As I've listened to various candidates, heard their radio ads, received their direct mail pieces and read their opt-ed pieces there is one item that defines them all — whether they believe the KBRA is a good or bad idea.
If a candidate is in favor of the KBRA, then you can pretty well bet that candidate is also for increasing the size and scope of government to solve problems. In order to meet this objective they will need to raise more revenue and that will come at the expense of the tax payer.
If a candidate is against the KBRA, then you can pretty well bet they are for limited government. They probably are more fiscally conservative want to spend tax dollars on fewer programs but do them well.
The reason I come to this conclusion is that the KBRA is a private agreement among several groups — which is fine in and of itself. The claim is that the KBRA is people coming together to solve a problem. Again this is fine. The problem is KBRA's solution: dam removal and purchase of a tree farm to give to the Klamath Tribes. Both are funded not with their own money, but with tax payer money. This is a classic redistribution of wealth technique and a basic Marxist principle. This is not a principle found anywhere in our founding documents or an idea our founding fathers would approve. Yet, this is exactly what elitists do. They think they know best and then make everyone else pay for their magnanimous ideas. If it wasn't government doing this, we would call it stealing.
So in Klamath County we are at a tipping point. Do we want commissioners, a sheriff, a state representative and a senator who are in favor of taxing everyone for the benefit of a few or are in favor of government doing the few things it is chartered to do (and to do them well) and limit the scope of government.
The choice is yours.
Leave your reply
* = required field