A matter of trust

They are two fair questions, asked here rhetorically:
Why care if the Army Corps of Engineers says little or nothing to the people as it uses their taxes for a Blanchard River watershed study that may, or may not, be completed nine years after the August 2007 flood?
Why care if the Army supplies The Courier with data on how it is spending our money for that study, but denies simple coding to read the data, claiming that coding is not “currently maintained in the (Buffalo) district”?
Well, just for argument’s sake, let’s skip the Constitution, government for the people, transparency, accountability to taxpayers, an informed electorate, good government, civilian supremacy over the military, and practically everything else your civics teacher taught you was true about America.
No, care only because, someday, there’s going to be a do-or-die referendum on all this.
Just one roll of the dice.
The question may be as simple as: “Do you authorize the ——- County commissioners to raise $— million through a bond issue/special tax as its share of the implementation of the Army Corps of Engineers’ Blanchard River watershed report recommendations?”
But why is the Army poisoning its baby way before it is born?
Consider the options for V(ote)-Day:
• On one hand could be the corps’ report, nine-or-so years and $9 million in the making, spoiled by as many years of military secrecy and red-tape razzle-dazzle.
• On the other hand could be the same corps’ report, backed by two years of easy-to-understand engineering, scientific, social and financial explanations, offered at welcoming, free, no-holds-barred, no-time-limit, plain-English, grassroots meetings, held all of the time and all over the place.
The best choice, of course, is the one that gives citizens the information they deserve about their money and their future, not one burdened by questions about if we can trust the people who never trusted us.

Comments

comments

About the Author