US

Vote and Comment: Is Burning Home Sign of ‘Tea Party’ America?

News of a home burning down in rural Obion County, Tennessee because the neighboring fire department refused assistance to the owners who hadn’t paid the $75 fee for the coverage, has spread like, well, wildfire.

The incident has caused a raging debate, and has even left one talking head warning this is an example of “Tea Party” America. (See the original story and video from the scene.)

So is this an apocalyptic glimpse into the future? Is it right? Is it wrong? Is it an example of ballooning budgets and taxes that can’t provide emergency services?

Let’s take a look, and then you‘ll get a chance to let us know what you think using The Blaze’s new voting feature.

Last week, Gene Cranick’s house caught on fire. He called 911 and asked for help, but firefighters from the neighboring town of South Fulton said they could not put it out because the Cranicks had not paid the $75 required fee for such service. When fire fighters did arrive, they still would not stop the blaze, but did step in to some degree when the fire began spreading to a neighboring house that had paid for the protection.

“Oy, this is bad for libertarians,” wrote Danial Foster on National Review’s blog “The Corner.” He added:

I have no problem with this kind of opt-in government in principle — especially in rural areas where individual need for government services and available infrastructure vary so widely. But forget the politics: what moral theory allows these firefighters (admittedly acting under orders) to watch this house burn to the ground when 1) they have already responded to the scene; 2) they have the means to stop it ready at hand; 3) they have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for their trouble?

And then answers his own question:

The counterargument is, of course, that this kind of system only works if there are consequences for opting out. For the firefighters to have put out the blaze would have opened up a big moral hazard and generated a bunch of future free-riding — a lot like how the ban on denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, paired with penalties under the individual mandate that are lower than the going premiums, would lead to folks waiting until they got sick to buy insurance.

Remember the insurance analogy — we’ll come back to it.

Foster’s post started quite the debate at National Review headquarters. His colleagues weighed in.

Kevin Williamson gave a little more background on South Fulton’s policy and argued that the $75 fee is actually an example of expanded service:

Dan, you are 100 percent wrong.

The situation is this: The city of South Fulton’s fire department, until a few years ago, would not respond to any fires outside of the city limits — which is to say, the city limited its jurisdiction to the city itself, and to city taxpayers. A reasonable position. Then, a few years ago, a fire broke out in a rural area that was not covered by the city fire department, and the city authorities felt bad about not being able to do anything to help. So they began to offer an opt-in service, for the very reasonable price of $75 a year. Which is to say: They greatly expanded the range of services they offer. The rural homeowners were, collectively, better off, rather than worse off. Before the opt-in program, they had no access to a fire department. Now they do.

NR’s Jonah Goldberg then advocated for a middle ground, and suggested that this may save more houses in the long run:

Why isn’t there a happy middle ground? You can pay 75 bucks upfront or, if you wait until your house is on fire, it will cost you, I dunno, $10,000? Lots of things work like this.

Here’s the more important part of the story, letting the house burn — while, I admit sad — will probably save more houses over the long haul. I know that if I opted out of the program before, I would be more likely to opt-in now.

Finally, NR’s John Derbishyre said the issue boils down to being “crunchy” or “soggy”:

I am entirely with the South Fulton fire department here. In the terms of Nico Colchester’s great 1996 essay, they are being crunchy rather than soggy:

“Crunchy systems are those in which small changes have big effects leaving those affected by them in no doubt whether they are up or down, rich or broke, winning or losing, dead or alive. . . . Sogginess is comfortable uncertainty. . . . The richer a society becomes, the soggier its systems get. Light-switches no longer turn on or off: they dim.”

One of the duties of conservatives in this soggy fallen world is to stand up for crunchiness. For the fire department to have extinguished the Cranicks’ fire would have been soggy, even aside from the considerable degree of sogginess it would have left on the property.

But “crunchy” wouldn’t do for Keith Olbermann — it’s just too hard. When he got a hold of the story, he used it to warn the country that the incident is an example of Tea Party America:

Blogger Paul Hogarth agrees: “This story brings to light the horrific consequences of what would happen if we let basic government decisions be made by right-wing ideologues.”

Joshua Holland at AlterNet puts it another way: “Call it Ayn Rand’s stark, anti-governmental dream come true.”

The Guardian‘s Michael Tomasky won’t go that far — but almost: “I won’t quite go the full nine yards of saying that this is what life would be like in tea party America. Not quite. But I’ll go 4.5 yards for sure. Remember, this country (like pretty much all countries) used to have private fire departments. They didn’t work well.”

That brings us back to the insurance analogy. The Atlanta-Journal Constitution‘s John Bookman agrees that the fire department’s action seem a little “callous.” To him, however, it’s not so much a picture of Tea Party America as it is of Obamacare America:

The situation is in many ways analogous to the health care debate, where folks skate without insurance until something goes wrong and they show up in an emergency room, where the law says they have to be treated.

Do we instead do what the South Fulton fire chief did, refusing available treatment to fellow human beings even in life-threatening situations, because they gambled and didn’t buy insurance?

Bookman eventually answers the question in the negative, suggesting an individual mandate for fire protection. That way, there can be no losers.

Mandate or not, Glenn Beck argues that one cannot base his conclusions on feelings alone. The reality is that if people are not willing to pay, but expect the fire department to fight their fires anyway, there eventually would be no fire department at all. “If [fire departments] did that, would anyone pay their $75 dollars?” If the fire department makes one exception here, then another, and yet another, where will the money come from?

So now it’s your turn. You’ve heard and read what others are saying, but what do you think? Besides commenting, there’s another way you can let us know. We’re using this story to introduce a new feature on The Blaze: voting.

Below is box that allows you to contribute to a poll. Simply click the circle that best describes your thoughts. After voting, add your comments explaining why.


UPDATE:

WPSD-TV, which first brought us the story, has a follow-up to its original report:

South Fulton police arrested one of Gene Cranick’s sons, Timothy Allen Cranick, on an aggravated assault charge. When officers arrived at the firehouse Wednesday, South Fulton Fire Chief David Wilds was in an ambulance receiving medical treatment.

More importantly, the station interviews Union City Fire Chief Kelly Edmison (a neighboring city that also uses the pay-for-service model), who is defending the firefighters in South Fulton.

Edmison explained that it is the county, not the cities, that is at fault for not providing fire service, and that individual departments cannot be faulted (or held liable) for the county’s decision:

“If somebody is trapped in the house we‘re going to go because life safety is number one but we can’t give the service away,” Edmison said. “It‘s not South Fulton’s problem. It‘s not Union City’s problem. It‘s the county’s problem. There is no county fire department.” …

“If we just waited to charge when we went out there, you’d be working on a per-call basis,” he said. “With no more calls than there are, the money wouldn’t be there in a sufficient source to buy the equipment you need.” …

“It’s like car insurance,” Edmison said. “I wish I could wait until I have an accident until I pay my premium on my car insurance, but it doesn’t work that way. So why should the fire service be looked at anything different?”

Edmison reiterated that if someone’s life is at risk, the firefighters will intervene. However, that was not an issue in Cranick’s fire:

Comments (760)

1 2 3 ... 22
  • cranberry
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:06pm

    I am SO sick of paying dollars for people who don’t step up and pay their own share! Period.

    Report Post » cranberry  
    • TheElPistolero
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 6:56pm

      Hey Miss attitude why didn’t they pay?

      Report Post » TheElPistolero  
    • Blue_Persuasion
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:12pm

      Who CARES why they didn’t pay! Seems they COULD have — the guy was offering to pay it at the scene. He rolled the dice and lost. End of story.

      Report Post »  
  • Steve
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:06pm

    Sorry folks… If you wreck your car and you don‘t have insurance you’re liable for damages. Same thing here, if you couldn‘t afford the city’s “Fire Insurance” and your house catches fire, it burns to the ground. That’s how it goes.

    Report Post » Steve Smith  
    • UnionsRgreat
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 4:21pm

      i‘d say this is more about how people that call themselves firefighters watching a house burn down when they have the equipment on the scene to put it out while the owner pleads with them that he’ll pay whatever it costs to get that water out of that tank on onto his burning memories. if it was me, i‘d of charged him up the wazoo for my help but i’d help nontheless

      Report Post »  
    • ZaphodsPlanet
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 8:19pm

      I couldn’t….. agree with you more. Upon first hearing the story it sounds outrageous, but then you hear the whole story and it makes total sense. When I think about what I pay in property taxes in my neighborhood….. if I could pay a mere $75 a year for just fire and another $150 for police…. I’d be happy as a pig in mud. I love how these IDIOT liberals are starting to blame Tea Parties, Republicans, Conservatives and Libertarians for this…… next meteor that hits Jupiter will be our faults too.

      Your analogy hits the nail right on the head. Thanks for sharing it.

      Report Post » ZaphodsPlanet  
  • Cabo King
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:06pm

    can Keith Olberman get any worse????? iam really suprised he didnt mention bushes name!!! what a hack…

    Report Post » Cabo King  
    • Danglinbags
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:14pm

      You’re just jealous of how sexy he is and that he is unbiased and just reports the facts.

