Charlotte Observer Politics

Today's Charlotte Observer has an editorial explaining their political position for this year's city council election. Oh, they don't tell you it explains their political position, so in case you read it and missed it's point, I'll help out a little. They claim there are "three big questions" to ask potential candidates for the Charlotte city council.

This answer gets a little long, so I'll put it in the extended entry.

What kinds of alternative revenue sources do you support for Charlotte?

That question just outright screams, "We want more cash!" They absolutely cannot conceive of ever reducing spending in any way, shape, or form, in any venue. It automatically assumes that all government spending is good, so there should only be more and more of it.

The Observer actually honestly believes there is no such thing as waste in government, or, that if there is waste, that it's OK, and they should just spend even more to make up for the waste. They complain that it's not fair that LOCAL taxes pay for growth!

Yes, they honestly believe that the City of Charlotte should NOT pay for it's own growth and instead, someone else (everyone else), should pay for it. They end by claiming that anyone who opposes anything but a complete and total expansion of spending by the city is "closed-minded."

My answer (if I were running): You people are idiots and fools. If you want more money for spending, go ahead and spend it. Why is it government's primary job to spend as much money as they can steal from the people? The city should reduce taxes, reduce income, stop spending so much money on crap like private playground for the rich, and instead spend money on police and reducing crime!

Alternative revenue sources, my big old butt. The only alternative revenue source I might be convinced to support is a tax increase on stupid newspaper articles. Here's a novel concept for you people -- if you want something, get off your lazy rear end, work for it, and buy it! Stop trying to force me to work for you so you can buy crap that I don't want or need.

Next question.

How should Charlotte plan financially for its long-term needs, particularly for police officers, fire stations and roadbuilding?

Didn't I just answer this?

(subtext for previous question): Charlotte's property tax remains lower than other cities in North Carolina, yet its fiscal policy includes almost no money for long-term needs or capital projects such as streets, fire stations or cultural arts facilities.

Yes, the Observer continues to COMPLAIN about low tax rates. With this question, they are trying to play to conservatives by claiming to actually care about crime and real needs. They don't, I assure you. They just want more money.

You see, this question again assumes that all government spending is good. It assumes that the current spending levels on things like the "Arts and Science Council" are good and absolutely cannot be reduced even one dollar. Therefore, there's not enough money for police. There is, it's just not being spent on police and fire.

My answer: Did I mention that you people are fools? Charlotte spends too much money, period. If they'd stop spending tens of millions of dollars building buildings for private companies, they'd have a lot more money. If Charlotte would stop giving money to charities, they'd have a ton more money.

How should they plan for police? Easy -- shut down all the social programs and social spending that encourages lazy people and spend the money on policemen. Stop giving away money to arts and museums and give the money to fire stations. It's called common sense, Charlotte Observer, clearly a concept with evades you entirely.

Last question (thankfully):

How can Charlotte connect development decisions to the impact on critical public resources like schools and public safety?

Can you say, "Soviet-style communism?" I knew you could. The Observer doesn't believe in freedom -- at all. They honestly hate anyone who exercises any freedom. They do not want you to build what you want, they do not believe in any property rights at all, and they don't want you to go anywhere they haven't approved.

When they ask a question like this, the answer they are looking for is something along the lines of, "We will use the heavy-handed tool of zoning, in conjunction with that Kelo decision of the Supreme Court, to dictate where everyone will live. We will ensure that no one builds any house except very high-density soviet-style apartment buildings with rent control. We will force everyone out of their automobiles by using zoning to ensure people simply won't have room to park. And will we ensure that in every government-run school there will be exactly one poor black child sitting next to one rich white child, no matter the cost, or the fact that there are no measurable benefits to them being seated that way."

My answer: Shut up you communist fools. How would I connect decisions to public resources? I'll do as this country was founded to do -- allow freedom. Government is supposed to RESPOND to citizens, not the other way around. I'd remove nearly all zoning laws and let people build whatever they heck they wanted to on their own damn private property.

AFTER the people have decided what to build, I would have government do as it ought to -- provide the damn services the people pay for. It's called freedom and governmental responsibility -- two more concepts that I'm quite sure have never darkened the newsroom doors at the Observer.

So...

Do you think I'd get their endorsement?

Posted by: Ogre at 12:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 953 words, total size 6 kb.