Comment 59641

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted February 12, 2011 at 14:12:23 in reply to Comment 59640

I just find it interesting that two of the cities talked about most on RTH are Portland and Boston. Both are put forward as examples of forward thinking, progressive communities.

I suppose in this case, progressive also means tax caps and tight budget controls to limit overspending.

For example, Boston's city spending increased only around 22% after adjusting for population growth from 2005-2009. More than Portland's 19%, but less than Hamilton's 28.9%.

How is it that when I mention keeping spending and taxes low, the RTH'ers cry foul. And yet when RTH speaks of Boston and Portland, they shower praise on their leadership. Do they not understand that the tax caps exist precisely because the people don't trust the leadership?

Handing over our wallets to government to spend does not help Hamilton's economy. Putting them on a strict budget and allowing tax rates to fall and investors to invest will. In this scenario, the city will have to prioritize spending, just as households do.

If progressives love to talk about reducing waste in terms of energy use and garbage, why not taxpayers money as well? Or is it smart to waste money on things that nobody wants or needs?

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools