscalculated.
If you had a job involving customer service, and the one customer came up, cut in line ahead of other customers, screamed in your face and demanded that you do something (all the while making it very clear that (s)he really prefered your competitor) and the second customer waited in line and told you politely but firmly what (s)he wanted, which customer would you be most enthusiastic to serve?
The right is treating our members of Congress like automatons, believing that their view is the only one worth hearing, and thinking they can bully these congress members into going along with them by making veiled threats, disrupting scheduled town halls and in the process preventing other voices from being heard.
I think this is going to backfire on them because the members of Congress are actually human beings and don’t like being treated that way any more than anyone else does.
Most of us however have politely but clearly let our members of Congress know what we want (in particular in regard to a vote on health care reform) and I suspect that this kind of quiet, respectful lobbying will go a long way towards making a difference with them.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:55 am
The star ran an article covering the event. It didn’t mention anything at all about the irony involved or the consequences of the initiative. Nothing.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:06 am
It takes a person with critical thinking abilities to discern that.
Not someone who listens to talk radio for their talking points.
September 28th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
And Paul Eckerstrom’s propositions for TUSD programs won’t raise taxes?
September 28th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Nice try there, Mapwife. Supporters of the override have never said that there will not be a tax increase. Part of their pitch at events I’ve been to has been that there would be one, but that they think the voters will agree that it is worth it. In fact, the amount that taxes will be raised is part of the proposition’s language as per state law.
The big question here is when will they people pushing for proposition 200 be honest about the tax and budget hit that they are proposing?
September 28th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Yep.
Prop 200 is EXACTLY the type of thing that the teabaggers have always claimed to hate; an unfunded spending spree that will raise taxes.
Their support of prop 200 would seem to directly contradict their stated cause.
September 28th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Except for if you rtfa, the quote is:
“Trent Humphries, the organizer of the event, said members within the loosely organized coalition are split on whether to endorse the initiative, with some saying it goes too far and others believing city officials need prodding to establish minimum safety standards. But what they could all agree on, he said, is that they appreciate first responders in the community and want to encourage city officials to support them.”
Reading, its FUNdamental!
Ideally we wouldn’t need prop 200, because our city council SHOULD prioritize first responders over artist colonies. The best thing would be is to throw out their Shelko-hiring behinds, and put responsible representation in place.
C’mon, you know these people are horrible managers, it’s OK to say it.
September 28th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Framer-
62% of the city’s general fund is spent on public safety. That sounds pretty high priority to me.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Yeah, but you know it really challenges conservatives’ hold on reality when they are confronted by the fact that voters have sometimes intentionally voted to tax themselves to fund a worthwhile project. They find that stunning and stand there slackjawed at the idea that this could actually happen and that it does happen sometimes.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
These morons profess over and over to want LESS government. I remind them all the time that this means fire and police. Their interest in less taxes and government means less pay and a poorer quality of life for our first responders.
Also, folks the police in Tucson is 30-35% of the budget. Our largest item by far.
Everyone here is right when they say that prop 200 will mean a massive deficit and more taxes. Period. Even the brass in TPD say this and know it.
September 29th, 2009 at 7:22 am
Why do you people hate our police department?
September 29th, 2009 at 9:24 am
I don’t live in Tucson so this isn’t my fight,
but I do want to remind people of some history.
In 1993 President Clinton proposed and got Congress to pass a crime bill which put 100,000 police on the street.
Between the passage of that crime bill and when Clinton left office crime all over the country declined steeply, according to FBI statistics about 35%. Since then it has remained relatively flat.
But rarely do you hear Republicans, who opposed the crime bill at the time saying it would be ineffective (remember them zeroing in on a small anti-gang program contained in it and criticizing ‘midnight basketball’) and a waste of money, giving President Clinton the credit he deserves for delivering on his promise to reduce crime.
So with their opposition to the Clinton crime bill at the time and their choosing to completely ignore the fact that it was one of the most successful bills passed by Congress in the past two decades, I always wonder now when I see conservatives talking about needing ‘more cops.’ Because it seems they are selective about when they suggest it.
September 29th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Framer-
Come on, do you honestly believe that?
September 29th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Framer,
Why do you want to bankrupt the city to advance the partisan agenda of a bunch of folks who don’t live here?
September 29th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Framer,
Your party continues to USE the police to your ends. What a joke to even suggest that we hate police. Your party is about slashing govt. to the bear bones and at the same time lowering taxes. Put it this waym, your recipe is what is hurting our law enforcement officers the most. Period. EXCLAMATION even.
Officers are public servants. They are government employees. They are what your little tea party derides…over and over.
That rally of yours was just another silly little stunt to try to make people believe that you give a crap about cops while you advocate slashing their budgets.
