Writing headlines is a lost art, and the copy editor at the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus responsible for the headline of Sunday’s editorial deserves an award for this one, “Quit making veterans beg for small tax.”
The excellent editorial takes the all-Republican Livingston County Board of Commissioners to task for their refusal to levy a required millage to provide money for a fund for the relief of honorably discharged indigent members of the military and their families. The 1899 law mandates that each county levy one-tenth of a mill for the fund, and the Livingston County Veterans Committee, consisting of five members appointed by the Board of Commissioners to oversee operations of the Veterans Affairs Department, is only asking for half of that. It would cost the average homeowner in the county less than $7 a year.
The Board of Commissioners’ Human Resources Committee decided it needed further study, and they kicked it down the road. Apparently, support the troops is just a campaign slogan for the Republicans, and the Livingston County Republicans care more about their billboards claming the county has the lowest tax rate in the state than veterans.
American Legion Post 141 in Howell sent out a mass email asking the more than 13,000 veterans living in the county to attend tonight’s meeting of the board’s Finance Committee. The email said, “Veterans Office traffic is up. Contacts with the Veterans Office rose over 40 percent between 2003 and 2008, and are up an additional 15 percent in the first three months of this year. The combination of increasing veterans, the bad economy and an aging veterans population is creating a lot of pressure for helping veterans.”
The newspaper’s editorial said it pretty clearly, “the Livingston County Board of Commissioners should do the right thing and levy a small tax that will guarantee a fund to provide support services for indigent military veterans and their families. To do otherwise — or to pass the buck by holding an unnecessary election on the matter — is not only a slap in the face to those we relied on to protect our freedoms, but also disregards a clearly stated law.”
The editorial also picked up on the county GOP’s decision to worry more about appearances than doing the right thing, “but the county board has been balking. In so doing, it gives credence to critics who believe the all-Republican board is more interested in protecting its low-tax status — trumpeted by the county Republican Party before last fall’s elections — than in providing services for veterans.”
The Finance Committee meeting is set for 7:30 p.m. Monday in the commissioners chambers at the courthouse annex, 304 E. Grand River in downtown Howell next to the Historic Livingston County Courthouse. The meeting is open to the public.
12 comments:
If a Republican supports a soldier, you can guarantee it's for a photo-op.
At least for the "leadership" of that party.
There is nothing wrong with advocating for this tax, but you show your colors by the way you misrepresent and ignore the facts.
First, you are completely wrong when you say state law mandates a 1/10th mill tax. In fact, the law mandates levying a tax "up to" 1/10th of a mill. The mandate can be met with a levy smaller than that, something the veterans council understands since it only asked for half as much as it allowed. You either don't understand it, or you purposedly tried to mislead.
Second, you make it sound as though the county hasn't been supporting the veterans. In fact, they have funded the office...through the general fund budget rather than through a separate tax.
No one had a problem with this until a) the former director retired, and b) the county general fund started to dwindle which put all budgets, including the vets, in jeopardy. The vets council rightly saw the law as a way to guarantee a funding source and protect against future county cuts.
What you fail to recognize is that the county could comply with the law and the vets could actually get less money...merely by levying a tax that produces less than the county now allocates from the general fund.
The veterans, in fact, are asking for a very small tax, but it will produce a big hike in their revenue. It's fair and appropriate for the county to wonder how effectively that money will be spent. (It's all second-hand, but I hear a lot of stories that suggest the veterans affairs office isn't the most efficient game in town. One source told me that they won't even use voice mail because they consider that to be disrepectful to callers. However, voice mail might reduce the number of hours that have to be staffed so that those labor hours can be better used.)
But how they use the money is a separate issue and can be addressed regardless if the money comes from the general fund or a separate tax.
The fact is that the law requires a tax be levied. Over the years, the county has funded the office without needing the tax. But now that the law has been brought to their attention, the commissioners need to comply with the law and levy a separate tax that adequately funds the office.
The fact that they are looking into this carefully does not make them anti-veteran. If I'm not mistaken, at least one commissioner has an impressive military background and one is married to a veteran who was seriously injured in Vietnam. I doubt they are anti-veteran..that's just a cheap shot by you since you can't avoid the chance to politicize everything.
