Alpine ‘torn’ over basketball tax

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/north/alpine/article_de9ae0da-286d-5150-b3cd-3a493b30e377.html

“I have a hard time with subsidies,” said Councilman Brad Reneer. “The city doesn’t subsidize piano lessons or dance lessons. I don’t feel I have the right to have the citizens of Alpine pay for my son” to play basketball.

It is hard for me to justify any kind of subsidies, even when I benefit monetarily from them.  I think parks and recreation is a legitimate function of local government but the “recreation” part needs some strict limits.  I just felt that this went beyond what is justifiable and, besides, we just can’t afford it right now.

Some good articles about subsidies:

Rolling Back Government: Lessons from New Zealand by Maurice P. McTigue

Then we asked the final question: “Who should be paying—the taxpayer, the user, the consumer, or the industry?” We asked this because, in many instances, the taxpayers were subsidizing things that did not benefit them. And if you take the cost of services away from actual consumers and users, you promote overuse and devalue whatever it is that you’re doing.

Future Prospects for Economic Liberty by Walter Williams

Again, the primary justification for increasing the size and scale of government at the expense of liberty is that government can achieve what it perceives as good. But government has no resources of its own with which to do so. Congressmen and senators don’t reach into their own pockets to pay for a government program. They reach into yours and mine. . . .

Speaking of the ballot box, we can blame politicians to some extent for the trampling of our liberty. But the bulk of the blame lies with us voters, because politicians are often doing what we elect them to do. The sad truth is that we elect them for the specific purpose of taking the property of other Americans and giving it to us. Many manufacturers think that the government owes them a protective tariff to keep out foreign goods, resulting in artificially higher prices for consumers. Many farmers think the government owes them a crop subsidy, which raises the price of food. Organized labor thinks government should protect their jobs from non-union competition. And so on. We could even consider many college professors, who love to secure government grants to study poverty and then meet at hotels in Miami during the winter to talk about poor people. All of these—and hundreds of other similar demands on government that I could cite—represent involuntary exchanges and diminish our freedom.

This reminds me of a lunch I had a number of years ago with my friend Jesse Helms, the late Senator from North Carolina. He knew that I was critical of farm subsidies, and he said he agreed with me 100 percent. But he wondered how a Senator from North Carolina could possibly vote against them. If he did so, his fellow North Carolinians would dump him and elect somebody worse in his place. And I remember wondering at the time if it is reasonable to ask a politician to commit political suicide for the sake of principle. The fact is that it’s unreasonable of us to expect even principled politicians to vote against things like crop subsidies and stand up for the Constitution. This presents us with a challenge. It’s up to us to ensure that it’s in our representatives’ interest to stand up for constitutional government.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.