If you describe yourself as politically conservative, chances are you hate taxes. Far from being the “price we pay to live in a civilized society,” we see taxes as emblematic of government waste and overreach. Agents of the state confiscate our hard-earned money by force, threatening fines, jail, or even death if we refuse, and then use those funds for pointless projects or easy sinecures for the politically connected.
Imagine a line from left to right, with communists on the far left and anarcho-libertarians on the far right. Communists believe that every penny belongs to the government, as the embodiment of the people, and should be used to operate society on behalf of the people, including distributing food, clothing, and housing based on need. Anarcho-libertarians, on the other hand, believe that government is inherently illegitimate, and that there should be no public services at all, with everything from schools to police to roads operated by the private sector.
Last year, I set up an interview between then-Idaho Freedom Foundation president Wayne Hoffman and then-Eagle mayor Jason Pierce. It was a good discussion, but Hoffman later wrote an article criticizing Pierce for his support of city-owned fiber internet infrastructure and the annexation of Avimor. Wayne clearly occupies a position on the far right of that spectrum, and believes that true conservatives oppose nearly all government spending.
I think that most conservatives have traditionally believed that some public services are necessary, and the debate centers on where to draw that line.
The United States has a surprisingly complex system of government. The federal government has certain responsibilities and limits, as do state governments, followed by county and city governments. Adding to the mix are various taxing districts which, despite being regulated by the state, operate with a degree of autonomy.
As conservatives, we believe in a federal government that is strictly limited by its constitutional parameters. Though we have not lived under such a government for nearly a century, it remains an ideal to which we aspire.
State governments are similarly constrained by constitutional limits, though they are less stringent than the federal constitution. Our own state constitution is much longer than the federal one, listing many mandates for what the government must do rather than merely stating what it must not.
Cities and counties are different. While there is a level of sovereignty at the state and federal levels, cities and counties are administrative constructs within each state. Their authority is limited not by constitutions but by charters granted by the states themselves. This means they are more restricted in many ways but also have powers and duties that higher levels of government do not.
This brings me to the central point of this essay: Should local governments proactively spend tax dollars to create lifestyles for their citizens, or should they take a completely hands-off approach?
This question is particularly pressing for many cities in Idaho, none more so than my hometown of Eagle. With nearly 35,000 residents, including some of the most affluent people in the state (and lower-middle-class folks like me), Eagle is home to citizens who expect a lot from their community but also appreciate low taxes. My neighbors enjoy clean parks, trails, youth sports, and the best library in Idaho, but they also like our low property taxes.
Public safety was a major issue in last year’s mayor and council elections. Even though crime in Eagle remains extremely low, residents are concerned it could rise, leaving us in the same unsafe conditions many of us left behind on the West Coast. Mayor Brad Pike promised to add more police officers through our contract with the Ada County Sheriff’s Office, and the new budget includes three additional officers. One will be funded by a federal grant, while the other two will require reallocating money from the capital budget, meaning there will be less funding for the city’s ongoing projects, including a public shooting range and a state-of-the-art sports park.
While I commend the mayor and council for resisting the urge to raise taxes on a citizenry already struggling with high inflation (Boise, Kuna, and Meridian all raised taxes heavily this year), at some point, we must decide who we are as a city. Do we want nice things, or low taxes? Is there a third option?
Aaron Renn recently wrote an essay for City Journal praising the way Carmel, Indiana, and its longtime mayor, James Brainard, have handled this question:
Republicans like to argue that people vote with their feet, moving to places with policies that they like. The Brainard approach clashes with the traditional austerity-driven focus of state and local Republicans—the Tea Party vision that is otherwise strong in Indiana. (Austerity has been the state GOP’s preferred policy since Mitch Daniels, nicknamed “The Blade” for his cost-cutting bent, was elected governor in 2004.) But city governments are a different beast from the federal one in Washington that draws so much justifiable frustration and even contempt. People like the services that local governments provide. They like it when the police car, ambulance, or fire truck shows up where it’s needed. They like parks, libraries, and well-paved streets. Assuming that capital is well allocated and that projects are competently and cost-effectively administered, government spending on such things can be popular.
The whole essay is worth reading. At just over 100,000 people, Carmel is about the same size as Meridian. It is what Eagle could be in another few decades. As I said, citizens must choose what kind of community they want to live in.
Ultimately, it is the citizens who are responsible for making these decisions. We elect mayors and council members to act on our behalf, agreeing to pay a certain amount in property taxes to support their endeavors. If they overstep or mismanage the funds we’ve entrusted to them, it is our duty to vote them out of office and replace them with people who better align with our values.
First, however, we must articulate those values. What do we want from our city and county governments? How many police officers are necessary to maintain public safety? Should the city operate public parks for picnics, playgrounds, and other recreational activities? Should it fund youth sports? What about civic and community centers, public libraries, and services for seniors? What about emergency medical services?
Should cities subsidize professional sports stadiums? What about offering tax breaks to attract certain businesses? Both approaches aim to create jobs and draw customers for local businesses, and municipalities that don’t offer such incentives risk losing out to those that do. Are these practices justified?
One year ago, I wrote about what I saw visiting the city of Chicago, which has five times as many people in its metropolitan area as the entire state of Idaho. Living in such a massive city means relying on government to provide many essential services that those of us in suburban or rural communities find unnecessary. As our communities grow, however, we must start making the choice about what government services we want to see, and what we are willing to pay for.
These questions are not easily answered from a moral perspective, unlike issues like abortion or other social concerns. They involve math and economic considerations, as well as some morality when it comes to asking exactly how much money the government should extract from its citizens. All but the most die-hard anarcho-libertarians can find some amenity provided by local government that they appreciate.
Our communities are growing, and nothing is going to stop that. As we grow, we must figure out our identities and then lay down the parameters that will shape our future. It’s up to us to decide what we value most — low taxes, high-quality public services, or a balance of both. Whatever you decide, it is up to you to participate in local government, otherwise these decisions will be made by others. The choices we make today will determine the character of our communities for generations to come.
Thank you all for your support as I continue to bring you news and analysis that empowers you to make positive change in Idaho. Make sure to subscribe, follow me on Twitter, and follow the Chronicle on Facebook, Telegram, YouTube, and Rumble. Have a great weekend!
