Recently, a news crew from Kalamazoo came to my office unannounced to discuss the disabled veterans’ property tax
exemption. They stated that there are controversies around the State because some towns are denying veterans the credit despite the law allowing for it. Here are some facts you should
know.
Washington Township is not one of the towns that are unfairly denying the
credit. We have issued 20 of 21 requests, with the one being denied because they did not meet the criteria in the State law. We were only included in the story because I
personally object to the manner in which the State has implemented this, not because we are denying the credit.
In my interview, I was asked why I objected to the State legislature granting disabled vets
the exemption from tax credits. I told them that we all want the best for veterans and that if they are not adequately provided for we should fix that. However it is my view
that the credit was a politically motivated credit, not a proper attempt to help veterans. Specifically, my concerns were:
1. The credit is another example of the overall disrespect by the State toward the sovereignty of local governments.
2. It is hypocritical for STATE legislators to grant exemptions from LOCAL taxes and not STATE taxes. They were willing to give away a portion of OUR budget
to gain political advantage, but not part of their own budget. Anyone can give away someone ELSE’S money and claim they are being patriotic and generous while holding on to their own
money.
3. If veterans are not being properly cared for through pay, pensions, and medical, that is a federal issue and should be dealt properly at the federal level since
military persons were federal employees.
4. If the State truly felt compelled to give them more, they could have exempted them from the State income tax (especially since the State recently chose to tax retiree
pensions for vets and others). But that would hurt STATE revenues and place the administrative burden of enacting this law on the State so they gave away LOCAL revenues
instead.
5. We all want to provide for our wounded heroes. What about persons who have become disabled as a result of serving the community in other noble professions
such as firemen, paramedics, police officers or teachers? Where do we stop?
6. The politically motivated credit was not granted based on NEED. Someone in a $500,000 home can get the credit just like someone in a $75,000
home.
I was asked whether it was wrong that vets and wives of vets are applying for the
credit. I said it was not wrong for vets and their families to pursue that benefit because it is the law. It was simply wrong the way the State legislature created that benefit from
a different unit of government’s revenue for political benefit.
I then explained to the reporter that this was one small example of many of how the State
shows disrespect for local government control, offloads State costs to the local level, and pulls revenue up from locals to be used by the State to balance THEIR budget. A few examples are
the poorly executed fireworks law, the attempt to divert local revenues to solve the STATE road funding problem, and the constant attempts to divert state revenue sharing. The State
balances their budget on the backs of local governments rather than making the tough decisions locals have been making. Our town operates with 20% less staff than before. The
State does not. Our town has eliminated the legacy costs that are destroying government. The State has not. We have operated with less revenues as the State has
increased its share of normally shared revenues by 60% in ten years to balance their budget. I ended with the statement that until the State learns to manage their money as well as we
have, they should stop lecturing, sit down, shut up, and listen to the master because we know what we’re doing and they could learn from it.
Unfortunately, the manner in which the story was edited was unfortunate. The
reporter introduced me by saying “Dan O’Leary HATES giving veterans this benefit” without outlining my concerns as described above. Our town’s placement in the story could have been
falsely constructed to imply that we are unfairly denying the credit when, in fact, we granted 20 of 21 requests. Finally, the story ended with my “sit down, shut up” quote without quoting
my myriad of concerns with the State leaving veterans to believe I was speaking to THEM about the exemption issue, not to the hypocritical legislature and their disrespect for local sovereignty in
the myriad of issues that I had outlined. At best, the editing was disingenuous.
All of that said, for the reasons outlined above, I stand by my view that the credit was a
poorly thought through, politically motivated and hypocritical attempt by the State legislature to use LOCAL money to garner votes. It is consistent with many such actions by the
legislature that have pilfered from local governments and disrespected local control. I find it a shameful manipulation of veterans for political purposes. I regret that a
reporter edited my comments in such a way that the message was unclear.
Dan O'Leary
Washington Township Supervisor
New text box >>
Print