By Jim Dyment

These were the choices given by the commissioners: If we don’t pass a $2 million tax increase, these are the things we lose. You are saying that without the increase, these nine programs will be affected and the single largest item is the cut to law and justice and that the other eight are insignificant. If they are insignificant, then their inclusion in the budget reduction is also insignificant (but I do agree that they should be cut).

My assertion is that whenever there is a budgetary shortfall, the first and often only programs that are targeted for significant cuts are police, fire, and often, education. Granted, they are often the largest budget items. My assertion is that in a world with limited government these programs are the responsibility of government. None of the other items on the list are and therefore should not be in the budget in the first place.

My second assertion is that, without having the entire line item budget proposal in front of me, there are very likely other programs and positions in the budget that aren’t being considered for budgetary reductions. I could be wrong of course, since I don’t have a copy of the budget proposal. So if we are faced with two choices, accept a $2 millionr tax increase or cut programs, then every county program should be subject to scrutiny as to its value to the taxpayers.

The provision of police, fire, and education, are programs that we, as a country, have decided are roles for government and we agree as taxpayers to pay for them. We do so through property taxation. We have many programs that we do not agree on as suitable for government oversight and funding, but we, right or wrong (and I mean that in a constitutional sense) voted for their inclusion.

They should be subject to this budgetary review also. You, as our elected representatives, are responsible for doing that (but I don’t have to tell you your job). Everything should be on the table.

Mike Merringer stated, “Any reduction would result in the inability to meet our constitutional requirements to provide mandated programs for the citizens of Island County.” I question what, in our actual budget, is truly constitutionally mandated and what are “nice to haves”?

I’m guessing that many of our county programs that we now currently fund are not truly constitutionally mandated. My desire to cut programs and live within our constitutionally mandated requirements (and the associated budget) is not about not wanting to provide extra services or about cutting people off who now receive many of the services described; it’s about living within our means, wisely spending our money on the services that are required, and not acquiring more responsibilities that aren’t mandated.

Before I vote for a tax increase, however substantial or insubstantial, I want to know that this money is being used for the services that government is required to provide, not for services that are “nice to haves.” While a $3.50 increase on a property valued at $250,000 is only a small amount, it’s in addition to the taxes already levied. I do believe that we need to adequately fund our primary core programs. I want to know that there are no other alternatives.

Maybe I missed this stage of the budgetary review and if so please remind me so that I can go look that up, but your proposal is highly definitive: Accept a $2 million tax increase or lose these services. I want to be confident that we have no other alternatives. We live in a time where every dollar is highly valuable to the taxpayers and as stewards of this money I want to know that every dollar is being spent on the required programs first. Convince me, and all the other taxpayers of this county, that is what has been done.

Jim Dyment lives in Clinton.