      Snowleotard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • Cincinnatus Dogood
      Posted on October 6, 2010 at 8:42pm

      Keith Obermann is a F****ing Liar. There was little truth in the store accept for the fact there was a fire.

      Report Post »  
  • BornOkTheFirstTime
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:06pm

    …And I‘m referring to Olbermann’s comment, not the fire story. As for the fire, I agree with the FD. He gambled and lost. He’ll pay the fee next time, I’m sure.

    Report Post »  
  • GrumpyCat
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:05pm

    Vote script doesn’t work for me.

    The firefighters were correct in letting the house burn. Jonah Goldberg is correct in stating the fire department should have a “before” and “after” price for their services.

    Libertarianism is all about “make your own choice” not someone else making your choices for you.

    Report Post »  
    • Mr Rogers
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:47pm

      I agree with you. Firefighters weren’t wrong.
      But, it seems that the “Love your neighbor”/Charity principle was really lost here. Then again, that’s a heart-change issue, not something that ever works when it’s written into law.
      IMO, Seems the city was kind-of short-sighted here. At the very least, they should have a ready-to-go legal document for the homeowner to sign that obligates him to the fine for not opting in, but still having his house saved. I know that raises problems in scenarios where the homeowner is not present, though.
      Messy situation.

      Report Post »  
  • cubber
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:04pm

    I would hope to believe that the firefighters were Americans first. That should have dictated their response.

    Report Post » cubber  
    • Bullcop34
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:30pm

      So, you feel that if you wreck your car and have no insurance that the car shop should fix it cause they are good Americans???

      Report Post » Bullcop34  
    • mikedy
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:31pm

      Based on this theory, we should all provide our services for free to anyone who is in trouble? Where would you draw the line between reacting and not reacting? The problem with this story is they left out a part (I read the story elsewhere) where the homeowner told the fire dept he would pay the entire cost of putting out the fire; not $75 but the cost the fire dept incurred. because of this, the fire dept was wrong. Just like going to a hospital with no insurance and the hospital turns you away. But then you tell the hospital i will pay for everything it costs with cash. the hospital would take you back in without a second thought.

      Report Post »  
    • Zaphod
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 4:07pm

      Here’s where I draw the line … I would never presume to draw the line for a lot of the people around here because it‘s pretty obvious I wouldn’t want to be their neighbor … or near THEIR line: if it’s within my power to provide assistance, if I see an urgent need that I can legitimately meet … I am obligated by my faith, integrity, sense of charity, and common decency to provide that assistance without first judging as to whether the person I intend to offer that assistance is worthy of my help. So, in practical application: if I‘m a firefighter and I’m sitting there on my shiny truck watching a person’s house burn down … MY LINE say’s: help the poor sod out … deal with the details later.

      Later on I‘ll get pissed off that this selfish cretin didn’t pay the $75 fee and GET THE FEE AND MORE at that point.

      And for those who say if people see this, than NO ONE will pay … seriously? It’s called an honor system … there’s a lot of things I do where I do the HONORABLE thing when no one is looking … and I’m sure most of you do too … so you’re saying, that if YOU see someone get away with something, then YOU will NOT PAY?!?! Again … thank God you’re not my neighbor.

      Report Post » Zaphod  
  • parmajohn
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:04pm

    More Dumbing Down……Was the Home a Eyesore? Being foreclosed on? Does it matter? It was someones Life and worldly possesions…. What If it was You?? And nobody helped?? We need to take care of each other…The Goverment Can’t help IE Katrina..Flooding Fires ect Was It all about a measly 75 Dollars?

    Report Post »  
    • Danglinbags
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:11pm

      Totally agree, Parma! A measly 75$. What is this country coming to? Next you‘ll tell me I don’t have a constitutional right to have all my health care for free. Psh. Weak sauce.

      Snowleotard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • Freelancer
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:16pm

      And what would you suggest White Socks? People refuse to pay so there is NO people to fight the damn fire. If you WANT a service, you PAY for that service. Either through taxes or this route. Take your pick.

      Report Post » Freelancer  
    • parmajohn
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:23pm

      In My World Nothing has been free,,,I’Ve worked for everthing I have And will work for anything I want……Imagine That the system works..if you do ps I pay for my own healthcare…deductible went up 1000 $ and payment went up 100 bucks a month thank-you Obamacare

      Report Post »  
    • parmajohn
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:33pm

      FREE Lancer you missed my point completly….If your dieing do we check your health insurance First before we help you? Was it a good example to Let It Burn? Or Just let you die So we can say To Others ” See-See you need us” Not in my world Do unto others as you would want done unto you

      Report Post »  
    • Jack Russell
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 5:25pm

      Gnomechomsky apparently doesn‘t have any idea what he’s talking about. Volunteer Fire Departments are funded in a broad variety of ways. MANY of them having zero dollars from town or county government.

      Report Post » Jack Russell  
    • unionrockstar
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 6:56pm

      The measly $75.00 isn’t the issue;
      The issue is fire insurance cost a measly $75.00 a year
      That leaves the inhabitants with a choice; either purchase the insurance or not.
      Libs and Progressives are willing to kill an innocent baby who came from pleasureville and accidently resulted in an unwanted pregnancy. However, they become very sympathetic when it comes to a person being held accountable for their choices.
      Having said that; the entire situation is very very sad

      Report Post »  
    • parmajohn
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 7:27pm

      Rockstar I agree Its a sad situation..The 75 bucks wasn’t insurance It I believe it was a add-on tax Not all that much..I pay more than that for a sewer tax add-on. Ohio has a law that you must have auto insurance to drive..No proof required but you must also have uninsured motorist insurance..plus we have E-check{they check your cars emmissions} another add on tax to your plate fees Plus tax on gasoline to maintain the roads See a pattern? They tax your income and tax you every time you spend whats left…I believe the fire could have been put out before it started the neighbors house caught fire Luckily they paid the 75 dollars and the Fire dept was on scene A World I truly Don”t Understand

      Report Post »  
    • Blue_Persuasion
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:07pm

      If it was me, I would have paid the effin’ $75! Then MY house would have been tended to.

      Too many of you people here have this entitlement attitude. Some pay but others don’t, but those who don’t are “entitled” to the same thing as those that did. In what world??

       
  • Anonimouse
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:03pm

    Hey, we try to keep this place clean. Watch the language.

    Report Post »  
    • stepinwolf
      Posted on October 6, 2010 at 7:03pm

      So sorry if that offended you.. I had know idia you were one of the fireman..Get over it!!. Or just don’t read it.

      Report Post »  
  • Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:03pm

    This isn’t a libertarian litmus test. You see, there wasn’t a private alternative. If the people could have contracted with another party for fire protection then it would be closer to a test. As it is, the option is the government way or the highway. Drawing a libertarian strawman argument from that is unfair. Furthrmore, if someone had tried to compete with the public option do you suppose that would have been allowed to occur?

    Holding people hostage and then crying that libertarianis is at fault is disingenuous at best.

    Report Post » Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve  
    • GnomeChomsky
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:25pm

      Do you have any idea what a private fire department would cost? Someone on here (might have been you) yesterday was arguing that if a private company were allowed to operate they could charge less ($50 was the suggestion) than the mean old government and probably would provide better service. Delusional is the only word that could accurately describe whomever the commenter was.

      Report Post »  
    • Jack Russell
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 5:39pm

      Au contraire! There certainly was and IS a private alternative. While those deadbeats were punching bloodblisters on the ends of their fingers and rubbing the 9 and 1′s off of their phones they could have been picking up the green-line and putting their fire out. Of course, anyone who is familiar with firefighting would know the ‘private’ alternative isn’t extremely effective, but by that same standard, the success rate of saving most rural homes that catch on fire even WHEN THEY DO PAY THEIR DUES is not the best. Fire is fast and powerful and preservation of exposures is actually a good deal of what is involved. But back to the point, these people DID have a private choice. It is to PRIVATELY put it out by yourself and that choice was not made when the fire started. It was made when the little notice came in the mail that the neighboring city would graciously extend the protection that their citizens paid for to areas that were NOT taxed by them for the meager sum of $75, due now.

      Report Post » Jack Russell  
  • Danglinbags
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:03pm

    Keith Olbermann, you are so sexy and hawt! I‘m not sure what we’d do without you on our side…you are always so accurate and you never leave out any facts. You are the most unbiased journalist in the history of planet Earth, and you are unbelievably gaw-juss! Stay sexy and right on point, my buddy! <3

    Snowleotard {gallery of cat folks}  
  • Gingerlynnwinks
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:02pm

    This similiar scenario took place where I lived about 10 years ago. The homes outside the town in the most rural section did not have any fire protection and they voted numerous times not to be included.
    I don’t remember a big hoopla about it. People thought if very sad and many people said, the right thing to have done was to save the guy’s house and then sock him with the full cost of the salaries, water, fire engine, the medical costs if any fire fighter was hurt. After all that, the guy could of just let his house burn and buy a new house with what he would have spent paying for one time usuage of the Fire Department’s Fire Fighters. What say you? I borrowed that from Bill O’Reilly.

