Provo City Council Raises Garbage Fees 57%, Forces Opt-Out Tax

Congratulations, Provo, your taxes went up again.  And it's worse than you think.

Last month the city council voted 4-2 (5/3 Minutes, Item #7) to raise the fees on garbage collection from $11.00 a month to $14.50 for a single black can.  Councils Turley and Healey were the two who voted against the proposal.

Wayne Parker, Provo's CAO, claimed that the fee needed to be raised to $12.50 to cover costs.  But the liberals and environmentalists on the council then took the opportunity to pursue their own progressive agenda and voted to further hike the cost of black can collection by $2 more to penalize those residents who would not sign up for curbside recycling.  In other words, more than half the increase in cost of black can recycling will go to subsidize the curbside recycling.  Congratulations, Provo, you are now subsiding curbside recycling with tax dollars!

But it gets worse.  After raising the fee by 33% the council also decided to force its citizenry into "purchasing" a product:  no longer will trash collection be opt-in, it's now going to be opt out.  That means you have to submit the form available online at BY AUGUST 7, 2011 or call 801-852-6000 to not have to pay for the curbside can.  Otherwise you're stuck paying for an ugly blue recycling can in addition to your black one.  As Chair Healey pointed out, if you don't opt out, you will end up paying $17.50 for the two cans--an increase of 57% over the $11.00 you were paying!  Sounds to me like a redo of the Obamacare health insurance mandate.

While many longer term residents who are aware of the change and will read through the form mailed to them in with their monthly bill, many students preoccupied with studies will not.  When those not fortunate enough to catch the opt-out tax will be stuck (literally) in the cold with a huge surprise November bill.

The perpetrators of this curbside tax know that they can get unwatchful Provoans to pay the tax.  Currently only 24% of residents have the blue recycling can in addition to their black one.  With the opt-out the city expects to draft 65% of residents into recycling.  They further plan to use the revenues from recycling to propagandize the program (excuse me, "market" they termed it) the program instead of using the funds to subsidize the cost of the curbside recycling.  Just what we need: a government-subsidized "Re-use It Man".

In all, the liberal, environmentalist ambitions of the council were summed by the big-government phrase coined by Council Sterling Beck: "We need to incentivize people to recycle."

Rephrasing Beck's ideology: "Government needs tax its citizens and then use those funds to incentivize people to behave in a manner the government wants them to."  This ideology is nothing but pure socialism and breaks the trust put forth in the Declaration of Independence which gives citizens the right to pursue "life, liberty, and happiness [determination of one's own property]."

Mayor Curtis who as a candidate talked favorably about privatizing garbage pickup, has flip-flopped and now seems more interested in spreading falsehoods and spin about the program on his blog.

Consider the following by Curtis:

• "No one is required to participate." (False.  I am required to take action or else on August 7th I am forced into participation.) 
• "No sorting is required"  (False.  You need to review the Recycling Do's and Don'ts on our city's website.)
• "You'll find you have much more room in your trash can for trash since so much goes into the recycling can." (Pure opinion.  When I had the blue can, it was nearly empty each week.  It probably cost more in labor for the refuse worker to empty the can than in the materials I recycled each week.)

Any entrepreneur who wants to pick up my trash for less than $14.50 a month, please contact me at:  nacilbupera@gmail.com to get my business.  If I can't get a taker, maybe I'll just completely opt-out and take the trash myself to the dump:  at SUVSWD it's $4 per covered truckload.

Eagle Mountain: #1 In Forced Recycling

On the front page of its "Our Towns" section in today's Daily Herald (DH) Utah County's Eagle Mountain is heralded as "#1 In Recycling."  The article heaps praise on the issue of opt-out curbside recycling as it lauds the 84% participation rate as "the most successful voluntary recycling program in the county."  The DH hardly presents a balanced side of the issue.

While personally I am a conservationist and believe it recycling materials, I reject government mandates to force me to do so.  Having a program where you must do an action (opt out) to prevent from incurring a tax in the form of a $48 annual fee for curbside recycling (Eagle Mtn city website) seems mean-spirited at best.  How the Founding Fathers would have envisioned its constituency to be burdened with an opt-out to avoid taxation seems to me to be one of a severe infringement of liberty.  Furthermore, nowhere in the DH article does it mention the burden of this onerous $48 fee--let alone calling it by its true name:  taxation.

