Higher, not Lower Overall

In a story of how the City Council voted for a higher water usage rate for the city, the Abilene Reporter News published the following sentences:

"Abilene's current rates are the lowest of 10 Texas cities that are usually compared to Abilene. When the new rates go into effect, Abilene will remain in the lower half of the 10 cities."

What this excerpt does NOT say is that the Abilene citizen pays an OVERALL tax rate that is HIGHEST among these ten cities. So, who cares if the water bill is lowest if all else is high enough to bring my overall tax bill to an excessive level? Are we willing to accept the fact that nine other cities just like us have found less expensive ways to live? Are we willing to continue paying for all manner of services (and to tolerate wasteful spending) year after year?

Please voice your displeasure to your selected city council member.

Even MORE New Taxes?

Tonight, KTXS reported on the nightly news that the Abilene City Council has begun budget meetings to discuss the upcoming budget. Not only must the taxpayers begin paying the interest on the bond issues they voted for in May, but KTXS news reports that the council will approve HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of extra tax dollars for police and fire department salary raises, a state-of-the-art police training center, and huge increases in utility costs for the city.

Here are my questions:

As the city council advertised the “modest” increase in our taxes that would result from the bond issues in May—a mere three months ago—did they have NO IDEA that utilities were going up? Had the council members had NO preliminary discussions with fire and police department personnel that a salary increase was needed? Have the current training facilities for the Abilene Police Department been so terrible that such a new and cutting-edge facility CANNOT WAIT for future budget years?

Why won’t Abilene city council members realize and admit that we in Abilene are taxed among the HIGHEST RATES for cities our size in Texas and take steps to reduce such taxes? Why won’t they CUT EXPENSES from one place to fund expenses elsewhere?

City Council Spends and Spends....

Recently, when I lamented to a colleague that my fellow citizens had chosen to use tax money to support the Abilene Zoo, he argued that he thought it was a good expenditure of money "because it brings people to Abilene where they spend money."

Let's examine that argument for a moment. Let's say a family of five drives from Sweetwater to visit our zoo. They then eat lunch at Whataburger and buy some clothes at our Wal Mart before driving home. The ONLY possible way that can help the average Abilene citizen is by generating extra sales tax that will go to the city coffers, right? (Some might argue that Joe Whataburger employee also gets more hours, as does Jane Wal Mart employee; ultimately, however, they will likely take their extra money, spend it in town, and generate more sales tax money--same argument).

However, look at this article excerpt published today from the Abilene Reporter News, our newspaper.

----------------
Abilene floats tax hike

By Sarah Kleiner / kleiners@reporternews.com
July 13, 2006

Ready for a tax increase?

The proposed city of Abilene budget for the next fiscal year includes a 1.6 percent increase in spending and a tax rate hike of 3.45 cents per $100 valuation. It shouldn't be a surprise that the city of Abilene's property tax rate will increase next year - after all, voters approved seven bond propositions in May for construction projects.

And the city is repaying general obligation bonds issued when the city purchased a police and fire communications system last year. If the proposed tax rate is adopted by the council, it will cost about $45 more next year for the owner of an $83,000 home - Abilene's average.


Gilley was optimistic about the financial outcome of the current fiscal year. The city collected more money than expected - mainly from sales taxes, the city's largest source of revenue.

[...]

The general fund's budget for the current fiscal year increased since it was approved last September. That's because the city collected and spent more money than originally budgeted. When the City Council adopts next year's budget, it also will adopt the revised budget for the current fiscal year.

------(end of excerpt)

Please understand what this article is saying: when the city leaders DID collect more money than their budget from sales tax revenue, they spent it and made the next year's budget bigger. If I am misunderstanding this article, someone please tell me.

So, don't argue that the city council will spend my tax money to lure people to Abilene as if you think that will help me in any way, because we can see that the extra money generated from out-of-towners' spending will just end up being spent elsewhere.

We MUST hold the City Council accountable for the way they spend our money. We must also have long memories of how elected officials vote to run our lives and rid ourselves of those who do not represent our best interests.

Public Radio

The other day, I was driving through Dallas listening to NPR. They were having a fund drive, and the announcer kept saying over and over "Did you know that only ONE in NINE listeners donates to NPR? Pick up the phone and call in now!"

I remind her and my readers that NINE in NINE listeners pay for NPR. Just look at your tax return at the end of each tax year and see the 20-45% of your income that's missing; you're paying for NPR all right. The government takes your money by force and budgets part of it to public radio. The reason lots of people don't call in and donate is because they realize they ALREADY HAVE.

My answer? Do you like NPR? Good. Then YOU pay for it. I'll subscribe to whatever radio stations I want with my private funds. Note the success of Sirius and other such services.

Minimum Wage

People who clamor for a raise in minimum wage fall into two camps: those who lack a fundamental grasp of macro economics, and those who understand the subject very, very well but seek to buy votes by capitalizing on others’ ignorance.

If I own a retail shop, my purpose for existence is to earn a profit and support myself financially. If I don’t buy things for one price and sell at a markup, I might as well close up and do something else. Thus, when I open such a shop, I calculate the fixed and variable costs of selling products in the marketplace, set the prices, and sell the items (or services).

When the government forces me to pay my hourly employees a dollar more per hour, I sit back down, refigure my employee costs (part of the variable costs), and refigure my retail prices. More importantly, so does EVERY OTHER BUSINESS who hires hourly employees.

The result is that my hourly employees must pay higher prices at every place they buy goods or services in order to offset the higher variable costs that every other business owner has newly calculated. When they buy groceries, gasoline, haircuts, school supplies, clothing, and toiletries, it all cost a bit more after the legislation. And that’s actually the best-case scenario; it’s possible that a business owner may decide to operate on fewer employees because of the new law and thus initiate layoffs.

So, raising minimum wage will actually cause Jane Wageworker either to pay higher prices all over town to make up for her higher wage, or to lose her job completely.


I am aware of the argument made by some liberals that “some businesses will just settle for less profit and absorb the loss.” This argument ignores the years of historical evidence that shows the path our economy takes when such legislation is passed. Businesses either raise prices or lay off employees. Taking less profit defeats the purpose of opening up shop in the first place—a purpose that will be the last casualty of any government decision.