A moral argument against limits on local spending

La Crosse Tribune editor Richard Mial parrots the idea that the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, and other proposals like it, are immoral in this editorial.

An excerpt:

County government, for example, plays the lead role in serving older residents and people with disabilities. As state aid remains flat, how do we serve those people with the limited resources we have? These are the tough issues that local officials and citizens have to face.

Owen mentioned this last week, as did I:

Allow me to ask a few questions:

Are we morally required to build swimming pools? Golf courses? Bike paths?

Are we morally required to pay government employees more, on average, than the average citizen makes? To supply top-notch pension and health benefits?

Are we morally required to pave every road, or would God be okay with dirt or gravel sometimes?

Are we morally required to subsidize museums and theaters?

Are we morally required to air-condition government buildings?

Our government does all those things with money somebody earned. Money they were legally obligated – coerced, through the power of government – to give.

Many of us would argue the morality of taking money from one person (whether he/she likes it or not) in order to give it to another, but that's beside the point: government does many, many things for which there is no rational moral argument, and pays too much for the services which do have a moral component. Add in the natural inefficiencies and waste associated with any humungous bureaucracy, and...why can't we limit government spending, again?

By the way, there was a great comment on Mial's column, by somebody called "rprp":

"Let's face it, if a communist state wants more taxes it's moral. If a state of democracy wants less taxes it's immoral."