But Eagle Mountain's opt out is even worse:  you can only opt out once per year and the DH article comes just a week after the close of this year's opt-out option.  While promoting so-called "voluntary" recycling (try telling any EM resident who wants out now that they are part of a "voluntary" program!), the DH did not do equal justice in putting a front-section-page reminder to residents that their small window of opportunity would soon be upon them.

Defenders of liberty would do well to change all forms of government opt-out taxation to opt-in.

Help On The Way In Curbing Future Utah Tax Increases, But Too Late To Stop Provo's Prop 1

Last week in Provo a small group of citizens quietly raised everyone's property taxes for the next 20 years for the purpose of a recreation center or Prop 1 which passed 60%-40%. In a more telling perspective, fewer than 9,000 voters turned out to vote in favor of raising taxes on the remaining 51,000 registered voters. In percentage terms, less than 15% of registered Provo voters were able to vote tax increases on 100% of the property owners in the city. Is this really a fair way to approve tax increases?

Those in favor of Prop 1 were organized and had political mailings, a website, endorsements, and yard signs; those wanting to keep their own money were clearly not organized. We must remedy this as voters and hold accountable officials who publicly signed their names as citizens supporting unnecessary tax increases. We must be ready to organize better to stop future attempts from our city council and to be ready to change city council members.

But for those of us feeling that something more than a simple 50% majority should be required to approve tax increases (which coincidentally includes many people who did favor Prop 1), help is on the way in the form of a proposed Constitutional Amendment. Rep. Carl Wimmer (R-Herriman) announced a proposed Constitutional amendment to "require that any tax or fee increase on the state, city or county level would require two thirds majority vote in order to pass." (ABC4)

The proposed amendment will need to pass a 2/3rds vote through the legislature next year and then require voter approval as amendments A, B, C, and D did this past election.

This is a much-needed amendment, case in point: had this amendment been in place, Prop 1 would have fallen considerably short of the votes it needed and I wouldn't be forced to choke up $80 a year for the next 20 years. Provoans could have then sought a more fiscally responsible way to pay for their want. Those who wanted a rec center could have donated the money they used to fund their taxation efforts into a voluntary citizen donation fund to accrue money over time towards a day when we could build a rec center without raising taxes or forcing citizens to pay for services they do not need or want.

Matheson Appeases Pelosi With Adjournment Vote, Now To Face Angry Constituents

In Wednesday's post, I revealed how stealthy and careful liberal Matheson is with his votes, using his Obamacare vote as evidence. This week, Matheson had an equally stealthy yet revealing vote against extending Bush-era tax cuts due to expire at year's end.

Two weeks ago on September 15th, Matheson brought together 30 other Democrats in opining a short but to-the-point Statement to Speaker Pelosi (found on the Congressman's website front page) on their position on extending the tax cuts. Being the brainchild of Matheson, the Utah Congressman was the first to sign the statement which concluded:

We urge quick passage of legislation to extend the tax cuts so that American families and businessess have the certainty required to plan and make informed decisions. The sooner we act, the sooner our nation's economy will benefit.

At face value, the statement appeared to have a positive effect, prompting Pelosi to suggest that a vote to extend the tax cuts could come before the November elections.

In an interview just a week ago with KSL's veteran Doug Wright (btw, congrats to Doug who Thursday just won Utah's first individual Marconi Award) Matheson made it clear that the tax cut vote should come before the November elections:

Wright: Congressman what are your thoughts about putting off this vote until after the election? I have to be honest with you, Jim, it feels a little chicken to me.

Matheson: I feel like I may just repeat what you just said [chuckling] over the last
three minutes. Listen, not only should it not be put off till the election, the fact is it should have been done a long time ago. [full audio at KSL; emphasis mine]

A vote seemed plausible until suddenly Wednesday, Congress voted 209-209 to adjourn. Matheson shockingly sided with the in the 209 voting to adjourn without addressing the tax cut extension, let alone the matter of shirking their fundamental responsibility of passing a budget. This set up Matheson's friend and leader Pelosi to cast a tie breaking vote to adjourn and send her followers home to try and salvage their widely-forecasted large loss of seats in the House.

So how can Matheson who days before said "NO!" to Doug Wright in adjourning early, suddenly vote the opposite? Because that is precisely the kind of sneaky-vote politician Matheson has become. Matheson's voting record has brought shame to our great state.