    Report Post »  
  • HippoNips
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:02pm

    The fire wasn’t even in the same town of firefighters. It’s not their coverage area.
    People outside their coverage area taxes do NOT pay for those fire fighters at all. So their is a coverage fee if you want the fire services of another town to come save your property.
    The real question to be asked is why these hicks started the fire in their yard in the first place , especially since they didn’t have any fire services assigned to their area.

    Report Post »  
  • mrdbcooper
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:02pm

    why didn’t the voters in that district adopt the, “pay a little now, or pay alot later” philosophy…something is missing…it does not pass the stink test.

    Report Post » mrdbcooper  
    • wingedwolf
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 5:47pm

      I live in a very rural area and there are NO services not provided by the state. The closest fire department is 12 miles away and doesn’t charge a fee, although we would pay it. We do contribute ever year to all of their fund drives. What astonishes me is how few people carry fire insurance!!!!! If you don’t carry it, the insurer for your house and property won‘t reimburse the fire department for it’s expenses, which I have found out by helping out on the board are heavy…at least $6000.00 per fire if there are no injuries, more if there are injuries. And they are not allowed to do anything to collect these expenses except “ask.” for the money. If the homeowner refuses, they have no recourse. They can’t sue or hire a collection agency. This morning I thought the actions of the fire department were unconscionable, but upon further thought I agree with what they did. The people who didn’t pay the $75.00 up-front fee were wrong. Especially when that was the agreement with the service provider who wouldn’t have come out there under any circumstances without the agreement in the first place. You can’t change a contract after the fact without agreement by all the parties. What would these homeowners have done before there was an agreement with the neighboring town? That’s what they do now.

      Report Post » wingedwolf  
  • BoatFix
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:02pm

    Hmmm… That’s a tough one for me.
    If the home owner is there stating I’ll pay, I’ll pay!!! As he and the FD watches his house burn, then I say put out the fire.

    Report Post » BoatFix  
    • BornOkTheFirstTime
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:13pm

      And what about the next time someone’s house goes up? Ever heard of making an example out of someone? He totally lost the bet. Time to pay the piper.

      Report Post »  
    • arx
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 5:30pm

      and then watch the years go by with no payment for services rendered…people will say anything when desperate, and likely mean ever word at the time…but when the bill comes due some change their minds real fast. Not saying this guy would have, but you just never know.

      Report Post » arx  
    • Blue_Persuasion
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 8:54pm

      Insurance doesn’t work that way. Try calling State Farm as your house is burning and ask them to insure you. Good Lord, people, quit being so effin’ thick!!

      Report Post »  
    • Eagle07
      Posted on October 6, 2010 at 7:17am

      Boat what happens if one of the firefighters got hurt?Than the county goes to court and fights any compensation for the poor firefighter because he did something he shouldn’t.The homeowner knew the chances he was taking he gambled and lost.I am sure if people were in the house the firefighters would have rescued them.

      Report Post »  
  • unbiased
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:01pm

    Whats next, paramedics deciding who lives or who dies? Because they didn’t pay there protection money

    Report Post »  
    • crackerone
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:38pm

      What happens if the homeowner is not outside watching his house burn. Does the fire dept. even care if there are people inside?

      Report Post »  
    • Blue_Persuasion
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 8:57pm

      You chose the wrong handle. You are VERY biased. AND uninformed. You‘re comparing paramedics and people’s lives to a HOUSE. Last I checked, a house isn’t a living person.

      And if you think any insurance company would give a crap as your house is burning and you call them begging them to insure you NOW, that you’re willing to pay NOW, you’d be fooling yourself. Isn‘t it the insurance company’s job to insure homes against such things as fire? Um, yeah, but there’s a PROCESS — just like there is here.

      Report Post »  
  • poverty.sucks
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:01pm

    Sticky subject, homeowners made a choice not to pay, Obama has yet to outlaw such policy that exist throughout the nation, not just Ohio. Albeit, immigrants would sign such waivers, I refuse to pay for health coverage, therefore, should I become injured, sick, or pregnate please do not assist with obligation to pay.

    Report Post » poverty.sucks  
  • Madisonian
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:01pm

    Apply this to any insurance policy, because that’s what it is. Now, if you buy the coverage when everything is great, you pay 75 dollars, you get covered. If you wait until the house catches fire, should they put it out, especially if they respond, probably, but you should be billed for the actual cost of the service. Same thing happens with healthcare, car insurance, homeowners, life insurance. The longer you wait, the more you pay.

    Now, I suspect the firefighters were under orders, but, if you were given fair warning and you choose not to play by the rules, that is self government.

    Report Post »  
  • Anonimouse
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 2:59pm

    How about we remove government entirely? I grew up in a place where we had a volunteer fire dept. which was supported by donations from the community it served.

    Report Post »  
    • GnomeChomsky
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:16pm

      As a former volunteer fireman I can assure you that the city/town council and/or county funds your local VFD. You think the annual pancake breakfast covers the cost of the trucks, firehouse, equipment, etc?

      Report Post »  
    • Anonimouse
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:31pm

      I come from a long line of volunteer firemen. I can assure you that the bake sales and pancakes BUILT the firehouse and bought the trucks. Those were the good old days.

      Report Post »  
    • Topcat
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:47pm

      I agree , I still today have a volunteer fire dept in New York , supported by contributions of the community. We have people that , drop whatever they are doing when the fire siren goes off and heads for the fire station. They have blue lights on the dash as they are not permitted to use emergency red. We extend every courtesy on the road to the blue lights , as someday it might be our home they are headed for. Once a year officially there is a drive for donations to support the fire house and equipment , you give what you can , if you cant afford to thats ok .There is no loss of fire dept support , as a result the dept. is very well funded , in appreciation. If the fire is large , often two or more Depts. show from surrounding towns , incase they are needed . I dont understand this story at all , the fire dept serves the need of the town and finances or response time should not make a difference in coverage . I could not have permitted that house to burn to ground , if there was anything that could have been done.

      Report Post » Topcat  
    • shotgun
      Posted on October 6, 2010 at 9:26am

      CHRISTIANS – HELP first ask questions later… If they wanted to be jerks about it they could have charged him double or something. This issue is really going to bite back. What if the homeowner comes upon the fire chief in a bad one vehicle accident on a remote road. Should he help him??? This is one of the first issues that I totally disagree with Glenn Beck. It is lack of action from local governement that fuels the socialists cause.

      Report Post » shotgun  
  • Beverly Barnum
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 2:58pm

    One of the major problems in the country is that too many people want something for nothing on their part. I pay my local volunteer fire freely each year; it is not required, but I appreciate them and so respond to their fundraising in my rural area. Color me cruel and uncaring if you like, but if everybody expects to be exempted from the rules, then nobody gets helped, becuase the fire deptment will simply cease to exist due to lack of funds.

    Report Post »  
  • Freelancer
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 2:58pm

    This is what they HAVE to do when they don’t have ANY fire protection at all. I would LOVE to have to pay that little in taxes for my fire protection. As it stands now, I pay three to four times that.

    Report Post » Freelancer  
  • angelcat
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 2:58pm

    I truly feel sorry for the family, but actions(or lack of them) have consequences. If the consequences are lacking (fire put out without fee being paid), then people, being human will revert to not taking the action(paying their bills if they want protection) that is necessary. The problem is that many Americans have been conditioned to always get a second chance or have the government bail them out. This time no second chance was given. I feel bad that they lost their home and I understand their anger and frustration, but unless they were so old or uninformed that they had no idea they had to pay the money, they should be most angry at themselves for not doing what they were supposed to do.

    Report Post »  
    • nordspan
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:07pm

      I agree.

      Report Post »  
    • w4jle
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:49pm

      If I were their insurance company, I would refuse the claim. They failed to take the proper action to protect the property and contributed to the loss of the home through their in-actions. I have lived in areas that require payment for the use of fire services and the deadbeats all think they will pay it when the house catches fire. No sympathy here!

      Report Post » w4jle  
  • POINTBLANK
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 2:57pm

    Well….that sure was a “Blaze”. Stay tuned…more blazes to come….

    Report Post »  
  • HippoNips
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 2:57pm

    The original call was about a barrel fire the homeowners started themselves on purpose.
    At the time the fire was contained far from the house.
    When it spread , they called 911 again. The firefighters did come but the house was engulfed and nothing could be done to save it. The only thing left to do was protect the neighboring house.

    Report Post »  
    • BoatFix
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:03pm

      Oh… If that was the case then I feel different. Let it burn :))

      Report Post » BoatFix  
    • TruthDarts
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 5:35pm

      JUST to point out>>>these people don’t live in South Fulton incorporated township.
      Sooo…THEY DON’T PAY TAXES TO THIS TOWN.
      But the firefighters not fight it when they show up anyway, is just—SENSELESS.
      If they showed up and it is a done deal…hmmmm.

      QUESTIONS TO PONDER….
      Soooo…does your HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE CO. not have to pay to rebuild your house since you didn’t make the $75 payment for upkeep?

      Sooo…would the homeowner be charged by the local HUMANE SOCIETY laws with NEGLECT OF PETS since you did not pay the $75 to protect them & they died in fire?
      Sooo…would the FIREFIGHTERS also be charged by the HUMANE SOCIETY for the same offense?

