John Rogers
Last year, I wrote an article, Coerced Charity, that continued to comment on the fact that monies for Non-Governmental Organizations ("NGOs") were put back into the budget at the Deliberative Session. In it, I said:
Funding goes out and comes back – has for years. Why? Someone always puts the funding back in the budget believing that “for the common good” is always a sufficient reason for using taxpayer monies. Question: is it right or wrong to compel taxpayers to coercively donate to a charity via taxes to organizations that they may not otherwise wish to? Should property taxes better be used only on direct town services?
[snip]
As it was, the NGO funding was put back in by Alida Millham's motion and a majority of the roughly 300 voters present at the Deliberative Session. She obviously believes that all citizens should be forced to donate to the charity of her choice: "The attitude should not be to let someone else do it" (Citizen).
In other words, it is wrong not to help. Yet...
...there is another problem other than the attitude that one should not have a choice in choosing who they will help.
I bring this up because it was only through the Citizen's article that I learned that Alida was closely allied with Genesis Behaviorial Health and was advocating that the town's money be spent with her organization
Now, I hold no animus toward's Alida but I did, at the time and still do, towards the philosophy that I should have no choice in determining what charities my money WILL go to. Fortunately this year, we ALL had the chance to decide how our tax monies would be spent via the Warrant Articles.
The voters have spoken and I hope this will be put to rest for a while.
All that said, I do still have a beef with Mr. Rogers, whom I commented on here concerning that Anti-tax pledge Warrant 27:
It seemed that the sponsor for this article was Mr. Rogers as he was the one that moved the question (reasoning: why would someone move the question if one was not in favor of it?). Yet, at no time did he mention that it is really the GSFTC that is pushing this!
Why do I think this is silly? Earlier, he had stood up and advocated for spending more taxpayer money on supporting the Outside Agencies / Non-Governmental Organizations. Effectively, this is 'I want the Town to spend more, but let someone else pay for it!"
Now, why do I bring this up?
Simple - I had been given the annual report for Genesis a few weeks ago by a lady that was associated with Genesis - who shall remain nameless but at least was willing to sit down and calmly discusses the reasons I had, and I listened to her.
I really did not read the Report until last night....and whose name did I spot on the list of the Board of Directors?
John Rogers
Now, I do not believe that the State RSAs would force anyone to have to reveal their connection to any organization when they are shilling for a given organization. I am not sure, but will probably ask, if the Town can do such a regulation.
Again, I do believe that for the sake of complete honesty and transparency, those advocating that the town spend money with their organization should inform the townfolk of that affiliation. This year, Alida did, and I congratulate her for doing so (I don't like the fact that she did want to spend more tax money, but at least it was with more transparency by announcing her affiliation).
John Rogers flunks twice - once on coercively asking for more tax money to be spent on his charity without revealing his affiliation and then decrying that he was spending too much on property taxes with the implied affiliation with Mark Fernald's Granite State Fair Tax Coalition. In other words advocating, once the pitch for higher spending was done, he wants someone else, via a broadbased tax, to pay for it.
Again, if he wants to come on Meet The New Press and defend his stances, he is welcome to do so - all he has to do is ask. I tend to doubt he'll take me up on it, given that the GSFTC folks refuse to venture to venues where they would be challenged
Like here on Political Chowder where Doug and Chuck Douglas intellectually pummeled the GSFTC Exec. Dir. Henle and a hapless Selectman from Alstead. Henle was invited to be on MTNP but continues to decline to defend the idea that implementing in implementing broadbased taxes will keep our overall tax burden where it is (e.g., shifting taxes have never worked).