By Thursday morning it became apparent the beehive had broke off its limb and the hornets were in full swarm. In naming a few, Blogger Holly on the Hill was all over the "Phantom Jim" vote. Doug Wright was justifyably livid and for an hour rebuked the Congressman for his vote. [Full audio archive; program begins about 6 minute mark]. Thomas Burr at the Salt Lake Tribune had Matheson in complete denial of any involvement linking the adjournment vote to the tax cuts, blaming it insead on "politics":

Any suggesting that this adjournment vote had something to do with cutting
taxes is just playing politics, Matheson said. That’s really what’s going on.

Just before Wright's program Thursday on KSL, Matheson claimed the following in trying to justify his vote:

There was no reason to stay. The bill was never going to be brought up. The Senate wasn’t going to move its bill. I think it’s important for members go out and be with their constituents and hear from them. I hope that will get some people in a better frame of mind for addressing this issue.

To Mr. Matheson I have but this to say this about your newest turncoat vote: you will surely indeed hear from your constituents.

Tax Day 2010: We've More Charity than the VP

The White House released their 2009 tax returns today. We observed that after giving a paltry $3,690 to charity over the past decade Joe and Jill Biden gave a whopping $4820 to charity in 2009 off of an income of $333K.

Although Nacilbupera doesn't publicly release tax returns, we admit to an AGI of less than a quarter of what the Bidens made. From that 75% less income in 2009 we gave in dollars more than 50% over the Biden's record amount to charity. What's more is that we do this year after year. Putting it in a percentage comparison, the Bidens donated roughly 1% of their AGI to charity; we donated about 11%. Not only are we are overwhelmingly more charitable than the Bidens, but we know of many others far more charitable as well.

While we will fight for the right for the Bidens to spend their money as they please, the point is that Nacilbupera has been taught to give and does give. We don't need government to unconstitutionally steal our money from us in order to help others...maybe the Bidens do, but we have a consistent charitable-giving record.

We have noted how the Progressives always want to force their agenda on us. They didn't and don't propose a government-run voluntary charity for the uninsured (for example) because they don't want to put their own money where their talk is. They have to punish us, the charitable givers, the workers of society who produce profit so America can have a strong economy and jobs.

Read Our Lips, Obama: No Cap And Trade

Obama promised in his quest for re-election a tax break "for 95% of Americans." Now with the Cap-and-Trade bill he urges Congress to pass he is indirectly taxing 100% of Americans. How so?

Obama gets away with his "inconvenient truth" of increasing taxes or the amount we pay to the federal government by effectively redefining taxes to be limited to personal income tax. Obama is not raising our income tax. Instead he is raising a massive tax on energy companies who must pass on the levied tax in the form of higher rates to consumers. This is not right and Nacilbupera is calling it out for what it is: a scheme to raise a massive $1.5 trillion through indirect taxation.

Interestingly, taxes levied through the higher rates are disproportionately levied on Republican-voting states. This chart shows that the 8 of the 10 states to receive the most energy price increases voted for McCain:

(1) Wyoming
(2) North Dakota
(3) West Virginia
(4) Kentucky
(5) Indiana
(6) Montana
(7) Alabama
(8) New Mexico
(9) Oklahoma
(10) Utah

while of the 10 states least affected in this proposal include 9 voting for Obama:
(1) Vermont
(2) Delaware
(3) Idaho
(4) California
(5) Washington
(6) Oregon
(7) New Jersey
(8) Rhode Island
(9) New York
(10) Connecticut

Put another way, the incremental energy-bill costs to consumers in Wyoming are close to 4000 times as more as if you live in Vermont.

But isn't the issue of CO2 emissions an issue for the states? Nacilbupera says yes. Yet in the 2007 Supreme Court 5-4 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA the court ruled that the EPA must regulate CO2. Nacilbupera believes this ruling was made erroneously and was out of bounds for the authority granted the court. Yet the court has no power to specify what actions must be taken as this is the arena of Congress. Nacilbupera feels that voluntary compliance with CO2 reductions fulfill our erroneous court-ordered obligation and that a massive tax burden on us Americans is unwanted, unwarranted, and un-American.

For anyone who believed Obama's garbage pre-election promise of a tax break, you need to get on the phone with your representative NOW (vote in Congress tomorrow) and urge them to defeat the energy tax of Waxman-Markey--else take that bundle of money you saved by switching to GEICO and kiss it goodbye.

