Editor: 

I have voted Republican since the time of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

Limiting the size and power of government was a critical theme of the Reagan-Carter debates, events that I still have on VHS tapes. I am now astounded to find that in a county where we have no elected Democrats, we are voting for a tax increase for the second time in the same year.

Of course I am talking about Local Amendment 1, the “Rain Tax.” The “Rain Tax” amendment was created by our local all-Republican delegation. Not that I am advocating for the Democrats or any other party, I am just pointing out that voting Republican alone does not guarantee that government will abide the principles that Ronald Reagan espoused and with which I agree.

What the actual legislative act authorizes differs from what the Baldwin County Watershed Coalition presentations promise. Legislative Act 2008-507 crashes the gate of constitutional protection, allowing the storm-water corporation (and who knows what else in the future) to intrude on our lives. While the amendment does contain a few restrictions on the activities of the corporation, many activities of the corporation are not limited by the amendment, including the maximum rates that can be charged for services.

The amendment does not prevent the corporation from borrowing money.

The amendment also does not define or describe any of rules of governance for the storm water corporation.

Voting “yes” for the amendment means that you have to trust our legislative delegation and the cadre of mostly government-employed volunteers with the issues of rates, fairness and governance.

When I voted for Mr. (Trip) Pittman and Mr. (Randy) Davis, both Republicans, my vote came with trust that we would move in the direction of less government and less taxes —well, so much for trust.

Our founding fathers did not trust government, and rightfully so. If you do not believe this, just read the founding documents for yourself.

Daphne City Councilwoman Cathy Barnette (of the Baldwin County Watershed Coalition), in support of the amendment, argues that existing government entities do not have the funding to address storm water issues.

I find it ironic that the solution to the failure of existing government agencies is creating a new government agency, but let us examine the Daphne City Council’s spending priorities. Over the past 20 years, Daphne has spent money on creating parks, expanding football fields, a new civic center, library expansion, and a Disneyland-style city hall, and that is the short list. Ms. Barnette herself has been a tireless advocate of Daphne’s recycling program, which in the beginning was supposed to be self funding. That program now burns hundreds of thousands of tax dollars each year.

If the point of recycling is environmental conservation, could these funds be better allocated toward storm water management? I may be mistaken, but I am not aware of line-item budgeting in the city of Daphne for storm-water management. Is the problem lack of funding or just lack of will among elected officials? Voting “yes” for the amendment will allow these government entities to continue with irresponsible spending.

I oppose Local Amendment 1 (and all of the other amendments as well) for many previously espoused reasons: more taxes; less freedom; we do not need a new agency duplicating existing government agency responsibilities; bigger government does not mean better results, etc.

My readers have heard it all before, I just wonder when my elected officials will start listening.