The SoapBoxers

My apologies to the Connecticut Women’s Basketball team and their fans, but the entire content of this article will likely be offensive to you …

A dynasty is alive and kicking in NCAA Women’s hoops. It is worse than Duke of the 90’s, The New York Yankees, the Patriots and well … it even makes me more sick than Notre Dame Football.

The UCONN Lady Huskies

This just in … they are pretty damn good. Jedi Mind tricks do not work on the great recruiter Geno Auriemma …

About now I am waiting for all of you to chime in and say “Goodman, you are a Husker fan, and the Lady Huskers are undefeated this year so far and ranked #3 in the country so of course you are to dog the Huskies.”

True all these items are …

My question is this … is Geno the Hut a good coach or just able to work with SUPERIOR talent year in and year out?

I can make a bunch of comparisons here. Coaches that can recruit but really are not that good of coaches in my opinion include:

Mack Brown – CLEARLY the #1 on this list
Roy Williams – This year prove a lot to me
Rick Barnes – is there a Texas theme developing on this list? YES!
Les Miles – wow, he misses Pelini
Rich Rodriguez … nice job there Michigan
Charlie Weis … well … I guess the golden domers did figure that one out.

I think GENO is in fact a good coach. He has a lot of ladies that go on to not just careers in the WNBA, but are in fact some of the best in the league. Many of these players are three and four year starters at Connecticut … and they do indeed improve their games a LOT by the time they get drafted.

UConn will likely win it all again this year. They have utterly destroyed just about every single team they have played all year. But this is not necessarily a good thing for Women’s Basketball in general. The sport is gaining popularity. The is definitely MORE parity than I can remember in a long long time. Heck the Big XII conference has SEVEN count em, SEVEN teams in the top 25 alone.

I for one will be rooting for everyone else. It will be more publicity than ever in the tournament this year if the Lady Huskies get knocked off. There is truly not a dominant team in the Men’s side of things this year, so the Lady Huskies are front and center. It would be one of the better things that could happen for ESPN coverage if the do get beat. Here on Monday when they have set the record for consecutive wins, it has been on all day long

It is on television all day long, because fans love a winner. Especially the home team fans. But ….

EVERYONE roots for the underdog …

My new favorite team this year is now whoever is playing the Lady Huskies.

Last week, I complained about scare tactics used by local governments during tax and budget planning.  This week I am going to complain about organizations misleading people with good intentions into donating money.

First, I want to point out that I encourage people to donate to their chosen causes, and donate generously.  Whether it is something as grand as feeding the people of Africa, timely like adding the people of Haiti, or as local as saving an historic building, all charity has value.  My complaint is purposefully misleading advertisements, naming or fear mongering to obtain money.

The best example of this is the Humane Society of the United States (http://www.humanesociety.org/).  At first glance or from their dramatic commercials, you would believe that these are the same people who run you local animal shelter.  This is not the case.  The HSUS is actually a subsidiary of PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (http://www.peta.org/).  Nowhere on their web site does the HSUS admit its association with PETA, nor their independence from local societies.  Local Humane Societies (including SPCA, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) have suffered greatly from the divergence of charitable donations to this national organization.  I am not saying that the HSUS is not a worthy organization, it is just that it has different goals than your local Humane Society and the money may not be used in your community.

The HSUS and your local Humane Society are also not affiliated with the American Humane Association (http://www.americanhumane.org/).  They are at least a lot clearer in defining who they are, or more precisely, who they are not.  To take directly from their web site:

…And Who We Are Not

Dedicated to protecting both children and animals, American Humane is not affiliated with the Humane Society of the United States, an organization that primarily uses litigation and legislation to promote animal rights. Nor is American Humane a parent organization of local “humane societies” and SPCAs, which are locally based, independent agencies that operate animal shelters and provide animal care and control services to their communities. However, many of those agencies are member organizations of American Humane. As such, they benefit from our trainings, informational and funding resources, and national programs that increase the abilities, knowledge and effectiveness of their organizations and staff.

It is interesting and disturbing to me that some so called charitable organizations are nothing more than law suit generators.  I remember when PETA sued a group called People Eating Tasty Animals for having the web site PETA.com.  The result of that law suite was that the meat eating group lost their right to advertise because it was misleading.  At the same time, PETA created the HSUS, using the Humane Society name that has been so recognized for local efforts.  I personally believe that the intent was to capitalize on that name recognition to gather more funding.  Although this is not illegal, it is misleading, and many people with good intentions have inadvertently support a militant and aggressive national group when they believed they were supporting a local effort.