      Sooo….IF a person was trapped & DIED in the fire…would homeowner & Firefighters be charged with manslaughter….or….FIRST DEGREE MURDER?

      Sooo…if the entire neighborhood caught fire would the FIREFIGHTERS have to call dispatch to see WHICH FIRE is WORTHY of the PREPAID $75 EFFORT to SAVE it?

      Have we come to scenes out of: ROBO COP or FAHRENHEIT 451?
      We now are NOT motivated by our intended function, but rather some morphed private money grab?

      Oh, yeah…I guess so….Obama IS in the WHITEHOUSE.

      Report Post » TruthDarts  
    • HippoNips
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 6:42pm

      There was NO ONE trapped in the house. Making “what if” statementds don’t add to the facts. The house was already engulfed by a fire started by the homeowner in a town that isn’t part of the firefighters coverage area.
      Sure they could have fought the fire , put it out but the home would still have been totalled.
      Instead, the protected the surronding homes. Just what they should have done.

      Report Post »  
    • Post-Progressive American
      Posted on October 6, 2010 at 4:52am

      The fire fighters were from the town; the fire was outside their area of coverage. The town wanted to provide coverage outside their area, so they provide it for a $75/year fee. They did not respond to the original call because the homeowners did not choose to ‘opt-in’ for the expanded coverage; they did respond when the neighbor’s house, who had opted-in, was threatened. By that time, there was nothing to be done for the original house.

      Related to the Tea-Party? No.
      A case of the Government being unable to provide services in rural areas? Probably.
      Are the town, the policy and the firefighters being villanized without cause? Absolutely.

      Report Post » Post-Progressive American  
  • Carol_in_Florida
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 2:54pm

    It was in Obion County, TN, not Obid…

    I agree with the your take on your radio program this morning. That‘s why people should pay what’s required for fire protection, otherwise you‘re gambling that you won’t have a house fire. It almost sounds heartless, but if all those in the district refused to pay the $75, there would be no firefighters and no firefighting equipment. That, from what I understood, was the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Kinda like having homeowners insurance. If you don’t have it, I‘d like to see you call State Farm after your house burns down and tell ’em you want insurance, retroactively.

    Report Post »  
    • cubber
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:03pm

      Sounds like the new health care system.

      Report Post » cubber  
    • Sicboy
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:08pm

      Quit sucking up to GB. I believe out Local tax’s go to Police, Fire, School. To many times local govt’s say one thing and do something else with the money. Today GB was wrong.

      Report Post » Sicboy  
    • lainab
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:21pm

      I agree, Carol. When I first heard about this story, I was horrified. But, as I read into the details and heard Glenn’s perspective, I’m STILL sad for the family, but I agree with the hard truth of it all. As sad as it is to lose so much and helplessly watch it all go up in smoke while the firefighters are standing RIGHT there, he gambled… and lost. I do, however, think a compromise should be in place like Goldberg suggested. If you don’t have the insurance, you are fined an exorbitant amount for the fierfighters’ services… I think I’d get the insurance…

      Report Post »  
    • ChyCremer
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:39pm

      completly agree. I‘m alittle surprised they didn’t put it out, but ya, if they would have, noone is gonna pay…

      Report Post » ChyCremer  
    • w4jle
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:41pm

      To SICBOY,
      Read again son, the house was outside the city. They had no fire protection and paid no city taxes. The fire department from the city agreed to provide service for $75.00. The folks that had their house burn down chose not to buy the service. Now that they needed the service they refused to buy, they have tears as big as horse turds rolling down both cheeks. How do they differ from those that want a free ride on society’s dime?

      Report Post » w4jle  
    • Chris
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:53pm

      This issue has multiple components. The first is that the City felt bad and offered City Services to the county for FEE. Home owners could by that City Service for $75. Much the same as being able to get a library card in the next county over but you have to pay instead of getting it for free.

      The people of the county voted (or choose not to make any decision) at the county government level to NOT buy City Services.

      In other words, the people living in the county have the following options.
      1) Insult the City and not have any services from the city for anybody
      2) Buy personal service for themselves.
      3) Agree as a group to buy services. (County wide through taxes or maybe a community choice)
      4) Gamble that they will never need the City Service

      This freeloader gambled that he would not need the City Service. A bad thing happened to him. He lost his investment.

      If the people of his community thought that everybody was to dumb to do the right thing they could have raised taxes to pay for that City Service for everybody in the county.

      But this freeloader has take option 5.

      Gamble that bad things won’t happen to him and then when they do expect people to give him services for free.

      I hope that he belongs to a church or social group that will help him and his family find a place to stay. I hope he had his home owners insurance paid up.

      ( I wonder if his home owners insurance would have given him a break > $75 if he had paid $75 to have City Services)

      Report Post »  
    • orkydorky
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 4:09pm

      This sounds like a rural county problem that could be resolved with a volunteer fire department to contain costs. Sounds as though everyone within the city limits is supposed to be responsible for the rest of the county. I presume that home owners inside the city limits pay for this service with their taxes. We are not a Communist country yet!

      Report Post » orkydorky  
    • JJ Coolay
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 4:24pm

      I think the service should still be rendered, but a fine given after the fact to those who don’t want to pay the cost.
      How about 10 times? If you don’t pay the $75 and the firefighters come save your house, how about a fine of $750?
      It generates city revenue and still helps everyone. And it teaches a level of responsibilty.

      Report Post » JJ Coolay  
    • starman70
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 8:56pm

      Fortunately, the countyI live in has a county fire department with over 800 volunteers and a paid dispatch and maintenance facility. I am an 47 year veteran of this county system. We provide fire protection for all areas of the county not covered by municipal departments. Our system is paid for by a county tax which, by the way doesn’t apply to the municipalities with their own departments. Therefore, this scenario would not have happened here.

      In the past, there have been other in areas much the same problem. In a nearby county, several fire district’s borders intersected but left out about 40 houses. None of the departments had subscription plans such as this one and when a house caught fire in the uncovered ares, 3 departments responded but all sat at their border line and watched it burn down. Had there been entrapment all of them would have acted to save the life.

      The town to which the fire department was a part of, had no obliglation to even serve the area outside the town limits. Their town council realizing a need, offered fire protection to areas outside of town for $75 per year. This was a VOLUNTARY program. A homeowner didn’t have to participate if he/she didn’t want to. That money was used to upgrade the equipment, probably add another truck so they could serve the outside area. Money is needed if you are going to provide a service.

      The town had no authority to collect taxes outside the town limits. The residents inside the town paid taxes every year and received fire protecton they paid for. A fee of $75 per year is a very reasonable fee and was probably based on how much of the average tax bill for town residents went to the Fire Department for operations. State law may have allowed the for department to bill the homeowner’s insurance company for the services but that is contingent on the law in that state,

      While as a firefighter, it would chafe me to the bone to sit there and watch a structure burn down and not be able to do anything about it, I can understand that the Fire Department had to follow the rules. Had they not, they would no longer have been providing a contracted service, they would have been providing WELFARE (The Socialists Dream). Furthermore, it wouldn’t have been fair or right to all the other people who paid their $75 possibly for many years for the department to serve the one resident who didn’t pay the fee. As far as the Insurance company is concerned, the homeowner is more than likely paying the highest rate (in our state it is class 9) allowed by law. Neither the town nor the fire department has any liability. The homeowner knew the rules but he still will be paid by the insurance company.

      That having been said, what the H*** has this story got to do with the tea party? Only some far left liberal JACKASS could equate this story to politics and even then he had to push the boundries of credulous journalism to the extreme. Boy, these liberals will grab at any straw especially when their ship is sinking.

      Report Post »  
    • sabichan
      Posted on October 6, 2010 at 1:59pm

      Reading through these comments, I think people need to look at this framed a little differently. When the city offered a service to this man, he told them no. Plain and simple. By not paying he rejected their offer, just the same as if I told an insurance salesman that I didn‘t want to buy fire insurance or if I told a gym that I didn’t want to buy a membership to them.

      His refusal for the service means that he was left to himself. This is not the same as a hospital for two reasons.

      1. No life was in danger. The Fire Department said themselves that if someone was still in there they would have saved them, no matter what. That is their responsibility, just as it is the responsibility of a hospital to save the life of a dying person regardless of whether they can pay.
      2. The $75 was not insurance, it was a participation fee. It’s like not paying for a gym membership and then expecting them to allow you to work out there once your doctor tells you to exercise. They had no “right” to the fire department because they lived in an area where they knew they weren’t covered (and did so probably because it was cheaper). When coverage was extended they refused the service.

      I’m ok with doing some sort of an a la carte service with these people, but more so because I‘d like Fire Departments privatized than because I think the FD have a responsibility to put out this guy’s fire. But, if there was a fine afterward I think it should absolutely reflect the amount of money spent on putting out the fire – including costs to pay the firefighters, costs for wear on the equipment, costs of water, costs of gas, and most likely additional hazard pay.

      Report Post »  
    • jlee80644
      Posted on October 6, 2010 at 7:38pm

      This is yet another prime example of why Americans need to localize their governments and quit relying on the state or feds to handle everything. We know what works best for our households, our communities, our individual states, and from there we can be a fantastic country. If we apply this way of thinking to any problem, there is no problem Americans can’t fix.

