Friday, July 25, 2014

Rural Ambulance Service

This issue has been taking up quite a bit of the county government's time and energy, not to mention a fair bit of reserve funds. Last night I attended the quorum court meeting to hear the 3rd reading and observe the vote. It was interesting. There were over a dozen people in attendance, with a handful that made their public comment. Each expressed a different opinion on what tax should be raised to support the ambulance service. The court itself was considering two options: a small millage increase for everyone in the county, and/or a  $40 fee for property owners in unincorporated areas. The jp's themselves couldn't agree on what to pass, as those representing incorporated areas wanted only the fee, and those representing rural areas wanted the millage. The end result was that neither proposal received the votes needed to have the issue on the ballot. I couldn't help thinking that even before the vote, all this energy was being wasted. People don't want their taxes raised. Either issue would have most likely failed at the ballot box in November. The quorum court can still get this on the ballot if they can find the votes needed in an early or special meeting next month, after that it'll have to wait another year. Again, I don't think it'll matter.
The voters are unlikely to pass a tax increase they feel is unnecessary, and rightfully so.  We pay an awful lot in taxes. So far, the county has not done a good job informing the voters why a tax increase is needed. I think we can all agree ambulance service is necessary, here's what the county needs to answer if they want us to pay more for it:
1. Explain why those using the ambulance in rural areas don't just pay for the service as needed. This is, after all, what insurance is for. Are there a lot of non-reimbursed ambulance runs? If so, what is the actual cost of those non-reimbursed runs. What is the added cost to the cities for just the rural runs they make?
2. If the cost is for the establishment and maintenance of the service and not the cost of the service itself, what is that cost and how is it calculated? Furthermore, how is the county's cost separate from the incorporated city's cost determined. The cities have submitted "bills" that the county is paying from reserve funds now, but how were those amounts arrived at? Is it reasonably a fair share? Can a better price be negotiated? If the county is paying for a certain percentage of the establishment, what percent of control would the county have in administering that service? How would that be determined and implemented? Doesn't the county have the right and responsibility to oversee and control costs for a service it is partially establishing?
3. What would it cost for the county to establish its own rural service? Or take over all service in the county, cities included. Is "renting" service from the city the most cost effective way? Is a private for profit service more cost effective or available?
4. Why do we need new taxes to cover this? Are there any other areas of the budget that can be cut
in order to provide this service? If so, what are they?  How much are we currently spending in each area of the county budget? Can all those expenditures be justified as necessary to the point of raising taxes for ambulance service?
These all need to be answered, made public, and most importantly, become common knowledge, before any tax hike is likely to be approved by the voters. Print this information in the local papers, a guest column shouldn't cost the county anything and it might help newspaper circulation. Publish the information on the county's website so anyone with internet access can read it. Have the JP's go to public meetings in their districts to get the information out and receive feedback. It doesn't have to be a special town hall; go to council meetings, farmers markets, organization meetings, churches, etc...
If it is determined that a tax increase is the best option, give the voters more than just two choices to choose from. Beyond the considered fee or millage increase, consider increasing sales tax, voluntary dues, pursue grants or private donations,  or anything else someone might come up with. This again would have to become public and common knowledge. Clearly explain the benefits, drawbacks, and costs for each option.  Listen to what tax option(s) the people are most agreeable to, and put that/those on the ballot.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Why Not A Republican

District 96 has been a solid republican district for a while now. For a decade or so, this position has been unopposed. There is good reason for this. The people of Northwest Arkansas are mostly good conservative people, and the leftist message typical of the democrat party is rightfully viewed poorly here. The conservative small government, low taxes, personal responsibility rhetoric common to the republican party resonates well with the sensible people of Benton County. So why am I not a republican, and why shouldn't we vote for one? Because they lie, and their message is all marketing with no substance.
The republicans took complete control of the legislature in the last election cycle, with veto proof control in both houses of the legislature.  The republicans had free reign to shrink the government, reduce spending, and cut taxes.  They did not.  Instead, last year they ADDED nearly 900 million dollars in spending. They supported Obamacare by expanding medicaid through the so called "private option."  They INCREASED taxes on everyone by increasing the state sales tax rate.  They claimed to cut taxes by reducing the income tax rate by 1/10th of one percent only for people earning less than $7,000 a year, and eliminating the tax on dividend income above $10,000,000.00.  This gave a tax cut to part time workers that was far less than the sales tax increase imposed on them.  The handful of people earning over 10 million dollars in dividend income got a nice tax cut, but a tax cut for less than .01 percent of the state population is hardly something to brag about.  The vast majority of us are paying more in taxes this year because of the republicans.
Furthermore, they are proposing a constitutional amendment to repeal current term limits. They deceptively worded it to make it appear that it would be setting rather than repealing term limits so that we would be tricked into voting for it this November.  They are also hoping to amend the constitution to make it easier to raise salaries for elected state representatives and senators without having to be held responsible for such actions.  They are deliberately working to increase the power of the government, not shrink it. 
That is why I cannot vote for, much less join, the republican party. They have no integrity, no personal responsibility, and no respect for the people they claim to represent.  I know it is cliché to call any politician a liar now, as we have come to accept it as commonplace. We should NOT accept this. That is why I am a Libertarian.  You may not agree with everything the party stands for, I certainly don't agree with it all, but you can be sure that the vast majority of Libertarians have integrity and mean what they say. There are no party bosses forcing me to vote the party line. The party has not been bought and paid for by special interests. If you're looking for a party that won't lie to you, the Libertarian party is your only option.      