No to Waxman-Markley, Yes to Republican-Environmentalism

Nacilbupera is a Republican-environmentalist. We have always purchased the smallest, most fuel-economic car that would meet our personal or family needs. We have used our Trek bicycle and our feet as primary means of transportation during our schooling years when we didn’t need a car. We use public buses when it makes economic and practical sense. We don’t idle our cars in the morning and work in the same town we live. We generally purchase Energy Star appliances, acutely so when we can recuperate the additional investment. We turn off lights and are converting to compact fluorescent light bulbs in our home as our incandescent ones burn out. We take short showers and avoid over-watering our lawn. We keep our home cool in the winter and warmer in the summer. We recycle newspaper, steel, and aluminum. We enjoy watching betimes “Planet Green” and keep our eyes vigilant for ideas and technologies we can implement on our meager budget.

Nacilbupera loves our planet. We are awed by the divers creatures—minute and gargantuan--and the breathtaking scenery and vast expanses both in and out of our protected parks. Nacilbupera despises smog and pollution as they detract from the vista and create health risks. Indeed, Nacilbupera believes the majority of Americans love their environment so much they are willing to take small sacrifices to keep American beautiful. So far, both Republican- and Democratic-environmentalists would both wholeheartedly support the ideas we have addressed.

Yet a Republican-environmentalist contrasts to a Democratic-environmentalist in two fundamental ways. First, the level of government involvement: Republicans believe that government should encourage environmentalism, while Democrats believe it should be forced, mandated, taxed, and bureaucratically controlled. The perfect example of this is the proposed “Waxman-Markey Bill” aka “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” aka “cap and trade bill.” The bill seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus in turn reduce global warming. Greenhouse gases are primarily carbon dioxide and methane and are contrasted to the smog and pollutant gases measured by the federal and state governments including carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide. In other words, the bill is aimed at decreasing global temperature not directly at fighting pollutants and preserving nature.

There is no debate that the Waxman-Markely Bill will cost Americans more money; what is at question is how much. Estimates range between $100-$1500 annually per household in energy costs with significant increases in federal debt and fuel prices. Democrats have hijacked the environmental debate and turned it into a global warming crisis. Nacilbupera believes that while there is ample evidence to support global warming (e.g. worldwide glacier melt), it is difficult to pinpoint causes (volcanoes and the sun itself are two major variables) and even more unpredictable to suggest future temperatures. While Nacilbupera does not oppose curbing greenhouse gases, we are opposed to a heavy-handed Democratic mandated solution on an already overtaxed citizenry with a scandalously overspent Congress. A better solution would be to establish a voluntary fund that concerned citizens, unions, and corporations could donate to provide the government funds with which to curb gases through things like clean coal technology research or tax credits for alternative fuel source (electric, hydrogen, etc) vehicles. Finally, if developing nations like China and India do not the same (which is unlikely) the projected impact on global temperature is little to nothing and all the money of Waxman-Markley will have been wasted.

The second way a Republican-environmentalist differs is in supporting all forms of energy production (i.e. “all of the above”) to support the demands of our growing population. Nacilbupera wholeheartedly embraces zero-emissions nuclear power (including our support for Utah’s first nuclear power plant—Blue Castle—to be located in Green River), expansion of domestic oil & gas drilling (shame on Obama’s Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for cancelling drilling leases earlier this year on our Utah lands!), solar, wind, geothermal, clean coal, and hydroelectric. Democratic-environmentalists have an excuse ready not to do anything: wind turbines kill birds, solar panels block view, nuclear you have to actually store the waste, and so forth. America doesn’t need a California-style energy shortage Nacilbupera experienced several years ago under the hand of Democratic ex-Governor Gray Davis and the Democratic California Legislature. Some of the more extreme Democratic-environmentalists, advocates of so-called “sustainable development” philosophy are actually hostile to humans wanting to reduce total human population through diminished growth rates including abortion rather than researching solutions through science and exploration. As we have stated our principles previously, Nacilbupera is Pro-Life and if need saying, Pro-Human.

In summary being a Republican-environmentalist means protecting your environment, conserving resources, and promoting energy development while at the same time feeding your family, keeping taxes low to encourage parental time with children, and letting government focus on national defense and protection from terrorism.