      Report Post »  
  • RobertCA
    Posted on October 5, 2010 at 2:52pm

    & what the Tea Party have to do with a fire ?

    Robert-CA  
    • cubber
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:00pm

      As Paris would say “They’re Hot!”.

      Report Post » cubber  
    • Sicboy
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:16pm

      WOW, time to think for yourself people. I usually agree with GB. Today he was wrong. To many times local govt‘s don’t use property tax’s correctly. Now this local govt says pay an extra $75 bucks? I hope the Insurance company go’s after this town. What next, Police cost $100? Open your eye‘s don’t follow blindly.

      Sicboy  
    • BenThereToo
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:26pm

      Yes, what does the Tea Party have to do with this? Nothing, of course. Just another lib spouting gibberish.
      This story brings to mind times when there is a mandatory evacuation of an area. Some refuse to go, but when they get in trouble…they expect to be saved. I say, you had your chance, now it is time to face the consequences of your decision. The same thing applies here. The entitlement mentality tells these people, I don‘t have to pay and I’ll still get the service. Nope. Not this time.
      A big OH YEAH to that fire department.

      Report Post » BenThereToo  
    • alamo
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:34pm

      @SICBOY who said, “I usually agree with GB. Today he was wrong. To many times local govt‘s don’t use property tax’s correctly. Now this local govt says pay an extra $75 bucks?”.

      The article states: “the city limited its jurisdiction to the city itself, and to city taxpayers.” Then the city decided to expand its coverage to rural areas, for a fee of $75 a year. The people in the rural areas are not paying the city’s taxes, so why would they get coverage. This is not an EXTRA $75 bucks, it is just $75 for the coverage that the fire department offers.

      This is the optimum system, because as you state, “too many times does the local gov. not use taxpayer money correctly”. Well in this case, if the people in rural areas are not satisfied with it, then they don’t have to pay.

       
    • jbhansen
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:40pm

      SICBOY, I doubt you ‘usually’ agree with GB. It’s sad to see this kind of thing happen, but it teaches us a lesson about personal responsibility. We can’t just sit around and assume everyone else is going to pick up our slack. Furthermore, actions (or inactions, in this case) have consequences, and when the rules are clearly stated AHEAD of the game, you can’t ignore the rules and complain when you lose, even if it means you just lost your house.

      Report Post »  
    • Kpax
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:49pm

      This is a no brainer. He was offered the coverage and declined to take it. The fire department was there to protect the homeowners who did pay. I am getting sick of people who want something for nothing. Cranick needs to accept responsibility for his decisions.

      Report Post »  
    • Libertarian25
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 3:53pm

      @SICBOY

      This was outside the city limits, they mentioned that this was expanded coverage. If they’re living outside the limits, I would assume they’re not paying city taxes. If you watch the video on youtube, the home owner states that he did not pay his fee and he figured they’d just come out anyway and put the fire out. I’m not sure how much time there is to pay the fee, or if it’s just annual from date of pay, but even if the man had no money at the time I’m hard pressed to believe that the city officials would not work with him on this. Even the IRS will help you set up payment plans for back taxes. The firefighters did their job by keeping the fire from spreading to homes that had already paid their fees. Unfortunately, this particular home owner trusted that they would just be there to take care of him. In this day in age, we cannot afford to have attitudes like this. We need to be proactive and expect more of people if we’re ever going to make a change. This was an opt-in service, and he chose to not pay for it. It’s like roadside assistance with car insurance, if you don’t pay for it, their not coming to get your car just because your story brings a tear to their eye. We face a very real reality in which this situation might become the norm for a little while. More and more you will see cities with programs like this, because they will simply not be able to afford to keep going if they don’t. We have to expect people to be responsible now. No more excuses, it’s time!

      Report Post »  
    • SGTTAZ67
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 4:12pm

      There would be nothing to go after. Remeber the whole story and context. This home was outside the township. Up until a few years ago the firmen would not have responded at all. This is sort of like extending the warranty on your car. If you don‘t and it dies after the regular warranty runs out you’re out of luck.

      Report Post »  
    • KingsvsMen
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 4:18pm

      Imagine you lived in a desert in a community of 10 people. 5 of those people pool their money and purchase exactly enough gallons of water to put out a total of 5 homes. Now one of the homes begins to burn that did not pitch in to purchase water. If you use the supply to put out that fire you now have enough water to put out 4 homes. If 5 fires occur now one of those who paid must sacrifice his home even though he had the foresight to pay. This is the conscious decision you must face. Do you sacrifice those who pay for those who had the opportunity to pay but chose not to?

      The charitable thing to do is to somehow allow for other citizens to chip in and pay the fire bill for those who will not. Or for the firefighters to decide to work for free. But that is charity. To enforce that the firefighters must respond would mean removing the voluntary payment system this county has. Instead the county would have to enforce by law that everyone must pay a fire tax. Now when a person chooses not to pay their fire tax the county ends up taking their home from them for not paying.

      So which is it. Should a person lose their home to fire because they willingly choose not to pay their firefighter fee which they have the free choice to pay or not pay with the consequences thereof. Or should a person lose their home to men with guns for choosing not to pay their firefighter fee which they do not have the free choice to pay or not pay?

      Report Post »  
    • JJ Coolay
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 4:21pm

      I’m torn on this and though I voted “No” I am somewhat tending to agree with many of you. There is a level of personal responsibility here that WE ALL need to take in our owns lives. If the property is outside the jurisdiction of “City lines” and those people are not paying taxes, then if they don’t pay for the coverage how can they expect to be covered?
      At the same time, I have a hard time seeing a FD just let a house burn down.
      How about a fine for the guy? Or a bill? I mean, when someone calls an ambulance because they’re having a heart attack, are EMTs going to start looking up in a data base whether a rural home has paid their bill ahead of time before they run out and save the person??
      I know I’m switching sides of the argument mid post… my point is I see both sides.
      Personal responsibility? Absolutely.
      Rescue services rendered and costs dealt with AFTER the fact? Yes, to that too.

      Report Post » JJ Coolay  
    • Ellie
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 4:22pm

      Looks like the main problem in this instance is that a _county_ resident didn’t pay the $75 fee for service from a nearby _city_ fire department to a _city_ that this _county_ resident _does not_ live in and thus _does not_ pay taxes too in order to otherwise support the _city_ fire department.

      This is a simple question of jurisdiction. No one expects protections from a city or county that they don’t live in to help save their house – except here in socal where a wildfire draws support from firefighters nationwide to save local houses and we pay for that extra coverage via our county taxes.

      That being said there is no physical reason that the _city_ fire department could not have put out the fire and then billed the home owner for the full cost (not just the $75). They didn’t _because_ they are run by a city government.

      The leftist’s want to try and cast this as a view of “tea party” America because they are desperate and as usual attempt to hide the details so the story will create the view they believe that it should.

      Had this been a “tea party” (read: for profit) or independently contracted fire department then they would have been more then happy to respond, put out the fire, and charge the home owner full price.

      Report Post » Ellie  
    • ME
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 4:30pm

      If we where not already being raped in taxes I would agree in a la carte services. Does this man not pay property tax what is that for if not for services? We as Americans pay a ton in taxes and fees to the government I thought for basic things like fire protection, schools, not so some elected idiot (and all his friends and relatives he gets jobs) can get paid more then me, have better benefits and retirements. And besides that hospitals are private institutions not public I go to the emergency room without insurance and then pay for it. This is a bad argument of Apples and Oranges Glen is smart and will listen to his show latter but sounds like he is missing the ball on this one the blaze is for sure.

      ME  
    • Compete or Lose
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 4:38pm

      .
      .
      .
      .
      This is an example of the Nanny State–give the government all your money and they will solve all your problems…sounds good but doesnt work.

      These people had several choices
      (A) Buy Fire Insurance or not–I suspect if they had mortgage they bought the Fire insurance.
      (B) Pay the $75 membership fee or not–they didn’t pay and then regretted their decision.

      By letting the house burn, an awful lot of people decided to send in their $75 fee. These people wanted to get the benefits without paying their share of the cost–they rolled the dice and LOST.

      If there are no consequences, there are no rules.

      RGS

      Report Post »  
    • ANTIPATHIZER308WIN
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 4:39pm

      This has nothing to do with Tea Parties.

      One, Did they pay the $75? No.
      Two. If you die and don’t have insurance does your family have money to continue paying bills? No.
      Three. Do I feel for the family? Yes.
      Four: Who’s fault is it? The family who didn’t pay the $75.00. THEY LIVED OUTSIDE OF THE FIRE DISTRICT. THE FIRE COMPANY HAD NO LEGAL OR MORAL OBLIGATION TO RESPOND.

      I know this sounds callous but Fire Pumpers and Aerials cost 1/2 to 3/4 of a million dollars a piece. Dispatchers have to get paid. Firefighters have to get paid. Volunteer firefighters training has to be paid for. It isn‘t cheap and it isn’t free nor is any of the equipment that firefighters carry and have to maintain. If you don‘t pay for something you aren’t entitled to it. That City isn’t one bit liable for not responding. Sorry, they should have paid the lousy $75.00.

