GilfordGrok

Well, THAT was interesting!

I attended the Town Meeting Tuesday nite.  Well, a lot of it was "housekeeping", especially in terms of the Planning and Land Use folks wanting to update a bunch of articles (and yes, we will be posting them up here!).  And then there were a couple articles that really weren't in that category.

Best thing, however, was sitting with DCE of Weekend Pundits (who was a guest on MTNP this past Saturday) and the WP Dad during the whole thing.  And, to be honest, I appreciated his words in support of the BudComm (and I did not know that he was going to speak beforehand either).

Certainly, almost everyone on the BudComm expected to see the NGO (Non-Governmental Organizations) monies put back in.  What the BudComm had done was reduced the original amount of arond $103K by almost $14K.  As Dick Hickok said, it is not because the the BudComm members thought that they were not necessary.  Rather, these are non-profits and the members felt that they  should be supported by individuals and not by government taxation.  The only exception is when there is an actual pay-for-service arrangement as there is with the Humane Society for animal control.

I agree with that sentiment.  I have other charities that I give to and really do not wish my TAX money going to those particular organizations.  Nothing personal, I just have others with which I'd rather give my money to.  Thus, I agreed with Doug and with Neil Flagherity (sp? Sorry!).

Those that were in favor all used the phrase "quality of life".  Fine by me; they are entitled to their opinion, but I am entitled to mine.  My disagreement is not in that these services aren't needed by some, but forcing your fellow citizens that may ever wish to give money to these NGOs to do so is not right. If all these folks felt that it was so important that these organizations receive funding, why won't they all band together and fund raise for them privately?  What is so wrong with that idea or philosophy?  Why must donations be coerced from all by the force of involuntary government taxation? 

NH used to be known for its individualism and self-reliance.  When bad things happened, relatives, friends, and communities would band together to help out....but on a voluntary basis - by doing so via taxation, it is forced. 

The numbers: at $103K total and 7,400 residents, that is an involuntary contribution of almost $14 / person for all of the NGO contributions by the Village.

I'll go stereotypical for a moment with this.  One definition of a Liberal is one who has no problem in spending someone else's money if it is for "the common good", Conservatives (those misers!) prefer to let people keep their own money and let individuals spend it the way that they want to.  And yet, it seems that people would be surprised by the answer to the question of "Who gives more - Liberals or Conservatives?"  See here for the answer and scroll down to 12/02/06 and listen to Dr. Arthur Brooks in Hour 2.  Dr. Brooks also has found a positive relationship to governmental support of NGOs and private charitable giving - as governmental monies go up, private contributions go down.  Not only that, but when government steps in, volunteerism also goes down, leading to a lessening of the public participation overall (and not just in the area of the charitable organizations).

Let's change the scenario a bit for thoughtful contemplation: suppose the overwhelming sentiment was that the Town should support the NRA as it has wonderful programs for youth and women.  Would those that are so willing to send someone else's forced donation to the above NGOs be as willing if those funds were targeted for the National Rifle Association?

No, I didn't think so. And not because they teach self-defense in a way that many disagree with.  Or really, that is the point.

More later....