My letter to the editor (thoughts on the recent bond election)

November 10, 2010

This letter appears in the 11.11.2010 McGregor Mirror:

I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank Kevin Houchin for his efforts related to the bond election.  Kevin, you did everything you could to educate the community about the issues facing our school district.

You did an excellent job explaining that we have one of the lowest school tax rates in the area.  You clearly articulated that anyone over the age of 65 would have seen no tax increase. You helped everyone understand that the average tax increase would only be about $12 per month.  You did everything you could do.  Unfortunately, you could not make enough people in this town care. That isn’t your fault.

I would also like to thank the school board and the advisory committee for the time spent on this issue.  You did an excellent job.  Again, the outcome was not your fault.  You cannot force a town to want something better for the next generation.  I’ve heard the argument that what we have is “good enough”.  As a town, we have to wake up to the fact that “good enough” is not what we want for our children or our town.  “Good enough” doesn’t cut it.

I’ve heard grumbling from people about how it was bad timing to put down turf at the football field and then call for a bond election.  Besides the fact that turf actually makes sense and many schools in the area are going this route, that issue is nothing more than a red herring.  I strongly believe that it is simply an excuse that the dissenters are using to ease their consciences.  They know that they tied the hands of our administration and hurt the school district and are using this pretext as a salve for that inner voice that is telling them that they should have voted “yes”.  It is a way of justifying a questionable decision.  But make no mistake: it is specious reasoning.

I believe fear ruled the day.  That is the only conclusion that I can draw.  People are uncertain about the future, and it makes them fearful of spending money—even if it is only $12 per month.  As a community, we failed to do the right thing because many of us were afraid.  If $12 per month is a deal breaker for you, then God bless you.  You did what you had to do to keep your household afloat.  You certainly do not need my approval, but I completely understand and agree with your decision.  For the rest of you, I think you made a mistake.  This is not like federal or even county taxes.  This money is used in OUR community–all of it.  Investing in our town’s school district is never frivolous or a waste of money.

The school district has done wonders on a shoestring budget.  Just like the good servant in the parable of the talents, our school leaders have done much with little and I think it was the right time to give them more to work with.  Unfortunately, it may be that our administrators are a victim of their own success.  They have been able to accomplish many good things without raising taxes.  I think we’ve been spoiled by that, but we have to realize that major projects cannot be done in this fashion.  That is why the bond election was so crucial.

Citizens, if we aren’t pushing forward as a community then we are moving backward.  I am proud to be a citizen of McGregor, but I am ashamed and embarrassed by this resounding defeat of the bond election.  I’d like to think that this is not characteristic of our town and our citizens.  I’d like to think we are more forward-looking than that.  We need to be, or this community will not thrive.  Do we want our community and schools to prosper and flourish, or do we only want them to be “good enough”?

David Taylor (david@davidtaylorfamily.com)
MHS Class of 1990

Advertisements

Truer words were never spoken…

January 7, 2009

…too bad he basically reversed course on everything he said.  Does the presidency turn every man who holds it into a liar?  If your memory doesn’t stretch back 8 years, watch a little of this in light of everything that has gone on.  It will really blow you away.


A perfect example of disingenuous political rhetoric

October 28, 2008

My rant du jour…

This is a perfect example of why I find most political rhetoric so disingenuous:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg?printable=true

Pay special attention to the last couple of paragraphs.  McCain-Palin like to whip people up into a frenzy with accusations of “socialism” but look at what their words and actions have shown in the past.  They only bring it up because it is politically expedient to do so.  It looks to me like they secretly agree with the same principles they are vilifying.

Here are the last few paragraphs of the article, and what I find to be the most interesting.  The emphases are mine:

Of course, all taxes are redistributive, in that they redistribute private resources for public purposes. But the federal income tax is (downwardly) redistributive as a matter of principle: however slightly, it softens the inequalities that are inevitable in a market economy, and it reflects the belief that the wealthy have a proportionately greater stake in the material aspects of the social order and, therefore, should give that order proportionately more material support. McCain himself probably shares this belief, and there was a time when he was willing to say so. During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” The exchange continued:

YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
MCCAIN: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.