      The Christian community will more than likely step up to help the family out.

      Report Post »  
    • zenithel
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 4:41pm

      Always err on the side of good conscience and put out the fire. Have them sign an agreement on site to pay the $10,000 or whatever the “retail services” fee would be. Also have them sign a lien on the property in the event they default on payment. If they are renters, it is their responsibility to notify the landlord so the landlord can make the proper decisions.

      Life is not crunchy. It is always a little soggy. If you want crunchy, make them pay with their money or property if they choose to wait until the last minute to buy in.

      Report Post »  
    • caitlynsdad
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 4:57pm

      @Me
      You have it exactly right. I can see an argument for not giving him fire *insurance* (i.e., compensation for loss) if he had chosen not to have that kind of insurance. But when it comes to the home itself, we’re talking about broader moral issues of community safety and human life. The doctor in the emergency room doesn’t let the gunshot victim die if he has no insurance, he only requires that he pay the bill.

      Report Post » caitlynsdad  
    • BronxPatriot9
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 5:03pm

      …as retired FDNY Lieutenant it goes against my grain to see Firefighters standing around as a persons’ home goes up in flames…I can understand their rationale about not providing fire protection to the non-payers…

      …I think the Firefighters should have lived up to their sworn oath, which is to protect life and property….not sure how theTea Party factors into this story one way or the other…

      Report Post » BronxPatriot9  
    • tepartyblog.info
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 5:17pm

      I agree with the fire department but it is also a time for the community to do what they can to help these people out. I am not saying the people around them have to rebuild this families home but they should offer a helping hand. If we don’t help our neighbors get back on their feet we open them and ourselves to be victimized by communism. WE must not fail in our social obligations or we lose to communism.

      Report Post » whamhost.info WORKS FROM HOME  
    • arx
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 5:18pm

      Zenithel, how could the fire department “have them sign…”? I suppose fireman could carry pre-made forms for homeowners to put their scratch on (while they watch smoke roll out the windows) but in that situation, who has time to review what they are signing? It starts to border on silly really fast.

      Did the fire department have the right to refuse service? Absolutely. There are consequences for our decisions and this homeowner paid for a bad one. Should the fire department have put the fire out? I’m honestly torn on this. It seems to be lacking in charity and decency to refuse. But on the other side and as the story said, if they had put the fire out, you would have seen a flood of “non renewals” the following year. Add to that…if they didn’t respond to the next non-subscriber, watch the lawsuits fly….”you helped him but not me!”

      I think a solution to this would be allowing non-subscribers the option to pre-sign an agreement that stipulated they would be responsible for the full amount of the fire department services in the event of a fire, up to a reasonable (10G?) ceiling, with their homes listed as collateral. At least this way people who can’t afford the $75 would at least be able to save their homes, and you wouldn’t have a bunch of firemen standing around watching a house burn down.

      Tough luck to anyone who refused to pay the $75 AND refused to sign the waiver….

      Report Post » arx  
    • beekeeper
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 5:29pm

      The county his home was in didn’t offer fire protection, but since he lived close enough to a community that did offer fire protection FOR A FEE to neighbors, the homeowner could have paid $75 and had fire protection.

      The homeowner paid ZERO TAXES towards ANY FIRE PROTECTION, the folks that live in South Fulton paid for their fire protection with their taxes.

      This situation has existed for about 20 years, this was in the news back in July, 2008 when the same thing happened then (homeowner without any fire protection failed to buy protection from neighboring town, and when his house caught fire and burned down, he didn‘t get any protection because he didn’t pay for any).

      The County wants to take over all fire departments in the county to provide protection for all, but the locals aren’t that interested it seems.

      Some reports say the homeowner “forgot” to pay for coverage this year – well the town mails a reminder, then if you don’t sign up they call you before they “close the books” on your protection. This homeowner had to ignore the letter AND the phone call reminding him to sign up for coverage.

      This is a very sad case of a homeowner dropping the ball and not taking out coverage for his house.

      I wonder if paying the fee was a condition on his homeowners policy? If so, his $75 mistake may cost him everything – he may have no coverage at all for his loss.

      Think of the money this fellow saved by having his grandson burn trash behind the house instead of paying for it to be hauled away.

      This is a failure of personal responsibility on the part of the homeowner.

      Can he buy auto insurance to cover a car wreck after it happens?

      Why should he be able to (effectively) buy fire insurance as his house is literally on fire?

      The fire department in question is not a volunteer fire department, it is paid for by the tax payers of the neighboring town – they don’t owe their neighbor that “forgot” (despite repeated requests) to pay for coverage anything.

      Did this responsible home owner pay for coverage last year? The year before?

      Report Post » beekeeper  
    • cubanbob
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 5:30pm

      so riddle me this batman, oh nevermind….this is a horrible story. i was gonna try to be funny but this man lost his home. that sucks bad, the fire department should have helped. dont we send fire fighters, doctors and other first responders when there is a tragedy in other cities, states and other countries?

      he could have been fined an extra fee and they could’ve saved his home.

      there is no excuse for not helping ones neighbor, right GB?

      Report Post » cubanbob  
    • SATX 19
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 5:40pm

      @ SICBOY at 3:16pm
      Did you read the whole article? The town FD responded, outside their city limits into the unincorporated area of the COUNTY. The county does not provide FD services. The town went above and beyond what it had to do when it offered, FOR A MERE $75/YEAR, for those living outside their city to be covered for FD services!! You don’t pay, you don’t have the service. Unfortunately, Cranick took the chance to not pay for the coverage, and he got burned (pun intended).
      It is like gambling on not having auto/health insurance. You don’t pay for it, DON’T EXPECT THE REST OF US TO COVER YOU.
      If he has homeowner‘s insurance I hope he’s covered for this. I bet you dollars to donuts, the town FD will host a BBQ dinner fundraiser for Crackin.

      Report Post » SATX 19  
    • inblack
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 6:14pm

      I would ask different questions:

      1) Did the firemen have a right to let the house burn?
      2) Did the firemen have a right to refuse the offer of payment?
      3) If there had been a child in the house did the firemen have a right to refuse?

      1) Yes, no free person should be forced to provide their money or service.
      2) Yes, all contracts should be freely entered into or declined by choice.
      3) Yes, as sad and as sick as this may make you feel, people should have free will and that means they must choose whether to offer their help or not.

      That said, each fireman needs to make their own decision (free will) and suffer the consequences. Should they risk their soul, their life and/or their job to help someone or not?

      For people who say the community must help him rebuild, I’d say no. YOU must help him rebuild if you feel morally obligated, otherwise shut-up.

      Stop telling other people what they MUST do.
      If you care — you do it. It’s called freedom and free will.

      Report Post »  
    • anOpinion
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 6:25pm

      Why is this so difficult?

      Either pay the $75 in what is essentially fire insurance, or have the homeowner foot the entire bill for putting out the fire. If the homeowner truly does not want this service then he can turn them away from saving the house (and thus avoid the expense of putting the fire out).

      Report Post » anOpinion  
    • galiper
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 6:26pm

      @ Robertcaq – you would have to ask Keith Olberman that questions, since he’s the one that blamed the Tea Party.

      Report Post »  
    • mizflame98
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 6:32pm

      @Sicboy:
      You’re wrong. These people live in the county and are not paying property taxes. That is why they decided on the $75 a year service fee, to cover fire protection they weren’t getting since there is no county fire department.

      Report Post » mizflame98  
    • Masamune
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 6:42pm

      I have to agree with Glenn on this one. If the fire department had done this one exception it would have led to another and another and another …… Yes, I feel sorry for what happened to the owners, but that is what you get when you don’t pay coverage. The Tea Party being responsible for this is just more liberal hate crap being spewed by Olbermann and Schultz.

      Report Post »  
    • Major Infidel
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 6:43pm

      I like crunchiness.

      As long as a life wasn’t in danger, I agree with the actions not taken. Hope the guy didn’t “opt-out” of insurance too!?

      No pity for gamblers, only best wishes.

      Report Post » Major Infidel  
    • TheElPistolero
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 6:44pm

      I know the family had not paid their fee but the Fire Department has a duty to help those who need it. I think criminal charges should be brought against all involved in refusing help. Would we all be defending a hospital who wheeled a dying patient out on the side walk because they hadn’t paid their “yearly fee”?

      Report Post » TheElPistolero  
    • RONALDREAGAN1980
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 6:47pm

      Fire departments are just one more example of socialism gone awry. All fire departments should be privatized. If someone can’t make a profit on something, it probably shouldn’t be done in the first place.

      Report Post » RONALDREAGAN1980  
    • johnbostick
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 7:17pm

      If you wake up in the morning and decide to wear a smile all day then your house burns down the only reason to keep smiling would be you have good insurance.

      Report Post »  
    • Blue_Persuasion
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 8:11pm

      ME, billing this schlub after the fact is all well and good, but if he didn’t (or couldn’t) pay the $75, what’s to say he would (or could) pay the thousands of dollars it likely costs to put out such a fire??

