> anti-funding instead of anti-waste

A decade ago there were big fires in San Diego county which overwhelmed the dramatically underfunded county fire department and required other counties and the state to send help. Even still, a huge area burned and many structures were destroyed.

2 months later, the county heavily voted against a ballot measure which would slightly increase taxes to fund county fire suppression. Because “okay my neighbor’s house just burned to the ground, but it won’t ever happen to me so why should I pay to prevent it?”

This is not about “anti-waste”. There are quite simply a large number of people in the USA (encouraged in their beliefs by decades of far-right propaganda) who don’t believe in paying for public services. The same people are the first to start begging and whining for state/federal support the moment anything goes wrong for themselves personally.

I'm employed by a county EMS agency, and we see this all too often. Everyone wants a 5 minute 911 response time, even out in the far reaches of the county. The county has a population of about 45,000 people and is about 1000 square miles. The small towns out in the east part that generate maybe 10 911 calls a month want us to station a 24/7 advanced life support ambulance in the area, yet continue to vote down any sort of tax increase to pay for it. We can't even get them to contribute donations in lieu of tax increases for the service. As a result, we really can't go ahead and just do it because we literally can't afford it. state/federal tax revenue is low enough as it is and medicare reimbursements for EMS are awful.

You're right.. there are a lot of people that just do not believe in paying for any public services. A lot of "healthcare should be free for all" types that will not entertain the idea of paying for it through taxes.

This is what I'm talking about. You are telling other people that their votes were about. There was no room in the existing budget for fire suppression? Maybe they think the people that are clearly not very good at fire suppression shouldn't be given another chance? You really think they all thought "okay my neighbor's house just burned to the ground, but it won’t ever happen to me so why should I pay to prevent it?" The real propaganda is government mismanagers forcing you against your fellow citizen by making a vote against a tax increase for something to be a vote against that something. And, suppose that everyone voting against are ignorant and potential beggars/whiners and that there was no other reason they disagreed with the fire suppression and tax increase measure, this anecdote is not enough to support the general assumptions about why people vote against tax increases.

Your comment seems to suggest that there's just extra money in a budget for whatever. After years of slim budgets the easy things have already been cut out of budgets. At a state level with switching state governments, the new people are always looking for waste to hold over the heads of the incumbents. After a while there might not be much left to cut.

Ive lived in small towns like these where everything got defunded. Maybe there were a few individuals who cared about mismanagement of funds. The majority, and the vocal ones, were saying "Why should I pay for schools when my kids have graduated?", "Why should I pay for fixing the roads when I live on a state maintained road?", "Why should I pay for firefighters when no one's house has burned down in my neighborhood".

They are explicitly anti-funding and of a "fuck you, I got mine" mentality

And I've seen it where they had to basically rework budgets from scratch and prosecute officials mismanaging funds that sowed decades of distrust in the system. Maybe there were a few individuals who actually cared about funding important items and being fiscally responsible. Is your anecdote more apropos than mine or are these just anecdotes?

> They are explicitly anti-funding

"They" who? All the voters against this tax increase? The small towns you lived in? People that disagree?

The libraries needed more funding because county revenues were plummeting as the timber industry declined in the area. Maybe residents also felt the libraries were being mismanaged, but the crisis wasn't brought about by ballooning library budgets.

In hard times, prioritization is required. Mismanagement can include the mismanaging of these priorities by reducing choice to more taxes or less library. If, as these citizens have fallen on hard times, the library actually was at the bottom rung of the prioritization ladder for funds, it is reasonable for it to be cut first. The appalling thing is blaming those on hard times for not ponying up more money. A lowering tide affects all boats so to speak.

Well, like all things, there are a range of opinions. Point taken.

My anecdotal experiences, talking to people online (mostly Reddit) and in-person (I grew up in rural midwest, have an affinity for those small towns, but live in PDX, and like to road trip to those areas), the reason there are no jobs is because taxes keep businesses away.

I agree that it's short-sighted to assume ignorance in these cases. Selfishness is a major factor as well.

I suppose technically, with regards to money, the selfishness factor grows alongside increased poverty. A pretty easy target to be sure.