You have already gone on record as saying that you always want higher taxes and that you don't think there is corruption in Detroit. So your partisanship is nothing new or surprising.
I have not misrepresented and ignored any facts, brett. You are simply playing word games. Yes, the state law mandates a 1/10th mill tax. Making a big deal out of the words “up to” just show that if I said it was night you would say it was day, brett.
You completely misunderstand the issue, brett. The fund is just that, a fund where money is used to help indigent vets and their families. The Livingston County Veterans Affairs office is a county department and should be funded by the general fund. The bottom line is all we hear from your side is how you support the troops, but not if it involves funding their needs.
I think it’s more than “the county general fund started to dwindle.” I don’t see them cutting the position or sharing the position of county administrator, the Emergency Management Director, The airport director, the animal control officer, the Director of Livco EMS, Friend of the Court or any of the other departments. No, the first cut they made was to veterans when the former director retired. Like the Veterans are saying, veterans office traffic is up. Contacts with the Veterans Office rose over 40 percent between 2003 and 2008, and are up an additional 15 percent in the first three months of this year. The combination of increasing veterans, the bad economy and an aging veteran’s population is creating a lot of pressure for helping veterans.
There is an organization in place to monitor “how effectively that money will be spent,” and there always has been. The Veterans Affairs Committee consists of five members that are appointed by the Board of Commissioners, and there is also a The Veterans Trust Fund Committee that includes a member from all the county veterans organizations.
What’s sad is that you take a cheap shot a group of dedicated officials just to attack me. I knew former director Bob Heinel when I covered the county for the paper, and I can tell you there is no one mode dedicated to veterans and their needs.
Well, your source is full of crap. If you call the office at 546.6338 you will get voice mail after hours. I think it reflects well on the office if you call a government office during business hours and get a person instead of a recording.
I don’t know about your claim about them being anti-vets. I know one commissioner was in the Air Force reserve and one in the Army Reserve. I never said they were anti-veterans, but there is no doubt veterans are not a priority.
I have never said “there is corruption in Detroit,” and that’s just one more case of you twisting words.
Sometimes, seeing a stupid person say something stupid still surprises me.
You consider Kevins saying "up to" as a word game?
I didn't understand how a county that is required to levy a tax of 1/10 could get away with not doing it. Little did I know that the actual wording is "up to 1/10".
You can fill a glass "up to" the top. There are three options here.
1. Fill it up to the top.
2. Fill it up to the top and let more run over.
3. Fill it part of the way.
Two of those three are correct. If the law says "up to", you can go to 1/10 but no further. You don't, however have to go to 1/10. You can go to 1/1000. You've levied the tax, it's within the required guidelines.
You're the one playing the word games by leaving out the "up to".
As for twisting words, you should look back at what Kevins said about corruption in Detroit. He said there was corruption in Detroit, you said there is no corruption in Detroit, but you come back at him as twisting words by saying you never said there "is corruption in Detroit".
With all of your screwing around with the language and your lack of understanding of the written word, there is no way that you were ever a reporter for any newspaper. If however, I have that wrong and you were indeed hired by a newspaper as a reporter, I completely undertand why you no longer work for them. You had to have been fired...or would that be terminated. I'll let you figure out which word is correct, but I suspect that you'll come back with a witty reply such as "I'm not Arnold Schwarzeneggar".
Yes, I consider you saying "up to" a word game, brett. Yes, I don’t know how the county got away with not providing money to the indigent veteran’s fund. As for my former employment; all I can say is I could care less what some anonymous coward like you thinks of me.
Often when guru loses an argument badly, he just ignores it.
But what's most amusing is when he loses an argument and thinks he has a response...he just looks dumber.
When I point out the difference between a mandatory tax of 1/10th of a mill and a tax of "up to" 1/10th of a mill, he says I am playing word games. There is a huge difference, as evidenced by the fact that the veterans only asked for 1/20th of mill, which is half the 1/10th level but fully within the the "up to." All Guru had to do was concede that he mis-read the law; that didn't affect the overall point of his argument.
But he couldn't do it and, as such, shows again his mental weakness.
Then, when another poster points out his error, he resorts to name-calling, which is one of his favorite tactics when he is exposed.
