Apparently there are STILL some people who don’t quite understand what constitutes a “user fee” and what doesn’t. Maybe this will ‘splain it a little better:
If someone is required to pay a fee in order to use a public park for, say, a wedding…THAT’S a true user fee. Citizens can avoid this fee simply by not holding their wedding in a public park. On the other hand, restaurants, for example, being required to pay a fee to fund health inspectors is a fee supporting government regulation which is NOT optional and is NOT a “user fee.”
Now, one can argue whether health inspectors are an essential part of government or not, but one cannot claim that this isn’t a normal cost of operating government as opposed to a “user fee.” Therefore, any attempt to raise the fees restaurants are REQUIRED to pay for health inspections - whether or not the restaurant industry “agrees” (with a gun to its head) or “accepts” the fee hike - is a TAX hike, and support for such would be a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.
I sure hope this clears that up once and for all.
Somehow, though, I doubt it.
Posted on May 30th, 2007 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: Nevada
Chuck,
I knew you’d come around and let the government charge a user fee for after-school sports! It’s not like the government is holding a gun to parents’ heads to enroll their kids in after school sports…you are right, they can avoid this fee “simply by not [having the kids use a public school] for sport programs that are available, for a fee, in the private sector”.
You might make a good self sufficient Republican yet! Scratch that, there aren’t any.