All I ask is that you do some research before sending your check.  I want to reiterate that I do not think any charitable group is bad.  If you truly believe that you can save an abused animal by enacting yet anther law or suing yet another business, then by all means support PETA and the HSUS.  If you are trying to save the animals you saw being taken from an abusive situation on you evening news, find the local group that is taking on that effort.  When you donate to a large national or international group, you need to know what that money could be used for.  PETA and HSUS have active campaigns to force corporations to stop the use of all animal products with the stated goal of making vegetarianism the standard for all people.  This is in addition to their efforts to stop the use of animals for painful and questionable research, most notably in the cosmetic industry.  Other groups have much narrower goals and tasks.

The bait and switch that I am concerned with here can only work with an uneducated or lazy audience.  You can avoid funding things you don’t like by taking the time to research any organization you think you want to support.  I personally believe that you can make the biggest impact in the world by starting in your own community.

The term “system quarterback” – meaning a quarterback who requires a specific offensive system in order to be effective – is often used in a disparaging way.

Let’s step outside the world of sports for a moment. You’re the head of a large hospital. You’d like to hire a neurosurgeon for your staff, but there’s a problem. She’s left handed, and all your surgical tools are right handed. She’s a “system surgeon” who can’t be effective with the “system” of right handed tools and shouldn’t be hired, right? Of course not – that’s crazy talk. You just buy some left handed tools. You don’t allow the less expensive parts of an environment dictate decisions about the most expensive parts.

Why, then, should an NFL team discard the notion of giving a particular quarterback a chance to succeed, simply because he is a “system” quarterback?

What am I recommending exactly – that the team change itself to fit the quarterback, rather than finding a quarterback who is a better fit? Yes, precisely.

This probably doesn’t sound fair to a lot of people. Why should a team force its coaches and players to change to accommodate one player? In fact, other players on the team may not be a good fit for the quarterback’s preferred style of play, resulting in those players having reduced roles or no role at all. Changing the system to fit the quarterback could cost them their jobs. This doesn’t sound fair at all.

And it’s not fair. However, many things in life aren’t fair. In this case, I think that money trumps fairness. Quarterbacks are expensive – much more expensive than any other player. Some have speculated that Colts quarterback Peyton Manning may receive a contract extension that pays him $20 million per year, with a $50 million signing bonus. The first pick in the 2009 NFL draft, Matthew Stafford of the Detroit Lions, signed a contract that is likely to pay him $78 million during his first six years in the league – before he ever took a snap. Matt Cassel – who didn’t start a game in college – leveraged one strong season with the Patriots into a six year, $63 million contract after being traded to the Kansas City Chiefs.

The money changes everything. If you can spend $5 million per year on a quarterback that can excel within a particular system (getting him cheap because he is perceived as flawed) versus $15 million for a more traditional quarterback, you can afford to overpay a couple of other cogs that you need for the system.

Not all systems are going to work in the NFL, of course. Players in the NFL are stronger and faster than college players, and some offensive systems that work fine in college are doomed in the NFL for this very reason. But I am convinced that the right offensive coordinator could make some unconventional schemes work in the NFL. Sure, you’ll probably have to pony up a few extra bucks for a coordinator who can make it work – but just like the complementary offensive players, coordinators are cheaper than quarterbacks.

One of the most heated debates in college sports is whether or not college athletes should be paid.  Proponents point to the millions of dollars that some programs reap in tickets sales and merchandise.  Surely these schools should pay their athletes?

Today, I’ll make the argument that college athletes should not be paid.

Who Gets Paid?

If you take a step in the direction of paying athletes, one of the first questions is who gets paid, and how much? 

Let’s use football as an example.  Do Tim Tebow and Alexander Robinson (Iowa State running back) get the same salary?  Is there a pay scale based on yardage or some sort of complex formula?  What’s the value of a punter or a long snapper?  When are salaries set?  There are a lot of blue chip prospects who have disappointing college careers – so surely we don’t want to get locked into a pay scale at the time they sign.

Then comes the fun question of whether or not athletes in all sports should get compensated.  Should the backup fullback on the football team get a paycheck, but not the world class decathlete, simply because the football team turns a profit and the track team doesn’t?  What about the All-American volleyball player on a top 5 team?

It’s Not a Profit Deal – Really.

While many individual programs turn a profit, this is true of very few athletic departments as a whole.  In situations where football and basketball make a profit, their profits often make the gymnastics and tennis teams viable.  If football and basketball stop subsidizing these sports, they will likely die on the vine. 