I'll try to put this is terms he will understand. Let's say you are convicted of a child molesting charge and are sentenced to "up to" 10 years in prison. That's a far different sentence than a mandatory 10 years in prison. That's an example you can understand, isn't it guru?
Like I said before, brett; The difference between a mandatory tax of 1/10th of a mill and a tax of "up to" is irrelevant. What’s’ relevant is this is just one more example of Republicans like you demonstrating that support the troops is just a political slogan.
Yes, I do understand your example. It’s just another way for you to use a false, disgusting smear, and it just demonstrates what a cowardly scum bag you really are. When you lose an argument you continue to bring up useless side issues and stoop to name-calling. But your example has nothing to do with this issue.
I have re-read each post on here by guru. He said that he had said before that the difference in what he said and what Kevins was saying was "irrelevent". That's not what he said. He said it was a word game that Kevins was playing. Just so that i'm not getting this wrong, here is each post.
In response to Ka Dargo, aka brett:
At least for the "leadership" of that party.
12:01 PM
In response to Kevins, aka brett:
I have not misrepresented and ignored any facts, brett. You are simply playing word games. Yes, the state law mandates a 1/10th mill tax. Making a big deal out of the words “up to” just show that if I said it was night you would say it was day, brett.
You completely misunderstand the issue, brett. The fund is just that, a fund where money is used to help indigent vets and their families. The Livingston County Veterans Affairs office is a county department and should be funded by the general fund. The bottom line is all we hear from your side is how you support the troops, but not if it involves funding their needs.
I think it’s more than “the county general fund started to dwindle.” I don’t see them cutting the position or sharing the position of county administrator, the Emergency Management Director, The airport director, the animal control officer, the Director of Livco EMS, Friend of the Court or any of the other departments. No, the first cut they made was to veterans when the former director retired. Like the Veterans are saying, veterans office traffic is up. Contacts with the Veterans Office rose over 40 percent between 2003 and 2008, and are up an additional 15 percent in the first three months of this year. The combination of increasing veterans, the bad economy and an aging veteran’s population is creating a lot of pressure for helping veterans.
There is an organization in place to monitor “how effectively that money will be spent,” and there always has been. The Veterans Affairs Committee consists of five members that are appointed by the Board of Commissioners, and there is also a The Veterans Trust Fund Committee that includes a member from all the county veterans organizations.
What’s sad is that you take a cheap shot a group of dedicated officials just to attack me. I knew former director Bob Heinel when I covered the county for the paper, and I can tell you there is no one mode dedicated to veterans and their needs.
Well, your source is full of crap. If you call the office at 546.6338 you will get voice mail after hours. I think it reflects well on the office if you call a government office during business hours and get a person instead of a recording.
I don’t know about your claim about them being anti-vets. I know one commissioner was in the Air Force reserve and one in the Army Reserve. I never said they were anti-veterans, but there is no doubt veterans are not a priority.
I have never said “there is corruption in Detroit,” and that’s just one more case of you twisting words.
4:58 PM
In response to Not Anonymous, aka brett:
Yes, I consider you saying "up to" a word game, brett. Yes, I don’t know how the county got away with not providing money to the indigent veteran’s fund. As for my former employment; all I can say is I could care less what some anonymous coward like you thinks of me.
6:49 AM
In response to Kevins, aka brett:
Like I said before, brett; The difference between a mandatory tax of 1/10th of a mill and a tax of "up to" is irrelevant. What’s’ relevant is this is just one more example of Republicans like you demonstrating that support the troops is just a political slogan.
Yes, I do understand your example. It’s just another way for you to use a false, disgusting smear, and it just demonstrates what a cowardly scum bag you really are. When you lose an argument you continue to bring up useless side issues and stoop to name-calling. But your example has nothing to do with this issue.
10:10 AM
He's even lying about his own words. This is just so good to watch.
Who the fuck are you calling Brett, nonnymouse?
ka Dargo...you are so clever with your responses. Really. I'm impressed.
You give me the impression that you are a very young person. If so, I bet guru would like to meet you.
Wow. This is amazing. Going back and reading their posts, something odd becomes clear -- Ka dargo Hussein is brett. In fact, guru has even said this is so. I just missed it before.
That's pretty bizarre, I think.
Post a Comment