Stacia: Just to be sure that folks understand the intent:
1. On social services I believe we should have a combination of support from taxes and donations. Five agencies should be supported at a maximum rate of about $250,000. All other amounts and other agencies should get funds through donations. The five agencies that should be supported are Emergency Shelter, Crisis Center, CASA, Boys and Girls club and Hospice. I encourage everyone that is concerned about funding for SSAB to donate, that is why I set up the Water Bill donation program through the city for SSAB. I kick in 50 dollars a month. I ask everyone that pays a water bill to kick in one dollar.
2. I believe every citizen has an obligation to pay taxes. I prefer consumption tax over property tax. I believe we should have a safety net for the poor, but not a hammock. An example of the hammock is the federal giveaway of cell phones to the poor. We seem to interchange the words poor and needy, not sure they are the same.
3. UFM is just one of the agencies that I do not think should be in the same category for tax support as the emergency shelter. The point made was that if you give at the office (tax dollars taken) then you have less to donate. Cannot have it both ways. I would prefer to donate to other agencies not UFM. However my water bill donation can be directed to UFM by the SSAB.
4. You jump to a very false conclusion that I ran for office to lower my taxes. I did it to lower the city debt and all taxes. I will hardly benefit, but the many folks on a fixed income deserve some consideration.
My final point is that I would not call Debbie a Communist. Socialist maybe, but I do not think she meets the bill of a cold war commie, those guys were truly evil people. I am against using the tax code for social engineering and for income redistribution. The current tax code Federal, State, County City etc is less focused on raising revenue to run the legitimate function of government and more on what you called the dog whistle topics.
I have always made it clear that the primary interest in getting involved in government is to reduce the cost, eliminate waste and maintain core functions. We of course totally disagree on the definition of many of those concepts. But it is incorrect on your part to state that I am against providing any social services. It is correct to state that I support the flat tax or the Fairtax and whatever consequences that may have for the population as a whole, rich or poor. I tend to think it will be best for both sides of the equation. Glad you got the main point that the goal is lower taxes for all, nothing to be appalled about in that concept.