The RAP Tax -(mediated #2)

On the November ballot this year, Washington County residents will be voting whether to adopt a new sales tax in the area or not. The tax would be 1 tenth of 1 percent of the sale of non-food items within the county. That is about 1 penny for every ten dollars spent. This would produce an estimated 2.2 million dollars annually. This new RAP tax is for the development of arts and recreation in the area.

A few months ago at a town council meeting in Virgin Town, a representative for this tax came to present the idea to the residents there. After her presentation and questions were taken, the town council voted to not pursue support of the tax at that time because there would not be any significant or direct benefit to the town due to the small population size compared to that of St. George or Washington City. 

  

Not long after that experience, I heard that the County Commissioners were voting on whether or not to support the tax and to have it on the ballot in November. Soon after that, I met with Commissioner Gardener and asked him what he had thought about the tax. He said that the County was just positioning itself to be able to get some of the funds that this tax could generate otherwise St. George would pass the tax alone and then get 100 percent of the money. I let him know what happened in the town of Virgin and he told me that the small towns wouldn’t really have a say whether this would pass or not, but they too could position themselves to at least get something out of the deal if it happens.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not for or against this tax, yet. I am still just been gathering information. I was hoping that someone would clearly put together an article or essay explaining both sides of the issue so that I could just read it and make a more educated decision. (What kind of dream world would that be?)

This last week I then read an article from the Spectrum and then one from the Independent that paralleled each other as they described an information meeting that had been held the night before on this subject. The articles were very cogent in their argument. The structure of their argument fit the templates that we have been learning to use very well. (Each of you should read them just to see how they structured their arguments.) They included the right definitions of terms, good claims, and then have warrants and grounds to back up most of their points. They even used banker and former Speaker of the House, David Clark, as their expert witness and spokesperson to further strengthen their argument. 

As I continued to digest this information from these articles, I felt that there should be something more. (I guess this is the cynical nature I have really begun to develop as I delve further into this class.) After reading more of the "fallacies" chapters in our textbook, I realized that the argument that they present may be cogent in the context of the information they have provided, but it is also fallacious in the information or content that they have suppressed or ignored.

As you read the article, notice how there is only a brief mention of opposition to the tax issue at all and that was met with another response of support for the tax. Notice that there was no mention of how this need was created or why it is so necessary right now. There is no clear premise justifying the tax other than they say that this is an “investment for our future.” There is also no discussion for alternatives to making this amount of money they want other than instituting the tax.

I ask why? Why can’t they just manage better the money they have now in their budgets to pay for starving artists and recreationalists. Why can’t private enterprise come in to provide the arts and recreation that we believe we all need right now! (The Veruca Salt Syndrome)  They suppressed the opposite side to bolster their argument but a true analysis of both sides would not hurt their case but strengthen it. As long as there are still unanswered questions, I will still have doubts of their intentions.