Taxation without Representation

After observing city government, I noticed a few things.  There is little difference between politicians whether they are in a small town or in Denver or in Washington.  They do what it takes to get elected and then do whatever they want to.

 Then there is the Gruber phenomenon.  The public is thought to be too stupid to discern the lies and scams they are fed as truth.

The current thinking is that marijuana will save Colorado.  I believe the truth is different and will come out eventually.  Politicians are beaming with pride that they are saving their towns by tapping into the money stream that is marijuana.  This is consistent with the idea that investing in a land development deal that profits a handful of people will somehow save a city.  The idea of the investors paying their own way is given lip service but never considered in reality.

As a citizen I am sure that I speak for other frustrated property owners who are uncomfortable seeing money squandered on various plans that have little basis in reality.  The answer to all financial problems is to borrow more money from any source and charge it to the citizens.  This is not working on any level.  It also dodges the responsibility of taking large debt obligations before the tax payer for a vote.

We have little choice it seems.  We must keep our mouths shut and pay for the sundry schemes that administrators and politicians dream up or voice opposition which the so-called representatives ignore.

Can folks really be proud to be the hub for multiple drug operations? I think not. Governmental agencies are following their leaders by diving into uncharted waters.  Look at the criminal acts of the federal government.  Is it not understandable that other levels of government would follow their lead in destructive actions to harm the citizens they are elected to serve?

I have made suggestions which could lead to decreasing budget deficits and they are scorned as not worthy of looking at seriously.  When the system is a totalitarian style of government, the vote means little.

A " trickle down" theory of government in a city with an administrator is that all ideas for law, spending, and utility management originate from the administrator. Next, they are presented to a council.  The council usually approves the idea and money is taken from the citizens to pay for the project.  Everyone on the council is restrained by election except the administrator. He doesn't face that.  Even an evaluation by the city is apparently optional.  When has the administrator's evaluation been done, who did it, and what were the results?