If you don't find an answer to your question here, please email us at info@cuttingbackcityhall.org.
We will reply to you, and then we will add your question and our answer to this page.
The questions are not in any particular order.
Since Bob Courtney took office in November 2019, the budget increases every year, the taxes increase every year, the city's debt increases every year, and the city's reserve fund decreases every year.
The 2023 budget was $12.7 million, excluding utilities. The total including utilities was not found.
The 2024 budget was $14.2 million, excluding utilities. The total including utilities was not found.
The 2025 budget was $15.1 million, excluding utilities. The total including utilities was $23 million.
The 2026 budget is $15.9 million, excluding utilities. The total including utilities is $25.7 million.
In addition, the 2026 budget contains two new taxes – a Wheel Tax and a Food and Beverage Tax.
In the September 4, 2025 edition of the Madison Courier,
Bob Courtney said, “Your taxes are going up. Your taxes are going up.”
The increase from 2023 to 2026 was $3.2 million, excluding utilities.
That is a 25% increase ($3.2 million / $12.7 million) in 3 years.
That's higher than inflation.
That's higher than the raises most workers received, thus reducing workers' standard of living.
This is not sustainable.
The Mayor and the City Council control the budget.
The current Mayor and the current City Council appear to be unwilling and unable to cut back their spending.
We have sent them numerous suggestions, but they have ignored every one.
They don't reply to our emails.
They don't listen.
We need a new Mayor and a new City Council.
If we can cut back City Hall's spending, then we can cut your taxes.
When two individuals interact, there are two kinds of transaction:
[1] voluntary
[2]involuntary
In a voluntary transaction, both individuals choose to participate.
Each individual chooses to participate because he expects to be better off after the transaction than before.
Every voluntary transaction is "win-win".
In an involuntary transaction, one individual chooses to not participate, but is forced or coerced by the other to participate.
Every involuntary transaction is "win-lose".
Please see the FAQ "What are the two kinds of transaction?".
Morally and ethically, the primary "wrong" that one individual can do to another is to force or coerce them.
Force and coercion deprive an individual of the right to use their own mind to make decisions about their life.
Choice is better than coercion.
In a free society, all transactions are voluntary.
The more involuntary transactions, the less free is the society.
Please see the FAQ “What are the two kinds of transactions?”.
Please see the FAQ “Why is choice better than coercion?”.
It's tempting to say, “I want someone else to produce (fill in the blank), and I want to receive it, but I don't want to pay for it.”
The trouble is, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
If a producer produces (fill in the blank), there are only three ways for you to receive it:
1. a voluntary transaction, in which you pay the producer for it.
2. an involuntary transaction, in which you force or coerce the producer to give it to you;
3. you vote for politicians and legislators who pass laws and budgets and taxes which take the (fill in the blank) from the producer (i.e. force or coerce the producer, so this is an involuntary transaction) and give it to you.
If you agree that choice is better than coercion, then your only alternative is #1 above.
There are 3 choices about (fill in the blank):
[1] you use (i.e. consume) it or you don't use it
[2] you pay for it or you don't pay for it
[3] it is voluntary or involuntary
which lead to 8 possibilities:
[1] you use (fill in the blank) and you pay for it voluntarily.
An example of this is any free market transaction that you participate in.
[2] you use (fill in the blank) and you pay for it involuntarily.
An example of this is any government service that you use (e.g. police, fire, etc) and pay for via taxes.
[3] you use (fill in the blank), you don't pay for it, voluntarily.
An example of this is anything you steal.
[4] you use (fill in the blank), you don't pay for it, involuntarily.
We can't identify an example where you involuntary don't pay for something.
[5] you don't use (fill in the blank) and you pay for it voluntarily.
An example of this is a gift or donation.
[6] you don't use (fill in the blank) and you pay for it involuntarily.
An example of this is any government service that you don't use (i.e. a golf course that you never use, a swimming pool that you never use, etc) and pay for via taxes.
[7] you don't use (fill in the blank), you don't pay for it, voluntarily.
An example of this is any free market transaction that you don't participate in.
[8] you don't use (fill in the blank), you don't pay for it, involuntarily.
We can't identify an example where you involuntary don't pay for something.
To summarize:
[1] is choice.
[2] is coercion.
[3] is coercion.
[4] never happens.
[5] is choice.
[6] is coercion.
[7] is choice.
[8] never happens.
If you agree that choice is better than coercion, then your only possibilities are [1], [5], and [7].
We can rephrase [1] as “pay for what you use”.
We can rephrase [7] as “don't pay for what you don't use”.
We can rephrase [5] as “you are always free to choose to give anything you own to anyone you want”.
The philosophy of “pay for what you use, don't pay for what you don't use” is choice, and is the basis of a free society comprised of voluntary transactions.
The opposite philosophy of “pay for what you don't use, don't pay for what you use” is coercion.
