I have read and re-read Sam Crawford's explanation, in an effort to understand the reasoning that led to his "Yes" vote on this tax increase to pay for mental health and drug and alcohol abuse programs. I like Sam, respect him, and consider him a friend. But I don't get this vote.

The tax, signed into law by County Executive, Pete Kremen, will go into effect January 1 of 2009, and will increase the sales tax by one-tenth of one percent. Now, I'll admit my bias. I'm almost automatic in my opposition to new taxes and levees, even when I know that said taxes and levees are supposedly for honorable, worthy purposes. I'll say at this juncture, that I'm not opposed to taxation. I AM opposed to excessive taxation, and I believe we are subjects of excessive taxation. I recognize the quantifiability of that is something completely subjective. Each of us gets to define how much is "too much" and I'm completely aware that my definition will differ from yours.

Still, I am opposed to this tax. With the endless barrage of information moaning about the floundering economy, this is not the time to be saddling the people of Whatcom County with a new tax.

Now, I have read, multiple times, that the programs funded by this tax will actually end up saving money for the taxpayers because it will redirect people into those programs who would otherwise have ended up in jail. I don't buy that for a minute. Not that people will end up in programs rather than jail, but that this tax will save us money. This strikes me as the same pitch that causes people to drop $400 for a $500 item "on sale" because they just "saved" a hundred bucks! We will NOT see a savings here. I'm willing to lay a wager on that. I don't know what the stakes would be, but I'm convinced that, to the contrary, the costs associated with our criminal justice system will continue to rise, and the programs (whatever they end up being) associated with this tax will contribute to that rise in costs. In the mean time, we will not see reprioritization and cuts in spending. We will not see deregulation of the planning department. We will not see a reduction in the layers of public bureaucracy.

Aside from that, the recidivism rate (I believe) is much higher than proponents of the tax say it is. The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics data (most recent statistics I could find) place drug abuse recidivism, within three years, at 66.7% Non-voluntary treatment simply does not produce the results that are being touted about by proponents of this tax, and therefore the associated costs will have to be absorbed by the taxpaying public.

But let's say I'm wrong. Let's hypothesize that. Let's say that we DO see a substantial savings as the proponents of the tax are claiming. Doesn't logic then suggest that the tax is not needed? Does not the program, or slate of programs pay for itself? Why, then, the need for the tax? Let the programs live off the savings!

Another issue of principle, for me, is the use of public monies to fund private affairs. I don't like it when we subsidize various private and corporate enterprises, and I don't like the idea of using public funds to pay for programs aimed at private medical issues that are predominantly borne out of poor choices made by individuals. I'm not debating the "disease" aspect of this. Disease or not, it starts with personal choices. The government is not bailing me out when I make poor choices, or when my ventures fail, and I don't want them to do so. I understand why these bail-outs happen. I understand why the federal government just voted to spend enormous amounts of money to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I get it, but I don't like it. I understand why the federal government just sent us these inane stimulus checks in the mail. I understand that, but I don't like it. I disagree with it based on principle.

Folks, if we compromise our principles, we don't have much left.

Beyond everything above, I hold that a tax needs a vote of the people who will be taxed, rather than receiving it as "an edict from on high." I recognize it would have been only an "advisory vote," but it would be the voice of the people nonetheless, and I am convinced it would have gone down in flames. One need look back no further than the recent school bonds and levees. Wow! That was an eye-opener for a lot of folks. We are overtaxed and we are sick of it!

---