      It’s time some of you people learn something: NOBODY OWES YOU A DAMN THING. People have choices. People MAKE choices. Sometimes they make the wrong choices. I‘m gettin sick to effin’ death of making the RIGHT choices (even if it means I deny myself something I want) and living within my means only to be told that I must now chip in to pay for losers who made bad and, in some cases, SELFISH choices that went wrong.

      He had the choice to opt in. He made the choice NOT to. NOW he’s crying foul because HIS CHOICE bit him in the butt. Cry me a river.

      It’s sad that he lost his house, but it’s only sad because HE was the direct cause of that.

      Report Post »  
    • BeHeardAmerica
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 8:14pm

      I understand GB’s hard-line stance, he’s trying to teach the lesson but this was wrong. The neighborly thing would of been to help these people. Wrong time to be teaching a lesson this required people with honor who would stand and do the right thing. period.

      Report Post » BeHeardAmerica  
    • Blue_Persuasion
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 8:26pm

      BeHeard, they DID do the right thing. They honored the contract they had with the people who PAID. So long as we as a people keep rewarding stupidity and people who CHOOSE to do the wrong thing, what will anybody learn, ever??

      Report Post »  
    • jamn2dblues
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:01pm

      Exactly!

      Report Post » jamn2dblues  
    • Nostraquedeo
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:13pm

      I love the old western movies where a fire breaks out and all the towns people grab the pump wagon and start a bucket brigade. Why did the firefighters even show up? Were they protecting the forest or the house next door that did pay? They should just charge the cost of the service maybe $10K to insurance, but to stand by and watch this maybe they forgot the hot dogs. Everyone agrees the Fed provides defense & roads but local governments provide cops, ambulances & fire fighters. I wonder if that family will be allowed to read books in the city library or if they will be shooed away from the park water fountain. If you LET someone loose everything in their life, you create a person that has no reasons left to respect your rules. You create a rebel with a cause. There is a place for human compassion.

      Report Post »  
    • belleharbor
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:16pm

      Listen if this was a minority home witch it cant be because there is no mta cards and free stuff like rent ,food ,cell phones,health care yea dont show up at that hospital w/o payment u will die anyways lost my way.OK THATS CRAZY TO LET IT BURN DOWN god the freeloaders get so much for nothing and we cant like common sense omg…!1!! whats next we cannot have police and fire independant like that it not wright,

      Report Post » belleharbor  
    • Chicago Ray
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:45pm

      Ya know I’m still trying to figure that out myself?

      They must mean with Tea party people in power, Americans’ will be accountable and pay fees for public services which most people have no problem with, but in a Liberal lallygaggin society everything‘s ’free‘ so the FD would have come as they Used to’

      when in fact it‘s the liberal lallygaggin theft and waste that’s put us in this position where things that ‘were’ free and also were volunteer for ages and ages aren’t, mostly because things that weren‘t and shouldn’t be (like health care Obamcare hint hint… since there‘s nothing in the bible or constitution saying government should pay millions of dollars to keep people alive who don’t wanna work and pay for health insurance except disabled and elderly which is only a ‘right’ in lallygaggin liberal loon land.

      It‘s called ’pretzel logic’ as these liberals twist and turn and do mental and verbal gymnastics left and left to bend reality and truth to fit their purple microdot induced thinking.

      Report Post » One Man Progressive Wrecking Crew  
    • watchmany2k
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 9:55pm

      Glenn (1st time I disagree) & others are wrong on this.
      At first glance it appears to be a yes or no answer based on principle.

      It is a sin of omission.

      1) The Fire dept, had the means and men to fight the fire, the $ was spent anyway in getting there.
      2) The county is culpable, as they accept the taxes but do not provide a basic service. They are the primary defendant I would say in this case.
      3) This affects more than the homeowner who did not pay the $, it affects family, neighbors and the surrounding community, all to make a point on a $75 fee that in 99% of the US is part of property taxes.

      This issue is neither a principle nor a reasonable prospect of small government.

      MY point IS: it’s FIRE! Fire consumes all, grows to uncontrolable extent, and does great damage.
      The politicians who set “the rules” up, drawing a line between city and county, could soon find the city surrounded by wildfire -making the $75 fee a stupid point of contention.

      The same could be said for healthcare, catch the deadly ebola in a free clinic, or emergency room, or end up with an epidemic. I am TOTALLY against Obamacare, it really has nothing to DO with healthcare, it has to do with forced collectivism and non-choices -nudge…
      This is America, Surely we can provide life saving measures, some sort of triage…

      The $75 argument would be insane in wildfire prone areas (and if you really think about it, that IS everywhere- WHOLE cities can and HAVE burnt to the ground)

      No, this is about improper Govt. priorities.

      It is high time America has multiple discussions about who we are and what our government spends our taxes on. I guarantee not one county or city commissioner’s salary is reduced and probably is more than ALL of the $75 fees the county would collect.

      Instead WE are put upon to argue in a circle, not to notice the crooks who set the circumstance up. $75 can mean keeping food on a table, the lights on, or gas for one more month of underemployment.
      Sure in hindsight it is a non option, but at budget time, LOTS of Americans make hard choices.
      Seriously, WHO is fooling WHO ?!

      You watch, the pols have some wonderful “solution” that this bonfire underscores, I BET it involves EVERYBODY’S WALLET. Where before this event they could not, would not broach their “idea”.
      -Nudge…

      This is the SAME argument the pols use when taxpayers defeat some gawd-awful bond, they first go to the jugular items to cut, education, police and fire, and NOT non-essential govt jobs.

      Wake UP sleepy heads, time to RISE and SHINE

      MY Solution ?
      Make EVERY Govt office/Job a 1 year term,
      We already KNOW how much damage can be done in two….

      oh, and you brilliants with thousands of rounds in your basement bunker, take a good look
      THINK about what fire and a basment full of bullets looks like.
      They won’t be fighting your home fire either…
      I have a few guns here, I’d be stopping them at the driveway, listening for the last round to go off.
      I’d be devastated if a fireman died from an exploding bullet, helping me.
      I wonder, do they make a safe for that ?
      It’s a common issue here in Maine.

      Report Post » watchmany2k  
    • Nostraquedeo
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 10:01pm

      If you go hiking in the mountains and fall off a cliff and are discovered and helicopter evacuated from the woods 2 possible things happen. Either you filed your route with the forest service and are charged nothing or you get a bill for $20K. So the next time you forget to file your route with the proper people should we just stand over your broken legs and make sure no one that did file the papers falls. Where is the sense of community. Soon only people with enough money will have a responsive government. No you have another welfare family to complain about. Good job.

      Report Post »  
    • klstj
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 10:20pm

      It had zero to do with the tea party. Anything and everything will be attempted to be linked to the tea party in order to diminish and demoralize anything or one who is being successful against their ridiculous agenda.

      On a separate note had had no fire assistance at all and continued to live there, fully understanding that.

      They were given a new lease on fire relief by being offered a service at a low cost and denied it.

      The options were there and they refused the service, just as they lived with the possibility before..they chose..CHOSE, to continue living there without fire assistance.

      Decisions have consequences, own up to them and move on.

      Report Post »  
    • NoSerfing
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 10:38pm

      The moral of the story is if you do not pay your “insurance” in this case pay into the budget of the fire department, you do not get the services. The guy want to pay after he needed it. Kind of like wanting to buy a lottery ticket after you know what the winning numbers are.

      It is his Right to choose not to use the services, but then he has a responsibility to provide for his own protection and to protect his neighbors house. His neighbor could come after him for damages too.

      It is called self-responsibility. If we in the Tea Party are going to preach it we must live by it. It doesn‘t mean we won’t donate to his losses, but this is why we have so many people wanting handouts. He gambled and lost. He is a lesson to himself and to many others. Of course the bleeding hearts won’t be able to understand it.

      Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on October 5, 2010 at 11:36pm

      It is the mantra from the left … all that is bad is the TEA parties “fault”. Sounds like someone didn’t pay for a service he CHOSE he did not want. If his house not burning down was important to him then I think he would have paid the fee … my goodness they charge for everything now ..LOOK AT the Airlines! You don‘t pay you don’t get the service ….simple .. if he didn’t like it he should have formed a volunteer local fire dept.

      Report Post »  
    • Blue_Persuasion
      Posted on October 6, 2010 at 12:52am

      Glenn’s not the one teaching any lesson here. The lesson was taught when this guy’s house burned to the ground. The lesson is, if you don’t want your house to burn down in this county, it might behoove you to fork over $75. If not, quitcherbitchin.

      Report Post »  
    • addie
      Posted on October 6, 2010 at 1:03am

      icboy – YOU need to open your eyes! You are sooo wrong! I guess you either can‘t read or didn’t undertand the story. Here’s the facts. They live OUTSIDE city limits and don’t have a fire department. Chances are they pay a lot less taxes. I’ve lived outside city limits in rural areas before and had much lower taxes ALTHOUGH, I didn’t have a police department (only county) didn‘t have trash pickup and fire was volunteer but I didn’t pay much property tax. Now, here is what YOU fail to see. The town is offering fire protection to the people OUTSIDE thier juridiction for ONLY $75 a year (which personally, I think is VERY fair. I used to donate $300 a year to my volunteer FD. )

      What is not fair is, the TAXPAYERS in the city SHOULDN’T have to pay for firemen to go OUTSIDE their city to put out fires! If they chose to live outside the fire department‘s jurisdiction and they can’t be bothered to pay $75 (when they ALREADY have a break on taxes) for fire proetection then screw’m, why should taxpayers in a different town have to pay for it?