September 29th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
It seems to me that the pro-200 position is the one that disparages law enforcement by implying they are not doing a good job. In contrast, those of us against this unfunded mandate believe our current public servants are already doing an excellent job and there’s no need to pass something that ultimately results in restricting funding for preventative programs that actually make their jobs easier.
September 29th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Eli,
That is an easy question. Local police force levels are a local concern. The federal government really has no business getting involved.
Tom,
No, I don’t really believe that. Will you admit that taking a financial and fiscal crisis and trying turn it into hyperbolic emotional appeal is silly? Same for police AND teachers?
Kral,
You, my friend, have proven time and time again that you have no clue of what my party is about. At every turn you have gotten everything wrong. How we were organized, how we are run, and what we are about.
Government needs to be cut, the growth that you want is simply not sustainable. Look at the graph:
http://deceiver.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/obama-deficit.jpg
The above chart very likely underestimates the problem.
-from NRO-
“The unfunded liability for Social Security is $17.5 trillion in 2009, according to a 2009 National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) brief. What’s more, Medicare Part A is underfunded by $36.7 trillion, Part B by $37.0 trillion and Part D by $15.6 trillion, bringing the total unfunded liability for Social Security and Medicare to some $106.8 trillion.”
And you want to add MORE social spending. Of course sane people are going to kick back. That is what we are about. I don’t want to see my children saddled with the tax rate that will have to result from this mess. What about the children, Kral?
As long as you get yours, I guess. . .
September 29th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
michael,
The people actually doing the job disagree with you. Ask a first responder what they think. You are allowed to speak to them.
Again, I’m not even convinced that prop 200 is the answer. I do not trust the current city council to do right by our police and fire departments, however. They were short funding them even when the money was there. Just vote ‘em out.
September 29th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Framer, I guess it depends on the first responders you talk to. Those I’ve heard from see Prop 200 for the sham it is. It will not do anything to boost their morale or (already effective) performance. In fact, with fewer deterrents thanks to budget cuts that Prop 200 will necessitate, their jobs will become more difficult.
And the City Council has provided for public safety staffing increases already through the Financial Sustainability Plan in 2006. At least that plan allows the Council some flexibility in unexpectedly tough financial times such as these. Amending the City Charter as Prop 200 tries to do would lock in those spending increases with no mechanism to pay for them and would tie the hands of this or any future Council, including one you might prefer to this one.
September 30th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Framer:
Short answer:
The Federal Government has every business getting involved because hiring more police costs money and if the level of police protection locally is inadequate then they should fix the problem because inadquate police staffing and the attendant high crime rate threatens everyone.
Specifically, as a resident of a rural area of northern Arizona I probably pay more tax to hire cops in cities (including that I pay to the Feds which then gets sent to cities) than I have coming back, but I have no problem with this because 1) when I do go to a city like Phoenix or Tucson I have less to fear from local hoods, and 2) I get the money back because the lower crime rate means less taxpayer money going to pay for courts, prisons and other expenses that go up if the crime rate goes up.
September 30th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Plus, as an American citizen I am willing to pay taxes to help other Americans simply as a function of a belief in basic fairness and patriotism. So for example I don’t mind paying taxes to help people in California rebuild, repair or prevent damage from future earthquakes, residents of Florida do the same for hurricanes or of Kansas do the same for tornados (even though where I live there is less danger of any of the above.) I still believe that a strong society is one which provides for those most in need.
October 1st, 2009 at 10:15 am
Framer,
“Emotional hyperbole” is one of the catchphrases conservatives use whenever they are called out for being crass or outright short-sighted. I suggest you look the word “hyperbole” up in the dictionary and see what it really means.
One great example of actual hyperbole is the assumption that Tucson is a cesspool of crime, but the numbers do not bear this out. Crime is down over 20% in Tucson in the last decade or so, and our statistics with regard to public safety compare favorably with most other Arizona cities. These numbers are consistent with my personal experience as a Tucson resident.
I bring that last point up to emphasize that, unlike the most prominent supporters of this initiative, I actually live in Tucson.
As for bankrupting Tucson, if this is an exageration, it is not much of one. The money to fund this simply does not exist. One supporter even suggested that we could cut costs by housing the new police in modular buildings, so even the proponents of this have admitted that they haven’t really thought this through.
And, of course, the idea proposed by Councilwoman Uhlich’s opponent that the City will simply grow its way to being in a position to pay for this is the same faulty supply side theology that has been guiding the legislature’s budget policy, and we see where that has gotten us.
I realize that Republicans are feeling left out of setting policy in Tucson, but the way to get some of their folks elected might be to find someone other than partisan buffoons to run and not to destroy City government.