Tax, Spend, and Save?

The Washington Post reports that the Arlington County board is considering an energy tax that could end up costing up to $26 per resident. Small change for our big Northern Virginia salaries, isn't it? Ignoring the concept of taxing because we can afford it, I want to discuss some of the rhetoric coming from the County.

The article quoted County Manager Ron Carlee in saying that, "the "modest" utility tax may encourage residents to curb consumption." Before and after this quote, the article lists a number of things that the extra revenue should help pay for. Here's my question:

How can the County expect the tax to reduce consumption and increase revenue?

I get suspicious anytime a government claims that a tax will somehow reduce the need for itself. My suspicion is that the idea of reducing consumption is just the thing that the public needs to sway opinion in favor of a tax increase. Mr. Carlee even called the tax modest, which indicates to me that very few people will change their behavior in order to avoid it. Most people will pay it and continue with their current level of energy consumption. In fact, most people who would curb their behavior to save $26 have already done so, simply for the feeling of having done something good for the environment.

In short, don't be convinced of the good virtue of the County on this. This is simply a ploy to get revenue, much of which may offset costs that are hardly related to energy and the environment.

Views at Clarendon

Yes, I did it. I watched the entire Arlington County Board meeting regarding the Views at Clarendon project. In fact, the meeting provided much of the inspiration I needed to finally start this blog. Why, you ask? Because I think both parties got it wrong!

The neighbors thought they had zoning rights. Here's something to remember: when government gives you something, it's not a right. Rights are something that you had without a government. You were given zoning privileges, and as with any privilege, it can be taken away. As you are learning now, the hand that feeds you can also slap you in the face.

The church, in what I consider to be a slightly lesser offense, seeks to use public money for its ministry. As a libertarian, I disdain the idea of public funds being used for affordable housing. As we saw at the meeting, many people oppose affordable housing when it "blocks my child's view of the sunlight." With such opposition, can it be right to use taxpayer dollars for such project? However, since the church is seeking a loan, not a grant, and that loan would be available to non-religious groups, I feel it would have been inappropriate to discriminate against the church by denying funds because they are faith-based. I wish they weren't seeking the money, but since they are, they should get it just like anyone else would.

Here's my take. The neighbors should have never depended on the government's zoning "power" to protect them. Furthermore, no one should try to use the law to regulate what someone else does on their own property. Radical? Maybe, but completely American. On the other hand, the church should have sought a ministry that did not depend on taxpayer dollars.

In the end, I applaud the County Board's decision, but barely.

In a (my) perfect world, the church would have a privately funded ministry in a building as big as they can afford to build. But no, we all want government in our back pocket, poised to bite us in a very uncomfortable place.