A Few Clouds
69°FA Few CloudsFull Forecast

Unfortunate response

Published: Sunday, May 5, 2013 5:30 a.m. CDT

To the Editor:

Recently, McHenry County voters rejected the creation of a 377 Board. Some say that was an insensitive response to a special interest group in need. At the risk of appearing as accused, I defend the majority.

Homeowners are under siege. McHenry County Board members employ lobbyists to work against taxpayer interests when relief is being sought in Springfield. School districts and McHenry County government are part of the foreclosure issue. Township assessors overvalue real estate to satisfy government handlers. County engineers insist on destroying scenic byways to justify their employment. Local judges insist on paying special prosecutors for prosecuting nothing.

Federal and state governments cannot budget. They spend more than they receive. They promise more “free stuff” to illegal aliens and indigents.

The public sector culture of fraud prevails, giving rise to higher federal and state tax rates. When teachers or administrators tell us it’s for the kids, it’s about compensation, union dues or pensions.

When boards approve alternative revenue bonds and investment schemes go awry, taxpayers get the bill.

Proponents of 377 claim that funding from the state has been curtailed, causing the need for local taxing. Haven’t taxpayers already paid for this same funding to federal and state governments?

It is unfortunate that with 7,000 taxing authorities in Illinois, all special interest needs aren’t satisfied. It remains the providence of voters to reject that which they feel they cannot afford or have already paid for.

When any request is perceived to be another layer of government, how are voters to respond? The growing distaste for public sector conduct will result in the unfortunate response.

David Cook

Woodstock

Get breaking and town-specific news sent to your phone. Sign up for text alerts from the Northwest Herald.

More News

Reader Poll

Do you agree with the County Board's decision to turn away state funding that could have been used to help the uninsured?
Yes
No