      Report Post »  
    • ozz
      Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:24am

      Do you people not own homes? This is a great idea. You can opt out of a section of your property tax.
      Normally they would simply slap on a $75.00 fire bond and you would be FORCED to pay, like they do in my county. Instead these people have the FREEDOM to chose. I wish I had that choice in my county. My house is made of concrete and steel. It can‘t burn yet I’m forced to pay.

      Report Post » ozz  
    • AmericanPatriot01
      Posted on October 6, 2010 at 5:09am

      FIrst off we are not talking about insurance, it is a service plan.

      So many people are asking why is this related to the TEA party, the answer is simple. The TEA party is a moral code of ethics set forth from the ideas in the constitution and the supporting documents our fore fathers left to us as a guide. An ultimate truth that should be written in STONE. From those Ideas we derive 9/12 principals. Our code of ethics. Liberals don’t get it, and don’t care because it goes against everything they have been taught in a socialst currupt educational system.

      Self reliance, responsibility and the reliance on devine providence are the powers we Americans wield like a sword and shield. Without them we are socialists because all we are left with are basic human instinct.

      This guy has a sad story. He rolled his dice and lost. It was his responsibility and he failed and now he pays the price. Live and learn. If he is a good person the community will help him rebuild from his mistake, but, it was not the firefighters fault, nor their obligation. In my neck of the woods they will come out and put out your fire and send you a bill for thousands of dollars on top of the property taxes I pay to the county i live in. 75 bucks is a deal if they don’t send you a bill on top of it.

      Point is, I bet he will pay the $75 when he rebuild his home with the insurance money, if he paid for it.

      Report Post » AmericanPatriot01  
    • 5
      Posted on October 6, 2010 at 9:34am

      The Tea party? They Guy should pay His bill. He had the money to tell them He would pay what ever they wanted after the fire started.

      YOU HAVE TO PAY BEFORE YOU HAVE THE FIRE!

      Report Post »  
    • 1arcocat
      Posted on October 6, 2010 at 10:58am

      Shut up stu !!!!

      Report Post »  
    • 1arcocat
      Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:07am

      Missing the point Glenn… The mayor or governor needs to ensure a portion of the property taxes for everyone in the state gos to emergency protection. Just as our school system gets its share so should the emergency services so this never happens to anyone. So if this guy murders his wife is he in the clear because he never paid for emegency pretection. My point is fire protection should be as basic as police protection.

      Report Post »  
    • FIRED UP FREE MAN !
      Posted on October 6, 2010 at 11:07am

      I thought that is what we pay taxes for!?

      Report Post » FIRED UP FREE MAN !  
    • itasca
      Posted on October 6, 2010 at 12:19pm

      They are citing this incident as an example of limited government.

      Report Post »  
    • Canyonman5555
      Posted on October 6, 2010 at 1:37pm

      This has nothing to do with the tea party or limited government. Since I am not an elitist and do not have the intellectual power of these elitist savants, it would appear the common sense thing to have done is to put out the fire and bill the guy for services rendered. I thing I would have told the guy, we can out the fire but it is going to cost you, but then again the cynical part of me would think some lawyer would argue the client agreed under duress and should not be responsible for the agreement. So this is where our Country has arrived ?

      Report Post »  
    • TxGold
      Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:48pm

      I was wondering about that myself, Robert.

      Report Post » TxGold  
    • Patricia1952
      Posted on October 6, 2010 at 2:52pm

      Whew. This is a tough one

      First let me back away and toss an acronym that has lived with me since I was young: TANSTAAFL. Robert Heinlein readers will recognize it a “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”. The use was pushed home when an immigrant to the moon complained about being charged for air to breath. He argued that everyone needed air, that it was vital to life and should be “free”. It was explained to him carefully the cost of producing the air he breathed, and that without someone to pay that cost, he would not be provided any, and if memory serves me right, he would be shown the airlock.

      Everything costs something. Sometimes the costs are hidden, like the ads for “free drink with purchase of hamburger and fries”. Somewhere, that drink is paid for.

      Return to the fee for fire coverage and apply it the above. The man took a calculated risk. He believed that he had the right to free fire coverage, and that if there were a fire, they would still come and put it out, and like most of us, he believed he would never be challenged in that belief. Unfortunately, random chance took a bad turn and he lost his silent bet.

      Emotionally, I would have been out there with the hoses trying to put his fire out. We have that urge of compassion in us to do that, to take care of others in desperate situations, and avert suffering. But, sometimes, we have to be awoken to reality, that TANSTAFAAFL. That someone has to pay for it, and that we each have a responsibility to be just that: RESPONSIBLE.

      I once had an argument with my younger brother about the cost of health insurance. He argued that his friends, many of whom were frequently unemployed or were in low paying jobs, couldn’t afford jobs. I asked him if they had more than one car and most did. Did they have flat screen tv’s, cable TV, home computers with internet? Most did. Then, I argued, they could afford health insurance. But they chose to spend the money elsewhere and in other ways. They chose not to be responsible for their health care but to make others responsible.

      This gentleman chose to not opt into fire coverage. When the fire happened, they responded appropriately. He chose not to have any house fire put out. They obliged him. And in the end, they were right. TANSTAAFL. We all have to be responsible for our decision, and the consequences of those decisions made.

      Report Post »  
    • Change_Congress
      Posted on October 6, 2010 at 3:20pm

      None! Bad extrapolation of adherance to Constitution which is not applicable in this case. It is a poorly written local law.

      Report Post » Change_Congress  
    • SusansSS
      Posted on October 6, 2010 at 6:19pm

      Sickboy- Thing is, its not this mans government. He does not pay city taxes, he pays county taxes. The county has no fire department.

      The people inside the city limits pay BOTH city and county taxes. I do not know, but I can assue you their city taxes are much more than the $75 a year this “county” man was asked to pay. The people inside lose their home if they don’t pay their taxes, for this man is was optional, and he chose the wrong option!

      Ask yourself what homeowners insurance would cost you if you didn’t have a fire department. The man without doubt isn’t the brightest light on the Christmas tree! I can promise you its MUCH higher! Had he paid the $75 one would think his insurance would have been half as much.

      The other option, raise county taxes and get their own fire department. Then if this man doesn’t pay, he won’t own a house to burn. It will be sold on the courthouse steps to the highest bidder. Simple as that. No, tell me how Glenn is wrong?

      Report Post »  
    • barbaraw62
      Posted on October 6, 2010 at 7:17pm

      SICBOY……. It is quite obvious that you did not read the whole story nor what this was all about… The city of Fulton offered to help those in the county…. It costs money…… sheesh … why not give it all away for free…. FREE, FREE, FREE….. everyone wants it for free…. The county should provide Fire service to those in the rural areas.. and those in the rural areas should help each other do that, but no one can afford to keep giving things away for free…..Let’s find a solution to the problem and stop condemning these firefighters.. Maybe Fulton City should just plain stop offering to send firefighters to rural fighters and be done with it!

      Report Post » barbaraw62  
    • JayTee82
      Posted on October 7, 2010 at 1:51am

      All these hospital/doctor analogies don’t fit in this situation. If lives were in danger they would have done the right thing and saved them. But by not paying the fee the FD has no obligation to save the property. Last line of the article. “Edmison reiterated that if someone’s life is at risk, the firefighters will intervene. However, that was not an issue in Cranick’s fire”

      Report Post »  
    • Dovote
      Posted on October 7, 2010 at 7:24am

      Another example of closing the barn door after the cows get out. In our County in Florida, they charge everyone for fire protection. You cannot opt out. The cities in these counties charge their own fees.

      Report Post »  
    • iamrenard
      Posted on October 7, 2010 at 9:08am

      what the Tea Party has to do with this is: The Tea Party is all about proper government spending, constitutionally what we should expect our government to be spending our tax dollars on is ensuring our rights under the Constitution and by extension the Declaration of Independence. It is the governments job to protect our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In performing that function govenrment must establish the means to protect us from all enemies foreign and domestic, (to include logically securing the whole border). That means there must be a standing military, a police force, a fire department, and emergency medical response. It is also the governments job to represent the American people to other countries around the world in peace time, so that requires a State Department to establish Ambassadors and envoys.
      It is not the governments job to educate or employ or feed us. One of the draw backs of liberty is it leaves the responsibility to individuals to either succeed or fail on their own. Government has stepped in to handle this for us inappropriately. Within my lifetime the government has take the role of charitable organization to care for the needy away from private organizations like Red Cross et al and the churches where it rightly still belongs.
      So in my view the firedepartment using tax dollars rightly spent should have responded and put out the fire, instead they spend nearly $10,000.00 dollars per student trying to educate through the Department of Education, which also did not exist previously in my lifetime. I am only 55

      Report Post » iamrenard  
1 2 3 ... 22

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love