Fielding a competitive team is not cheap.  A football team has 85 players on scholarship – meaning that their tuition, fees, room, and board are paid for.  If you have a child in college, imagine multiplying that  cost by 85.  Then there is the cost of coaches (do head coaches earn their salaries?), facilities, travel, lodging, etc. 

Supply and Demand

Student employees are often paid less than their skills would dictate in a free market.  This is because college campuses are awash in talented individuals, all competing for a limited number of jobs.  This is particularly true with positions that are internships that serve as gateways to lucrative careers. 

And that is precisely the role of an elite college athlete, of course.  Bear in mind that the “job” of college athlete is high desired, not only for the prestige of playing at the college level, but also for its pipeline to the pros.  For every athlete who cracks a college roster, there are many more who never sniff a scholarship – most of whom would gladly play a college sport in exchange for “only” a scholarship. 

These athletes are having their expenses paid while a talented coaching staff attempts to ready them for a career as a professional athlete.  While it is true that athletes are proving value to the university, the university is also providing invaluable services to the athlete.  Stephen Strasburg, the top pick in the 2009 baseball draft, owes much of his $15 million contract to the coaching staff at San Diego State.  The conditioning coach at SDSU nicknamed him “Sloth” because he was so out of shape when he arrived on campus.  If you think that SDSU should pay for the services of athletes like Strasburg, should they also be paid by athletes who benefit from the coaching?

Did you find this article interesting?  Then you may like my article that asks whether athletes are overpaid.

Author’s note: This is the embellished version of an interesting dream I had Wednesday night.

Sam Jordan finally ripped the phone off the wall. His brutal honesty was being met with hatred from the faithful fans of the football team. As part of his end of year review of the team, he analyzed the professional prospects of several players on the team. His review of All-American left tackle Chad Jenkins had become a lightning rod.

“Jenkins’ size, strength, and technique would transfer well to the professional level. However, he does have a questionable work effort and had a tendency to give sub-par effort on some plays. At the college level, his physical skills allowed him to take off a play without repercussions. At the professional level, superior athletes will be able to overpower him on those plays, endangering the quarterback.”

Jordan knew that the controversy would blow over in a week or so. He shrugged it off, knowing that his journalistic integrity had forced him to speak the truth.

As Jordan began work on next week’s column, he heard a disturbance at the front door. A split second later, the hulking frame of Chad Jenkins plowed through the door, leaving splintered chunks of wood in the foyer. Jordan could see the action from his home office, which overlooked the lower level of the house. He quickly retreated to the back corner, hoping that Jenkins hadn’t seen him.

Jenkins had already spotted him, and thundered up the stairs. For a moment, Jenkins unleashed verbal abuse toward Jordan before he started to get physical. Jordan quickly absorbed two punches and a kick before he was able to scramble away to elude the angry lineman.

Jordan retreated toward the front of the room. Jenkins raced toward him and Sam quickly ducked out of the way to avoid the collision. Chad Jenkins’ momentum propelled him over the top of the railing and he fell to the room below, falling with a thud.

For a moment, Sam Jordan’s brain was frozen solid. When the brain cramp eased, he raced down the stairs to check on Jenkins. It was immediately apparent that the standout football player was dead.

When Sam finished cleaning up the blood, he looked at the clock. It was 3:55. Shirley would be home very shortly. She had disliked his analysis of her favorite player – he couldn’t imagine trying to explain why Chad Jenkins was lying dead on the floor. He acted as quickly as possible, slowly dragging the body down the hall. He opened to door to the storage room, hauled Jenkins inside, and threw some blankets on top of him. As he finished, he heard the garage door open.

When Shirley left for work the next morning, Jordan got to work. He had been promising to dig up the dead crab apple tree for a couple of years. This was a good time to cross that task off the list. He made sure to dig the hole big enough to hold a body.

Jordan cooled off with a glass of lemonade before getting to the next task on his list. He pushed the wheelbarrow to the door of the storage room. He opened the door and pulled the blankets off Jenkins’ body – only to realize that there was no corpse. Jordan was stunned. Jenkins’ had clearly had not had a pulse, and he had suffered severe head injuries. It was highly unlikely that he had arisen and walked away.

Sam spent the next two hours searching the house. Was his memory wrong? Had he actually stashed the body somewhere else? Sam’s panic level was at an all time high, but the mystery remained unsolved.

Sam was wondering what to do next when an incessant ringing invaded his ears. What in tarnation was that that awful sound? He eventually realized that it was his alarm clock. This had all been an awful dream.

