Hey, you should know this about The Columbian’s newsroom:
• I often get into spirited debates with reporters about stories.
• Simply because I’m the editor doesn’t mean I win them.
• And even when I win a debate, that doesn’t mean a story goes the way I envisioned it.
How could this be, you might ask? Don’t I run the newsroom?
Well, yes, I do, but the answer is really pretty simple.
When I propose the premise for a story, I’m under no illusion it will come out the way I think it might. Both the reporter and I might see something there, but the direction of a story should be driven by where the facts take it.
Such was the case with Stephanie Rice’s package on property taxes that you will see on Sunday’s front page.
The basis of my idea centered around this premise:
Voters are lulled into approving taxes because politicians have broken them into such small pieces, one barely feels any pain.
Right out of the box, Stephanie said that premise was way too esoteric for a story. Besides, she said, she suspected there would be few people who would support that premise.
And, she said, what would the alternative be? Lumping all the taxes together so residents couldn’t figure out where their dollars were going?
My premise, she said, sounded a lot more like a column than a story.
See what I mean? These are compelling, logical points Stephanie made. We both decided to simply report the story and see where it ended up.
And, again, you’ll see that story on Sunday’s front page.
As for my original premise being more suited for a column? Fair enough. Here are some thoughts worth mulling:
The city of Vancouver is considering breaking the fire department away from its budget, and setting it up as part of a fire district, a move toward this “smaller pieces” concept of taxing.
Now why would the city want to do this? In the end — eventually — the government will be able to dig deeper into your pockets. You don’t agree? Well, then I’ve got more beachfront property in Yacolt for ya.
Yes, by making it a smaller piece, you could better see where your money is going, but I also suspect the smaller tax piece simply doesn’t feel as burdensome.
Yet all of those smaller pieces add up. It is death by a thousand cuts.
Think of it this way. If I tap your face lightly a thousand times, you’ll barely feel it, but if I add the force of those thousand taps into one punch, I will knock you silly.
Politicians have found that they can tap their way to a good chunk of your dough.
It’s the latte defense for increasing our taxes: If I could describe an increase as costing only as much as a couple of lattes, who could say no?
Look, there really is merit in the breaking up of the tax bill so we can see where our money is going — frankly, I agree with it — but it is the taxpayers’ responsibility to not only look at the individual pieces of their tax bill but also to look at the total.
Too much? Too little? Just about right? That’s the taxpayers’ call.
When all is said and done, this issue reminds me of a line in one of the great movies, “The Usual Suspects,” written by Christopher McQuarrie.
“The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.”
If he were writing about government and taxes?
I had my line written out, but why don’t you give it a shot.
Latte, anyone?
Lou Brancaccio is The Columbian’s editor. Reach him at 360-735-4505 or lou.brancaccio@columbian.com.
