Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Revoking CPA is like giving money away?

We have another guest blog post today, this one from Chuck Belisle another Sturbridge resident.


I am surprised, saddened and ashamed!  How so? My military schooling has taught me that every good presentation must have three main points and a conclusion. No more no less.... So here goes.
  • First: “Good Deals” are everywhere. Jos A. Banks is giving away a free suit, two free shirts, and two free silk ties! So why aren't we all sitting around in Jos A. Banks suits? Perhaps it is because we realize that even good deals cost money. If we took advantage of all of them, we would have no money left for the things in life we really need. Most of us realize that, with the possible exception of the noon meal program at government funded schools, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Everyone needs
a Gadsen Flag
Order from Amazon
  • Second: We are told that the money is there. Wonderful! Where did it come from? Obvious answer; from you and me and every taxpayer in town. And we are told, it's just like “Buy Two Get One Free” with the State paying $49.25 for every $100 we spend! What a great deal! And we all know that whenever the State needs money for deals like this, they just knock off a chunk of gold from the dome. Right? Or does the State actually get the money from our taxes? Are we so naive that we don't realize that WE are paying for this GREAT DEAL! Both ways, Town and State. We have been taxed, and the only reason the money is there is that we have already had our pocket picked. The State isn't giving us anything. And what about next year? Where will the money to continue our annual contribution for CPA spending come from? I suspect you already know the answer, so I won't surprise you.... By the way; have your taxes gone down? Mine sure haven't, and I will sell my home in an instant to anyone who offers me half of the Town appraisal.
  • Third: I am out of money. I am on a fixed income, and if you do not work for the Town, County, State, or Federal government (with the singular exception of the United States Military), and if you are fortunate enough to have a job, you most likely are also. It is not easy to walk into the boss' office and suggest he give you a raise because you want to take advantage of the great deal at Jos A. Banks. My pockets have been picked clean, my credit maxed out, and if you haven't noticed, this State's and the Federal Government's credit is also maxed out. Each and every man, woman and child in the US, (all 300 million of us), owe $50,000 as our share of the $16Trillion National debt. That figure of course assumes that all those 300 million folks are going to pay their fair share. Since less than half of the eligible taxpayers in this country actually contribute to the government coffers (the other half take...), that means the share left for those of us who do, is closer to $150,000. That's some terrific legacy to dump on our children and grandchildren. However, if you ask any politician (and I bet they will be wearing a suit) where the $16T went, I guarantee he or she will tell you that every penny went for a “good deal” or a “great project”!
Friends, it is time to stop the madness! Pass up the GOOD DEAL, the GREAT PROJECT. It is time to STOP SPENDING! The government needs to adopt the same budget strategy that we all use at home. If we don't NEED it, don't buy it!  If you can't pay for it all now, right now, don't buy it. If we have to use next year's income to pay the debt, pass up the good deal. And sadly, I submit that if we  do as has been suggested, and “We take our piece of the pie” because if we don't someone else will get it, we perpetuate the kind of unabashedly selfish and irrational thinking that got us into this economic mess. I am saddened and ashamed that a fellow Sturbridge resident would promote such an egotistical and self serving proposal of spending for things we really don't need in these terrible economic times, under the precept that if we don't spend the funds someone else will. This concept is nauseatingly reminiscent of the government mentality that exists at the end of each fiscal year, when every agency is urged to spend every last penny in their appropriation, for fear next year's budget will be cut. What a sad way to run a business.... While we were told that putting the CPA “on hold” would not decrease taxes, realistically and logically, if we spend for only what we really need from the Government purse Taxes will go down! It is illogical to conclude that Taxes will not go down if the Town spend less. Think about it!

Somewhere, sometime, somehow, someone needs to be first to reverse this entitlement philosophy. Let it be here, in Sturbridge, let it be NOW, let it be at the Town Meeting, and let it be US! Perhaps word will spread that this community is taking the economy seriously, voting down things we don't NEED, and just maybe, we can start a trend.

While this article was written to specifically address the need to say NO to spending more money on the nice to have, but don't need good deal, CPA, it applies equally to every proposal that will be brought before the Town Meeting. If we don't NEED it, let's not buy it. We have a hard enough time keeping up with the payments on the debts the town leadership has already committed us to.

God bless and preserve America

1 comment:

  1. Don Miller
    Well written Chuck, I totally agree with you. Revoking the CPA will send a strong message that residents have had enough of high property taxes, water and sewer bills, etc. I know there are many residents who feel this way, but unless they vote YES to revoke the CPA, this important message will not be sent. Regardless of the outcome of the CPA vote, the opportunity to make a real change is at the next town meeting when residents can vote on the FY13 budget. There is a citizens petition that is is expected to generate a warrant article giving residents the opportunity to limit the FY13 budget to a level not to exceed the FY12 budget - if approved this will really make a substantial difference, not only in FY13 spending but in future years as well. The outcome depends on those residents who want real change to attend the town meeting and vote to approve the warrant article limiting FY13 spending to the FY12 budget amount.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for commenting. We appreciate your input.