I want more crime!

The Glens Falls' (NY) paper The Post-Star has a feature called Don Coyote. Basically, it's a way for Post-Star reporters or editors to take cheap shots or make snide comments behind the veil of anonymity. Sometimes, "Don Coyote" does make interesting points, but ones that aren't of sufficient length for a column. I have no respect for the whole concept.

I've been critical of Ken Tingley, the paper's managing editor, in this blog. But at least Tingley has the guts to sign his name. I was opinion editor for three years of my college newspaper (and a columnist for all four). I often took controversial positions, but I always signed my name too and thus faced public ire for my comments. Even in this blog, I sign my real first name and don't use a pseudonym. Neither my college paper, nor The Post-Star, publishes anonymous letters to the editor. So it seems strange that the daily allows this vehicle that's so out of character with the rest of the publication.

Anyways, Tuesday's "Don Coyote" remarked: I'm not afraid to walk the streets around here. But the taxes -- that's a different matter.

This remark gets to my heart about how the debate over taxes is framed. Or misframed.

Nobody likes taxes, just as no one likes getting a vaccination needle stuck in their arm. But sometimes, unpleasant things are necessary.

The debate has been misframed because only one side has been portrayed. If you ask people, "Do you want lower taxes?", 99.9% of the people will say, "Sure!"

Everyone wants a free lunch!

But this is only one side of the equation. That question should be accompanied by a related query: "In order to compensate for the lower taxes, do you want worse schools, bumpier roads, more crime or less fire protection?"

While some people might still opt for the lower taxes and take the downside, it would at least be a less disingenuous way of framing the issue. You can't talk about tax cuts without talking about service cuts.

If "Don Coyote" isn't afraid to walk the streets around here, could it be because the police department is sufficiently funded by TAX dollars?