New tax is irresponsible
Published: Thursday, May 1, 2003 at 6:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 at 11:03 p.m.
Kudos to Mark Stinnett (Voice, April 28) for taking a stand against Cynthia Chestnut and her "tax of compassion." Chestnut's tax has nothing to do with compassion and everything to do with, and I'm paraphrasing, "taking from those who earn and giving it to those who don't earn," so that she appears to be a champion for the poor.
It has apparently become the mission of politicians to see just how much money can be pried from the pockets of the citizens of Alachua County, by force of law if necessary.
The neat thing about a referendum is that if a new tax proposal can be worded just right, many voters will have no idea of what they are voting for or against because they simply will not understand the legal gibberish. At the same time, the proposal can be written so that anyone reading it will feel guilty about not supporting the "indigent."
Chestnut knows that very few people will actually read her proposal, which means that she can go forth into the community and skillfully steer public opinion. In fact, Chestnut has been in politics long enough to know that massaging the truth just enough to meet her agenda can easily influence the public to pass her tax.
Stinnett is absolutely correct in his assessment that soon, Chestnut will be dividing us into those who care versus those who have no heart. She will use guilt and tales of children who can't get to a doctor, even when the law already stipulates that no one can be refused medical care by any hospital emergency room.
Another tax is a bad idea, no matter who it allegedly benefits.
Before the county collects one more penny, it should be forced to prove that it can be fiscally responsible, which it has never done. If there is one overwhelming attitude at the county it is that the county is all-powerful and the taxpayer exists only to service its needs.
Comments are currently unavailable on this article