Three Groups Oppose Muscogee County Tax Proposal

THE GEORGIA CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN VOTERS COALITION, THE NAACP, AND THE CAMPAIGN KNOWN AS “BE SMART, VOTE NO L.O.S.T.” UNITE AGAINST L.O.S.T.

The Thursday, July 10, 2008, online and print editions of the Ledger-Enquirer of Columbus, Georgia, very prominently announced the fact that three local groups now officially endorse the proposed one-cent increase in the Local Option Sales Tax, known by its acronym “LOST.” These include the Chamber of Commerce, the Firefighters Association, and the Muscogee County Young Republicans. About 5,000 citizens have already voted early by now (Friday, the last day of early voting). Tuesday, July 15, 2008, is the official voting day, and polls will be open 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. In response to the LE’s curious inability to stay neutral on the issue, the Georgia Conservative Republican Voters Coalition believes that it may be helpful to remind intelligent citizenry that there are also three groups opposed to the tax, noted above.

The City has been extraordinarily active in promoting this tax proposal, which would add one cent to the current municipal sales tax. Reports of aggressive promotion among city officials among their own employees have abounded. Meanwhile, the Ledger-Enquirer has been outright beholden to it, even going so far as to publish an editorial explicitly to promote it, signed simply “Editorial Board.”

The pro-LOST campaign committee has poured $41,000 into its efforts to convince citizens to vote for this proposal. Moreover, it has enough money remaining to launch a promotional blitz in the few days left before the final day of voting, thanks to such mammoth contributors as AFLAC, Synovus, the W. C. Bradley Company, and Woodruff Holdings. (Careful scrutiny of the last LE article cited will reveal how some of these entities have circumvented their statutory maximum contributions to double their investments.) On the other side of the coin, the local chapter of Common Cause, the consumer watchdog group, has warned the heavily funded pro-tax campaign to revise its advertising, which deceptively employs semantic gymnastics to make the false claim that LOST is not actually a tax increase.

By now, it should strike the intelligent Columbusite that there is something fishy about this level of promotion. Aside from the City’s exceeding its legitimate boundaries of activism to promote the tax, something is amiss about the fact that the City’s major newspaper is also promoting it so heavily, when reasonably it should be the one entity whose interest remains reliably neutral, for the sake of a fair public appraisal. In response to this sentiment, here is the original version of a letter to the editor recently published in the print edition of the Ledger-Enquirer but strangely missing from the online edition:

The proposed sales tax increase has potential merit, and I thank the infamous ruckus-raiser Mr. Bert Coker for inspiring me to take a serious look at it. Upon careful consideration, I must side with Mr. Coker (and Paul Olson, and the local NAACP) on this issue and vote “no.” I would like the City Council to make a stronger case. Consider this: The Public Safety budget is about the same size as property tax revenues, which suggests that in effect property taxes are paying for law enforcement. Now, the City is about to lose two cents from the expiration of two temporary (SPLOST) taxes. But that’s not something that we should be trying to replace! Those are special-project funds that we are indeed supposed to stop funding once the special projects are paid for! So, what is threatening Public Safety revenues? Why is it so urgent, right now, to raise the sales tax? Because of SPLOST expiration? But why should that be an issue? SPLOST isn’t supposed to be funding Public Safety! However, state law requires the City to earmark any new increase in the sales tax for a stated purpose. Okay, so we’re told that it’s all about Public Safety. But how do we know that the current Public Safety budget, funded through property taxes, won’t be redirected after the new sales tax has passed, leaving Public Safety little changed from what it is now? This is why the City needs to present a stronger case, with stronger guarantees, not simplistic “one hundred more cops” arguments. If the City must reformulate its case, I would like to see a bigger jump in police salary than a $3,000 bonus, to attract better-quality candidates (why not $10K?), plus additional outlays for heavier training. If that means only 50 more cops of significantly higher caliber instead of the planned 100 cops, considering there is no reason to expect the Public Safety budget to be cut due to SPLOST expiration (is there?), then our police force stands to gain appreciably anyway, once the City makes a strong enough case. —Richard Voss, Columbus.

The Georgia Conservative Republican Voters Coalition opposes the tax increase. Here is why. First, as a matter of principle, the GCRVC presumes a bias against any tax that does not seek to promote the national defense, in accordance with the provisions of the US Constitution, or to support analogous protections at state and local levels. This means that the GCRVC will test every tax proposal for integrity, accountability, and transparency. If any of these elements is missing in a tax proposal, then the only correct stance to take is to oppose it. If the City feels that a particular project is so vital to the public interest that it merits a public appeal to raise taxes for it, then it should prepare the strongest possible case, with the firmest guarantees, and then let the people calmly decide.

Put another way, this simply means that the GCRVC holds the City to a high standard. This is reasonable. Working for the people should never be easy. It should never become so comfortable to sit in incumbency in elective office that the duty to strive and struggle to protect and promote the people’s interests starts to fade into a neglected afterthought. The republican practice of handing power to a few to make decisions for the many is far too serious. Good people should hesitate before deciding to run for public office, and when they get there, they should remain humble and beholden to the people who chose to put them there.

The GCRVC invites the City to make a better case. The elements of that case should include at least the following suggestion posted by an anonymous citizen to the LE “Comments” page on July 11:

I would also like for Columbus to be a great city. I would vote yes if:

1. The revenue would be spent correctly as stated and not used for waste and bonuses for employees.

2. The true reason officers cannot effectively write tickets nor respond to 911 calls timely, due to other important job responsibilities that prevent them from doing so.

3. That firefighters and officers would certainly get raises they deserve based on their service to the community, and not on national equations only.

3. And, even though I received a notice from the tax office within the past month informing me of a sizable property tax increase, assure me that this added tax is also needed.

I don’t think that the one cent in essence, is what people are upset about. It is about accountability and honesty. There is still some time left to produce real facts (instead of insults) that lay out a plan that makes sense and gives people a personal reason (and not political) to vote what they think will make this city one that everyone can be proud of. Everybody doesn’t see the so-called facts the same. Most of us are the average tax payer that wants common sense answers with a little courtesy.

The GCRVC thanks this anonymous contributor for making our case so succinctly.

Richard Voss