Ralphie, his German Shepherd, had also heard the alarm and raced into the room to greet his master. Ralphie had a very large bone in his mouth. Sam realized that the bone was a human fibula, and was aghast to see bits of flesh sticking to the bone.

Rather than focusing on the many subjects I could have this month.  I felt that I had to share this information because I enjoyed learning about myself.  I hope that you’ll take this survey and really enjoy learning more about yourself too.

I hear the terms liberal, progressive, conservative and libertarian a lot in the news today.  Last week, while watching Glenn Beck, I took a survey that helped to (generally) place you in a category based on your political ideals.  If you’re interested in where you fit based on answering 10 questions, I suggest taking this survey:

http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php

This will help confirm your beliefs, but could also leave you with several questions.  Allow me to explain.

I’ve always considered myself a hardcore conservative.  My brother-in-law once sent me the following pic to use for my web postings which I believed fit perfectly.

 

 [Editor’s note: image is from http://www.thoseshirts.com/hcr.html]

After taking this survey, it confirmed my conservative ideals, but it also indicated that I tent to lean somewhat libertarian as well.  At the end of the survey, it informed me that my selections indicate that I’m a Conservative Libertarian.  That was news to me.  That immediately concerned me though.

We all have our generalizations about groups and I’m no different.  I started wondering if that meant I needed to grow a beard, buy a cabin in the mountains and start stock piling fertilizer.  A libertarian?  When I think of Libertarians, I always thought of Ted Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber.

It helped reading information on several sites explaining what that meant for me.  Here are some general definitions as I understand them.

Libertarian – The word I would use to describe Libertarians is freedom.  I see their main stance is that they want to be left to do what they want as long as they are not harming anyone else.  They believe everyone else has the same rights that they do.  They are based on tolerance and acting responsibly.  One site used the phrase live and let live to describe Libertarians.  They believe in very limited government and don’t like government meddling.  Like Conservatives, traditions do play a big part in their ideals.  Think of the Gadsden flags, I think they fit closely with this group.

Conservatives – I believe the word of focus here should be tradition.  Conservatives believe in maintaining the values and beliefs that we have traditionally held.  In God We Trust should be on our currency, 2^nd Amendment Rights, use of force (military) to maintain peace, marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, etc.  Conservatives much like Libertarians believe in smaller government, lower taxes (trickle-down economics), strong (traditional) family values, etc.  Government is there out of necessity and it serves a purpose but it should not tell us how to live or restrict our freedoms.

Liberal – I would describe liberals as focusing on inclusion.  Liberal ideals believe in providing a good life for everyone.  They aren’t fans of the traditional values that Conservatives value and they look to make the world more inclusive for everyone in spite of what their values are.  Many of the traditions that Conservatives value tend to feel extreme to Liberals.  Our currency should not include God on it, whose God are we referring to?  Will that make others feel left out?  Think of the Ten Commandments monument that was removed from the courthouse in Montana.  Think of the colored Christmas lights on public land at Christmas time, Manger scenes at Christmas, etc.  I see liberals giving up their own rights so that they don’t feel like they’re stepping on anyone else’s rights.

Progressive – This term is mis-used today.  Progressive to me indicates someone who leans liberal, but they exercise it more strongly (liberal on steroids).  Some people use the term Progressive to describe socialist beliefs which isn’t accurate.  I see how that confusion would take place, but I think socialism is more extreme than progressiveness.  Progressives believe many of the same things that liberals do, but they’re willing to give up more to make it happen.  I think we see many more progressives in today’s world than liberals, although many people calling themselves progressives believe in socialism.  Progressives believe in big government, but they don’t want to give everything to the government as to Socialists.  I see progressives as throwing traditions out the door and starting fresh.  They definitely want to provide for others and can’t stand to see anyone not on the equal.  They believe that government has the obligation to provide for people.

Socialism – Give everything to the government and let the government work everything out.  They will provide food, medicine, housing and any other essentials that they determine necessary.  The government knows best and it is not your job to question that. You have the obligation to serve the community with the skills you have and you won’t necessarily be rewarded based on what that job is.  For example, my boss and I both work in Systems.  We would likely be given the same size home and allowed the same “stuff”, it doesn’t matter that he is a manager and in our current market would make $50,000 more than I do.  In a socialist system, we would receive the same thing.  (Sounds a lot like Unions where your compensation is based on time in grade and not performance)  The Nolan chart uses the term Statist, which I correlate to socialist. 