10/29/08 Update: Here’s another really good commentary on this subject.

11/3/08 Update: The Waco Tribune-Herald published a shortened version of this that I sent in as a letter to the editor.


Was Jesus a wealth-distributing socialist?

October 21, 2008

Jesus: “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor…”

  • Was Jesus a wealth-redistributing socialist as the Democrats are charged with being?
  • Are we willing to do that?
  • While this is spoken to an individual, can we really argue against social programs that help the poor?  I’ve hated on those programs in the past, but I’m re-thinking things…
  • Do Republicans have it right in that it should be left up to private donors to decide how to redistribute their own wealth or do Democrats have it right that the government needs to help out the unfortunate more?

Jesus: “…whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

  • The call seems clear. Help those that are less fortunate.
  • While we cannot just count on government to do this, is it wrong for “Caesar” to be a part of the solution?  I don’t know.  I do know that it is wrong to count on government to be the entire solution.
  • Could government’s involvement serve de-motivate individuals and churches (both in respect to giving to others and to helping themselves)?

I don’t have any conclusions…just ramblings…and trying to be an open book.  Sometimes thinking out loud helps me and the others around me.  I don’t know if anyone else wrestles with these things or if it is more black and white than I am making it out to be–I just look and see LOTS of gray.

Here’s the irony of it all: before I was really walking with the Lord I was much more inclined to vote Republican exclusively.  I was of the opinion that what’s mine is mine–don’t take it from me. Let others help themselves.  Don’t penalize my success, etc.  It is not an attitude I am proud of.  However, now that I am trying to look at the election through a more spiritual lens, I feel myself less compelled to vote for the party most consider to be “God’s Party.”  Crazy.  As I said, there is a lot of gray out there for me.

These are just some of the things I’ve been pondering as I think about how to vote this election year.  If you’ve got answers for me, I’m all ears…


America’s Credibility is Slipping Further

October 10, 2008

First we lost our credibility when it comes to aggression against other nations.  See my post here:
https://thedavid.wordpress.com/2008/08/14/hypocritical/

Now it seems we’ve lost our credibility when it comes to the economy.  This thought has been knocking around my head for the last week and there is an article in today’s Washington Post that says a lot of what I’ve been thinking.  It is definitely worth the read:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/09/AR2008100903425.html?hpid=topnews

“People around the world once admired us for our economy, and we told them if you wanted to be like us, here’s what you have to do — hand over power to the market,” said Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist at Columbia University. “The point now is that no one has respect for that kind of model anymore given this crisis. And of course it raises questions about our credibility. Everyone feels they are suffering now because of us.”

Unsurprisingly, anti-American leaders like Hugo Chavez are all too quick to point out the irony (see http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/53611.html):

“If the Venezuelan government, for example, approves a law to protect consumers, they say, ‘Take notice, Chavez is a tyrant!'” Chavez said in one of his recent weekly television shows.

“Or they say, ‘Chavez is regulating prices. He is violating the laws of the marketplace.’ How many times have they criticized me for nationalizing the phone company? They say, ‘The state shouldn’t get involved in that.’ But now they don’t criticize Bush for having nationalize . . . the biggest banks in the world. Comrade Bush, how are you?”

Do not hear me saying that I support Chavez and his ilk–I most certainly do not.  He is a tyrant despite this rhetoric.  The fact that he can even draw these comparisons is what bothers me.  Once again, we have lost our moral high ground.

President Bush, the buck stops with you.   You have damaged our great country.  You led us into Iraq.  You led congress into passing the bailout package.  Thanks a whole helluva lot.


Sweet merciful crap!

September 29, 2008

I’ve got no other words than these: this person’s vote counts the same as yours.  That is all.


The REAL maverick

September 25, 2008

I doubt many of you will want to devote 10 minutes to watching this interview from yesterday, but this is why I supported Dr. Paul.  Want to talk “maverick”?  It’s THIS guy, not the one who got the nomination.