"When they allow a talk show host to play them like a two-dollar banjo, they demonstrate what kind of backbone they'll bring to the job later on, if we elect them. After they get elected will they continue to allow Jeff Crank to put a nickel in them and wind them up every Saturday morning?"
Barry Noreen, former columnist, Colorado Springs Gazette
Barry Noreen, former columnist, Colorado Springs Gazette
Monday, November 16, 2009
"It's Quite Simple, Governor, Really!"
by John Alexander Madison
November 16, 2009
Is your income less this year than it was last year? Or worse, are you currently unemployed, living on unemployment compensation, and suffering flow cash flow issues? If "yes," then I know your answers to the next questions..."yes, yes, yes, yes and yes."
The next questions are "Have you cut back on your overall expenses? Are you eating out less often? Are you ironing shirts rather than taking them to the dry cleaner? Have you or are you trying to refinance your home mortgage? Are you putting off the purchase of a new car, you know, the one you want to have but don't really need?
Have you put vacation plans on hold and decided to stay home to clean out the garage or basement rather than travel to Amsterdam next spring to see the tulips in bloom? Perhaps, you are planning to use that vacation money to pay down some of those high interest, annoying, and growing credit card balances.
After all, it is common sense, isn't it? When income is down responsible people cut their spending. How difficult is that to figure out? We are all doing it, learning to live with less until we can take back our state government, send home the tax and spenders and return the government of the people, by the people, and for the people, TO THE PEOPLE. That means we must elect representatives who believe in the limited role of government, those who will govern on the principles which will bring most of them into office. How often have we seen "politicians" flip flop faster than a flounder on the dry docks adjacent to Joe Patti's fleet? Answer: all too often.
While Governor Ritter laments declining revenues flowing into the coffers of his favorite state agency, The Department of Revenue, all he seems capable of doing is proposing new sources of revenue...including a tax on formerly exempt consumer products like candy and soft drinks. Hey, if you want to eat those tasty treats in excess and let your teeth rot that is your business, isn't it? But don't, thereafter, come running to the government for free dental care. You have been forewarned...sugar, especially in excess, is bad for your teeth and bad teeth could lead to other major health issues. We all know that and if we choose to ignore these warnings we must take personal responsibility for our actions or suffer the consequences. Pretty simple concept, isn't it. Speaking of teeth, if the Governor has his way, eating sweets will also take a bite out of your wallet.
Governor Ritter's good friend, Barrack Hussein Obama seems intrigued with the idea of taxing candy and soft drinks and our first (and last) term Governor seems similarly inclined. So, knowing that candy and soft drinks are really bad for your health I can see it coming...the federal and state governments will spend millions to promote the sale of sugar-related products in order generate even more millions in new tax revenues. There is some logic in that, until you realize that as the teeth of Americans begin to rot, the incidence of diabetes will also skyrocket, and the general health and well-being of all Americans will deteriorate overnight. ("all Americans" being defined as citizens and non-citizens alike, to be politically correct.) And then, to our surprise, everyone will be demanding free government health care because the government allowed us, no encouraged us, to buy more candy, knowing full well it was bad for us.
If you think about it, that is the plan, isn't it? The government wants to control all aspects of our lives...to tell us what we can eat, what kind of car we can buy, what union we must join, how much we can earn, how much of our income we can keep, the degree of medical care we can get depending on our age (in other words how long we can live), and more. But you don't want that and I don't either.
Some calculations suggest the government might have to impose a $1 tax on a $1 can of soda or a candy bar in order to cover future medical costs for those with a sweet tooth, and a mouth full of rotten ones at that. Of course, the tax could be more if Governor Ritter follows Barrack Hussein Obama's federal tax on sweets with a state one as well.
Absurd, you say, that won't happen? Perhaps. But I'd put the current odds at 4-to-1 that the party in control (actually out of control) in Denver will impose such a tax.
And that is just the beginning. Did you know that the aforementioned Amsterdam (The Netherlands) is giving serious thought to charging car owners an annual mileage tax? If that sounds familiar, it should since the idea was recently floated in Denver.
The end is not in sight. Four hundred and fifty thousand Coloradans don't have to be reminded that their annual senior property tax exemption was stolen from them this year and for the foreseeable future. Assuming 50% of the population still worship at the altar of Bill Ritter that means 225,000 won't be voting for him next year. What do you call that? A good start!
Governor Ritter believes a good start was holding the door to state government wide open for labor unions, exorbitant vehicle registration fee increases, tripling marriage license fees in the last 6 months, and more. Governor Ritter does NOT believe in cutting spending. He does not know how to.
Revenues are down for everyone and your local and state governments are no exception. But while you and I cut expenses our government seems more inclined to impose new taxes and fees than cutting expenses. That must change.
If Governor Ritter will follow our lead, by reducing spending when revenues are down, he might salvage his governorship and quite possibly earn a second term in 2010. But it may take more than that, like retracting the higher vehicle registration fees, the marriage license fee hikes and not implementing the proposed tax on candy and soda. On the one hand I would welcome that...yes the fee retractions, no new taxes, no government mandated health care plans, a reduction in State spending and a second term for Governor Ritter.
(NOTE: That last sentence was written shortly after I returned to Colorado from sea level today while my brain was oxygen deprived.)
A much better scenario, of course, would be a reduction in state spending, retraction of recently imposed new fees and taxes, and a complete overhaul of state government, beginning with early retirement for Governor Ritter and his legislative cronies.
We must return a large degree of sanity and fiscal control to our state government by sending a resounding "no" message to Denver similar to the one the citizens of Colorado Springs delivered to City Council on November 3rd.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing..." Edmund Burke