Candelaria: Aquatics center is government waste

After making my announcement a week ago, it is obvious that my ideas have sparked a lot of interest and a bit of controversy. One thing I’d like to address that my detractors have focused on is my opposition to the aquatics center.

It is true, I do not have a formal course of action to stop this project or redirect these funds, but the fact that I oppose it speaks to my views on government-funded recreation, and government interference into citizen’s lives in general.

Yes, the parks bond was voted on and passed, but it was passed by a fractional majority. According the Pinal County Election results, the bond passed by a margin of 61 percent to 39 percent. Taking into account that only 65 out of 100 registered voters actually showed up, the facts are that a little more than 39 percent of the voting population in 2008, passed legislation raising taxes for the entire community. Nearly 7,000 people were responsible for raising taxes on 40,000 inhabitants and their posterity.

The $65 million bond was proposed at a time when estimates put our population at 120,000 by 2010. I believe this project will represent a major burden on the existing tax base and I do not support it. I also believe if this issue were put up for consideration again, with the benefit of hindsight, it would fail miserably. Perhaps that is the only way it can be reversed, is through referendum or an initiative by the people. It may also be possible for council to simply change its focus. In all honesty, I do not know but I intend to find out.

What I do know is that we have already borrowed $20 million, and are paying interest on it as we speak. Predictably, in the three years since the bond’s passage, the only thing created thus far is a new “recreation department” and more bureaucrats.

One proposal I can make going forward is the imposition of a requirement for a two-thirds majority to pass any referendum or initiative that raises taxes, along with a 75 percent voter turnout threshold.

This modest proposal would make it harder for a fractional majority to impose its will on everyone else. I call it a modest proposal, because even with those minimum requirements, under 51 percent of the voting community could still conceivably pass higher taxation.

The position that I am taking is that government bureaucrats should have no place in dictating economic policy or providing social services that could be provided through private means. Whether those private means are funded for profit or not is of little consequence. Either one would provide those services more efficiently than any government bureaucracy entitled to the authority to lay taxes.

This monopoly of force is exactly the reason that government should have no ability to compete with or restrict the commerce of individuals and businesses. It is too easy for this force to be corrupted, abused and mismanaged to the detriment of human freedom. The government, at all levels, should be dutifully restricted to protecting the individual’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which includes the right to your labor and the fruits thereof).

I should also mention that protecting the lives of people does not entail taking responsibility for them, nor does protection of the pursuit of happiness permit government to provide means of happiness to certain individuals at the expense of others, no matter how many people vote for it.

As, I’ve stated before, the city should be limited to funding infrastructure projects such as roads, sidewalks, traffic lights, street lights, and the maintenance thereof. Adherence to this principle and dedication to eliminating barriers to business will stimulate development and commerce by providing necessary infrastructure without creating a heavy debt burden on the tax base. More money in people's pockets means more money can be spent on goods and services, creating a vibrant, competitive local economy.