Of course, you can be blended versions of these categories.  Conservative Libertarian, Progressive Socialist, etc.  I fall into the category of Conservative Libertarian and I completely understand why.  I believe in many of the traditional beliefs that the country was founded on.  I am deeply religious and my religion is important to me.  The life of the unborn, the fact that our laws are founded on the bible and ten commandments, etc.  I also relate to the Libertarian party which floored me.  However, I now understand that they do have values which are important to me.  Small government, laws that don’t restrict my freedoms, live and let live as long as you’re not hurting others and low taxes.  Sometimes these values don’t mesh well with my conservative values and it’s interesting to see which one wins. 

Barack Obama is probably a Progressive Socialist.  That helps explain why he relates to the liberals and progressives, but the socialist part of him is like nails on the chalk board to people like me.  Taxes drive me absolutely crazy.  “Spreading the wealth around” goes against every principle I have.  I lived in Illinois for a while and it nearly killed me each month paying our property taxes.  Now, we’re back in Colorado where the property taxes are more reasonable, but our tax structure is changing under the current government.  Colorado just implemented new taxes on food, candy, soda and internet sales.  Internet sales!!!  That is a big irritant for me because I shop online for everything.  This really upsets me, but fits with the liberal, progressive and/or socialist ideals.  High taxes lead to bigger government and the ability to provide for others that choose not to (and the few that can’t).

Squeaky…

This is Joe’s final post from Canada

Our 4th day began with an unfortunate phone call. Our excursion to go Heliskiing was postponed due to the poor visibility and low ceiling. We had our ski boots at the shop, so we headed up with our skis and skied the Blackcomb Mountain. We walked right onto the same gondola we waited for 30 minutes the day before. Not only was there no line there, we didn’t wait in line for a lift all day. Even the cafeteria wasn’t that packed. However, due to the gold medal hockey game starting at noon local time, there was a loud group watching.

The lack of people and the amount of terrain were spectacular. The visibility was the worst I’ve ever skied in. Most of the day we could only see at most 2-3 chairs infront of us. The cloud sublimated on our goggles like rain on a windshield. Even when the clouds shifted and allowed for better horizontal vision, there was no way to see the terrain or fall lines. The light was so flat, we fell many times because we thought we were going down hill when all of the sudden, we weren’t. It was very tough to ski the whole day in the “ready” position.

We decided to quit skiing at 2:30, so we skied to the bottom to pick up our shoes. When we got to the Heli shop where we left them, they had closed for the hockey game until 3:00. We couldn’t go back up because it took at least that long to get back on the gondola and get to another lift. We watched the end of the game on the big screen at the base. After it was over, we went to pick up our shoes. To avoid a $2 bus fee back to our hotel, we decided to ski with them to our hotel. We took the other gondola to the top of Whistler Mountain. When we got to our run to our hotel, we were told it was closed. They said it was too late in the day. Not only that, but because of the amount of material that still hadn’t been cleaned up from the Olympic ski racing, the gondola wouldn’t be open from our building to the top for the next two days. So much for having a ski-in/ski-out. We skied back to the village and took the bus back.

The day ended spectacularly with a soak in our hot tub and pool and dinner at the Mongolian grill in town. We were in bed early to wake up and check the conditions for heli-skiing in case we had to ski the regular mountain again. The low clouds had all blown out and the sun was eeking through the lightly overcast skies. We grabbed breakfast before heading out to the bus to the heliport. Because of the Games, the heliport had the same security check as the airport. There were also 3 pads occupied by the Canadian military for patrolling the valley. We went through a quick avalanche beacon training course then prepared for the day.

The trip went up 6,500 feet to an elevation of 8,500 took all of about 15 minutes. We went behind the Blackcomb ski area over glacial fields up to a point called Shark’s Tooth, named for obvious reasons. The landing spot on top was no more than 10′ x 14′. After unloading all the skis and the 4 skiers in our group, the chopper was off and we were left stading there on top of two separate glaciers. We skied off the Shark’s Tooth to the Tremor Glacier. Our big fat skis we rented kept us from breaking all the way through the crust into over 8 feet of snow. They also helped us transferring from turn to turn by acting as like a springboard to jump out of the snow. The turns were effortless and soft. The views were endless and breathtaking.

However, after two runs the snow started to warm up. Turns became more of a chore, and the next glaciers had more traversing and more steeps. A few crashes in the deep stuff really took a lot out of us. We made it through the last two runs and stopped for a lunch of sandwiches, juice boxes, soup, tea, and a desert bar. We took a few pictures, then headed back to the heliport. We decided to make it a cheaper night and stopped at the market for steaks, salad, and noodles. After a soak in the hot tub, we cooked them up and had a great meal and were ready for lounging by 6:00. A truly amazing day.

Editor’s note: We’re happy to announce the return of Johnny Goodman!

First off my apologies to the loyal (are there still any) readers of my column. Unfortunately Johnny Goodman hasn’t been feeling so good the last few months. A return of Hodgkin’s cancer, a couple of special trips down chemo lane, and a few weeks set aside to spend time in the hospital due to complications puts a lot in perspective. Through this entire struggle I have found out stuff about the human body that I never realized, and discovered they can put tubes and wires in such in places that are un-imaginable … but I digress.

Sports was a common theme that kept the fun times going during my hiatus. I was really knocked down with a number of issues right at the first of the year, allowing my hospital bed as a warm respite to watch a variety of college bowl and NFL playoff games.

The Olympics were a nice break. Even nicer that the neighbors to the north won the Hockey Gold Medal. I think Al Michaels said it best indicating that there was a lot of merriment in the streets of Vancouver but if the color would have been silver, the jubilation would not have been quite as great.

The Olympics in many ways have me reflect on my own struggles of going through cancer. There are good days, and bad days. There are high notes, and low notes. There are times where people overcome incredible odds, and times when they disappoint miserably.

The big winner this year has got to be curling. I cannot remember a single sport getting so much free publicity and coverage as Curling received this year in the Games. NFL stars, Face book pages, clothing sites, and I am sure a few other sites as well, will hopefully carry some momentum to more of the warmer reaches of our country as well as others in brining this sport to the next level of popularity.

Too much is made of the drama in all the prima donnas of the sport in my opinion. How many times can we see the tiara put on with the tears flowing. I like Lindsay Vonn but there has to be better stories to cover in depth, such as the US Men’s Bobsled team.

Overall the television coverage did another nice job this year and as the coverage wraps up, I find myself doing what I do every year when the Olympics are over … waiting for another 2 years to see the next games smothered all over of my TV screen.

What I am sick and tired of is the budget and tax debates that we have to go through every year. It doesn’t matter whether we are talking city, state or national politics. Whenever there is not enough money in the budget to cover every program, the only proposed cuts are in essential services (i.e. police, fire, military). The only solution is raising tax rates, not cutting other services or programs. What else is in the budget? Are all of the other line items in the city charter or in the state or federal constitution?

As an example, my state established a special levy tax to cover a shortfall in the roads budget. Okay, a specific tax for a specific purpose. This year, our governor wants to divert some of the money brought in by this special levy to pay for the state patrol. This was an interesting bait and switch. What in the over all budget is more important than funding the state patrol? I have actually requested a copy of the proposed budget, and I was informed that it would not be available until it was passed into law. A bit late I think!

I am not a member of the Tea Party, so I am not asking for tax cuts. I am not a libertarian, so I am not asking for the elimination of taxes either. There are legitimate reasons to have taxes and to raise those taxes. I am fiscally conservative. Just like in my own finances, if the money is not there, do not spend it. If I cannot afford something, I can not go to my boss and tell him I need a higher salary. Actually, I can, but I do not have the authority to force him to give it to me. If on the other hand, I offer to perform some additional service or make additional product, he will probably compensate me for that additional effort. So it should be with taxes.

We have basic taxes to fund necessary government functions. Any other activities that are desired by the community should come with a funding source so that the boss (tax payers) can decide if that activity is worth funding. Whether that is new taxes or some fee schedule would have to be decided at the time of implementation of the program. This is not an evaluation of the value of any specific program. There are things that have to be funded, but many of the activities that are in different public budgets are designed to “encourage” or “develop”. Although these programs may be good to have for the community, they are by definition non-essential. If the people want the program, they will accept a tax hike or fee. If that funding is insufficient, then the true costs will be exposed and the value of the program can be reviewed.

I really don’t have a problem with attaching each program, even the basic stuff, to specific taxes. If 2% is good enough to cover the fire department of a community of 1,000 people, the efficiencies of scale should make it good enough for a community of 100,000. This example is of course completely arbitrary, I have no idea what an actual tax rate against what commodity (land, property, income, sales) is necessary to fund a fire department. This may result in the reduction of activities supporting local parks or loss of the subsidy for sheep in South Dakota for wool army uniforms (not used since WWI), but it will make tax and budget discussions less divisive. All I am really asking for is transparency and an elimination of the scare tactics used to get tax hikes