Citizens of Hudson do not need to look to Washington, D.C. to witness the growth of big government and the profligate spending of taxpayer money. Just look at our City Council and School Board.

In the face of a stagnant economy, the Council (Ms. Roegner dissenting) has increased city employees' wages, increased EMS fees, and proposed to raise water and sewer rates. The Council bought new vehicles for the park board, bought the YDC land and is now applying for federal funds to fix our streets!

The School Board is asking for $5.6 million more per year based upon projections that (1) include never-ending pay increases to employees and (2) concede a continuing decline in enrollment. According to the Ohio Department of Education, its expenditure-per-pupil ranks second in Summit County and 49th out of 616 Ohio districts. (Only 57% of its expenditures go towards actually teaching students.) The Board's annual debt service is increasing 46% over the next 4 years, from $297,172 to $435,086. It will only increase faster in the future: the Board is borrowing another $2,274,257 which will not be paid off until September 2024.

To maintain its spending, the City Council continues to extract "revenue" from its citizens. For example, city-owned Hudson Public Power charges 8 cents cents/KWH while residents in communities belonging to the Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council (like Macedonia and Twinsburg) pay 6 to 7 cents per KWH. There is $11.6 million in our Electric Fund, and the City is receiving revenue from the state's KWH tax.

Your February 12 editorial proposed that the City should reduce income taxes. Your reasoning is a proven tenet of conservative thought: tax cuts spur economic growth in bad times. The City Manager's response thereto, still posted on the Council's News page, is an excellent example of diametrically-opposed Progressive thinking. Mr. Bales argues that we MUST maintain the 2% income tax and that the City cannot provide monetary relief to residents in any other way. He implies that a tax cut would threaten essential city services.

The Council majority's position, as enunciated by the City Manager, is clear. Rather than argue the fine points, I urge residents to print out Mr. Bales' response (before it is withdrawn), stick it to your refrigerator door, read it regularly and think about it. Look at it as a whole, as an accurate embodiment of Progressive philosophy. Ask yourself this: do I support liberal tax-and-spend behavior on a local level? Am I comfortable with my governmental officials' stubborn refusal to offer me any monetary relief (e.g., fee reductions or a temporary income tax credit) during hard economic times?

My position, for what it's worth, is that tax cuts without spending cuts will not work. As Mr. Bales concedes, big spenders would eat through our $19 million in reserves and then be clamoring for more revenue (e.g., the Reagan years). Looking at the five-year plan, I can justify a 30% budget reduction without loss of core services. Of course, Mr. Bales would ask: "what do we do with all the future surpluses?" My reply: roll-back Issue 3.

For those who do not countenance the Progressive attitudes of our government officials, show up at Council and School Board meetings, oppose spending increases and demand spending decreases. We need to "vote out" the Progressives and "vote in" frugal representatives, both on the Council and the School Board. Most important, we need to be constantly vigilant and not let real progress on spending control (like we had several years ago) be undone incrementally by future Progressive government officials.

John Hoover, Hudson, Ohio
Libertarian Candidate for the State House
of Representatives, 42d District
330-417-0428