Futures and Commodity Market News

Fri Nov 20, 2009

Breaking financial news 24/7 courtesy of TradingCharts.com Inc. / TFC Commodity Charts

Nov 06, 2009 (Journal-Advocate - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- The election results are in, and they tell us a lot. There are probably myriad reasons for the lopsided defeat of the ambulance issues, but thinking people probably aren't very surprised at the final result. The whole plan was poorly conceived, poorly timed, and poorly presented. It would appear that not many were convinced that what we have is broke or needed fixing.

There also developed, as the election drew nearer, evidence that the proposal was perhaps based upon things somewhat less than the public good. And what about that eleventh hour release of Doug Smith's tax problem?

The newspapers were obliged to print the information when the commissioners released it, but that seemed like a dirty politics ploy by a losing side. I know that the newspaper would have printed any letter complaining about the service by Life Care, but I didn't see any. I saw only letters lauding the service.

All those positive public outcries by people who have been served by Life Care probably had an influence on voters, but the thinly veiled enormous cost of the project probably convinced most people that it was a bad idea. We weren't prepared to commit to an additional tax for something we weren't convinced we needed. Not at a time when we are still suffering from the most severe depression in a lifetime, and are at the same time being threatened by the biggest federal tax increases in modern history. There was no adequate explanation of the need for a new firehouse. Nor for cross training of personnel.

That seemed like a slippery slope. Would it have resulted in loss of jobs? Do fire fighters really want to be paramedics? Or do EMT people really want to be firefighters? We were only told that a new bureaucracy could handle the ambulance business better than Life Care has. That wasn't enough to support the tax increase.

The same tax might well have passed if it had been labeled for an increased subsidy to help Life Care pay for all those calls it is required to make but doesn't get paid for. Even the promoters of the proposal agreed that the service was good. But they don't want to pay their share of the cost. They say that revenue isn't sufficient to grant Life Care a better contract. So why not explain that to the voters, then ask for a tax increase that would assure us the excellent ambulance service we've enjoyed? That would be a lot smaller tax, and a lot easier for us to swallow. Wrapping the obvious governmental discontent at the cost of Life Care in pretty paper to conceal a quest for power was disingenuous at the very least. It is only reasonable to assume there might be some personality conflicts involved, and those have no place in government.

The vote was surely a mandate for Life Care to live up to the confidence the voters have expressed in its continued operation. And it should be a warning to the council and commission to quit harassing the service. They should find the money to adequately compensate Life Care for those unpaid calls, and keep their hands off the management of it. We've heard that other municipalities are combining the services. Well, you probably remember your Mom asking: "If your friends jumped off a cliff..., " We might well ask the same. Why should we be burdened with additional bureaucracy just because others have been? I didn't see anything to show that those others were operating any more efficiently than what we have. If there was such information, I'd like to see a lot more statistics about the circumstances in those communities.

Now maybe, just maybe, all the participants in this brouhaha can get together and iron out some sort of agreement that'll prevent a repeat. We have some good minds in our local government. Surely they can get past this and go about healing wounds that have been inflicted. Life Care has suffered enough of the slings and arrows of an outrageous government. Now it is time to get on with finding a realistic solution.

And get over it.

Contact me: georgerice@q.com

To see more of the Journal-Advocate, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to
http://www.journal-advocate.com. Copyright (c) 2009, Journal-Advocate, Sterling,
Colo. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. For reprints, email
tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax
to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave.,
Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

George Rice

Copyright (C) 2009, Journal-Advocate, Sterling, Colo.

Please read the End User Agreement.
By accessing this page, you agree to the terms and conditions of the End User Agreement.

News provided by COMTEX