The two Democrats on Greenwich’s Board of Estimate and Taxation, Jeffrey Ramer and William Finger, have rejected a proposed budget that would increase spending by 2.5% in favor of raising taxes even higher to provide more services for our poor.
Ramer began the discussion by saying that requiring town departments to cut back would create a hardship for Greenwich’s increasingly diverse population.
There’s certainly something noble about a wealthy attorney and a Reynwood Manor mansion owner volunteering other people’s money so they can redistribute it to the poor (or, if you prefer, “our increasingly diverse population”), but where is their concern for those home-owning residents who are expected to foot the bill for Ramer et als’ generosity? These two men and their party seem to share the national media’s view of Greenwich, which says that if you own a house in Greenwich, you’re rich. This will come as a surprise to many home-owners reading this, but Ramer and his bosses in Washington say it’s so and so it must be true.
To own a house here may indeed mean that one is sitting on a $500,000 asset, and Democrats instinctively home in on that fat prey with the avidity of a lioness smelling a new-born impala, but are these homeowners really “rich” and suitable targets for the Democrat’s wrath? For a retiree living on a fixed income who depends on interest payments from a saving account and has watched that income disappear on Obama’s watch, for a middle class family that receives a fixed salary and no bonus, coming up with an extra $3,000 (or $5,000, or $10,000, take your pick) to pay for the Democrat’s beneficence means cutting spending somewhere else. The “fixed pie” concept of an economy really does exist in a household where there is no possibility of additional income. It’s funny that Democrats believe in this concept when coming up with their national schemes to soak the rich and insist that one person’s larger slice must necessarily mean another gets less, but can’t see it when applied to a household budget.
Why should owning your own home make your needs less important than those who don’t? Why must a stay-at-home mother be forced to quit raising her children and take a second job so that her new income can be given to those who don’t work? Ask the next Greenwich Democrat you meet, because I don’t have an answer. Perhaps Bob Horton will enlighten us in his next column.