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Medical Marijuana

The Libertarian Party is probably most known to the general public for its pro-marijuana stance. I am hoping to change this, as I find it to be an issue far less important than many others.  Unlike our last few presidents, I have never used and have no desire to ever use marijuana.  As a representative in our government, however, I have no right to impose my opinions on everyone else. This is an issue where democracy should prevail. Currently, most voters in Arkansas do not want to legalize marijuana for any reason, and I support the vote. This could change. Medical marijuana proponents will undoubtedly bring the measure back to the ballot for another vote. I will support the results of that vote too, regardless of the outcome.
My personal take on the issue is this:
Many of the supporters of medical marijuana do so to bring about legal recreational marijuana, as has been done recently in Colorado and Washington.  A majority of minors that illegally use marijuana get their first supply of the product from somebody's medical supply. Marijuana can be a dangerous drug, the federal government made it illegal for a reason. The drug trade involved in bringing marijuana to this state and country is violent and immoral involving everything from assault and theft to human trafficking and murder. Even if the state legalizes the drug, it will still be a federal crime to buy, sell, grow, or possess it.  These are all good reasons to continue keeping marijuana illegal in our state.
Conversely, marijuana was used for many years for medical purposes, and synthetic derivatives are currently legally available by prescription. As more research is done, benefits are becoming known. The dangerous effects may be less than those for currently legal drugs, including opiates. The prosecution and incarceration for marijuana possession is taxing our crowded prison system. Taxing marijuana sales could be a lucrative source of income for the state. These are good reasons to legalize it.
About one percent of the population is immune to the effects of opiates, rendering most available painkillers useless to them. I am one of that unlucky one percent. My last two  kidney stones were rather painful, and morphine provided absolutely no relief. Fortunately, the intense pain of kidney stones lasts only days. For people suffering chronic pain I understand the desire for an alternative medicine that might work. The negative effects of legalizing marijuana could be somewhat mitigated if the people desired to legalize it for medical use only. The compound most responsible for the beneficial effects of marijuana appears to be CBD. The compound most responsible for getting people "high" is THC. There are strains of marijuana that are higher in CBD and lower in THC.  These would be less likely to be abused.  Limiting sales of medical marijuana to these low THC strains grown only in this state could limit the abuse of the drug. I think those hoping to pass a medical marijuana ballot measure should consider something like this.  Any tax levied on the sale of this marijuana (combined with all of the taxes on tobacco and alcohol) could be used solely to fund healthcare measures in the state, eliminating the perceived need for obamacare/private option medicaid funding.
Those are my personal opinions. As I said, it really isn't an important issue to me so I will go with what the majority of voters approve. That is how a representative democracy is supposed to work.

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Arkansas Income Tax

No tax is ever fair. No matter how you implement a tax, it will be unfair to somebody.  Almost nobody wants to pay taxes.  The easy solution would seem to be eliminating taxes. It's not that easy. We do not live in anarchy. Government must be paid for and government isn't cheap. That is why it is vital to limit the size and power of government to less than we are willing to endure and pay for.
Not every state has an income tax, including a couple of our bordering states.  This has many people (and most Libertarians) wondering why don't we get rid of our income tax completely. I am not one of those Libertarians.  The people of the state are not willing to cut services and spending to a level that would allow this.  There is, however, much we could do to improve things.  Currently the tax rate for almost all Arkansans is 7 percent of your income.  I would lower it to 5 percent. Currently there are pages of complex deductions, exceptions, credits, etc...  I would simplify that as well. If you make over $12,000 per year you must file. You would get a $10,000 income deduction for yourself, and a $5,000 deduction for any dependents. Persons aged 65 or older, US military, and persons who are blind, deaf, paralyzed, or missing a limb could claim an additional $5,000 deduction. Persons that adopt a child could claim an additional $5,000 deduction for the year in which the adoption was finalized. You could take another deduction up to 10% of income for charitable contributions, and an additional 10% deduction for health care expenses. That's it. The entire return, including instructions, would fit on one page. No need for a thick booklet. A tax cut for everyone, with less printing and administration costs for the government.
To ensure the money is well spent, all income taxes collected would be used for education spending and nothing else. This would be the sole source of state funding for K-12 schools. This way the taxpayers would know where their hard earned dollars are going. If the people decide they want more money for education, they would know that income taxes would have to be raised. If the people want lower income taxes, they would know that education funding would have to be cut. It would be simple and transparent.