Please see the FAQ "What are the two kinds of transaction?".
Please see the FAQ "Why is choice better than coercion?".
Please see the FAQ "Who pays for what?".
Let's compare the public sector entity (government) with a private sector entity (individual or business).
The government generates income via involuntary transactions (e.g. taxes), which is coercion.
A private sector entity generates income via voluntary transactions, which is choice.
The government is a monopoly, you are forced to interact with it, which is coercion.
There are many private sector entities that you can choose to interact with, which is choice.
If the government wants more income, it raises your taxes, which is coercion.
If a private sector entity wants more income, it must offer more or better goods and services, which is choice.
If you disapprove of how the government spends its money, there's nothing you can do, which is coercion.
If you disapprove of how a private sector entity spends its money, you can choose to not transact with it again, which is choice.
The government treats you as a pocket to be picked, which is coercion.
A private sector entity treats you as a "customer", who can choose to spend your money elsewhere, so they must "earn" your money by giving you value in exchange, which is choice.
In short, everything about the government is about coercion,
and everything about the private sector is about choice.
Please see the FAQ "Why is the private sector better than the public sector?".
Suppose you want to increase the number of opportunities to listen to free music performances.
Alternative # 1 is to create a Music Board as a new branch within City Hall.
City Hall appoints members of the Music Board.
You have no input into that.
The Music Board chooses which kinds of music will be performed.
You have no input into that.
The Music Board chooses which musicians will be engaged.
You have no input into that.
You can try to make suggestions to the Music Board, but the Music Board has no incentive to listen to your input.
The Music Board has no incentive to spend its money wisely, because it is spending Other Peoples' Money (OPM) (i.e. the taxpayers's money).
The Music Board has to compete with all other branches of City Hall to get its funding. It will likely get less than it asks for, and the budgeting process is highly politicized.
The budget has increased, so City Hall has to increase your taxes, in order to pay for the Music Board.
How does this affect you?
You might not like City Hall's choices of members of the Music Board.
You might not like the Music Board's choices of kinds of music.
You might not like the Music Board's choices of musicians.
You definitely don't like that your taxes increase.
The net result is that you're being coerced to pay (taxes are coercive), you're being coerced to pay more than you want to pay, you're being coerced to pay for things that you haven't chosen, you're being coerced to pay for things that you don't want, and you're being coerced to pay for things that you don't use.
That's a lot of coercion.
You don't like being coerced.
Alternative # 2 is to create a private sector non-profit (i.e. a 501(c)(3)) organization.
Let's call it the Madison Music Foundation (MMF).
The MMF is funded by donations from the private sector (i.e. individuals and businesses, not by City Hall).
All donations are voluntary.
All donations are tax-deductible.
You can choose whether or not to donate to the MMF.
You can choose how much to donate to the MMF.
All non-profits have a Board of Directors.
You can choose to join the Board of Directors.
The MMF chooses which kinds of music will be performed.
The MMF chooses which musicians will be engaged.
You can choose to make suggestions to the MMF.
The MMF has a strong incentive to spend its money wisely, because if it doesn't, then donations will decrease.
The MMF has a strong incentive to listen to your input, because if it doesn't listen to its donors, then donations will decrease.
The MMF does not have to compete with anyone or anything else to get its funding. It will get exactly as much as its donors choose to give it. The funding process is not politicized.
How does this affect you?
You like that your taxes did not increase.
The net result is that you can choose whether or not to donate, you can choose how much to donate, you can choose to pay for things that you want and for things that you use (i.e. only the performances that you choose to attend), and your donations are tax-deductible.
That's a lot of choices.
You like having lots of choices.
Choice is better than coercion, so a private sector non-profit organization is better than City Hall.
By the way, there is already a private sector non-profit organization that provides many opportunities to listen to free music performances – it is called the Madison Performing Arts Foundation.
You can choose to donate to it here.
How much is "enough"?
"Enough" for what?
"Enough" for whom?
Who decides how much is "enough"?
Please see the page Parks and Recreations.
Let's talk about Parks and Recreation (P&R).
Here's the current situation:
City Hall decides how much is "enough" to spend on P&R.
There's no real limit on how much City Hall can decide to spend.
There's no "right number" or "magic number".
Politicians have a vested interest in spending more.
City Hall raises its budget to include that amount.
City Hall raises your taxes to include that amount.
You have no say in any of this.
Here's what we propose:
You decide how much is "enough" for you to spend on Madison Parks and Recreations Inc (MPRI).
City Hall has no say in any of this.
MPRI then decides how to spend the money you donate.
MPRI cannot spend more than you donate to it.
If this means that there are fewer or smaller parks and recreation in the future than there are now,
then it means that the donors choose to have fewer or smaller parks and recreation,
and City Hall should respect the voluntary choices of the individuals, voters, and taxpayers.
The question of "enough" is the wrong question.
The right question is, "Who decides how much you pay for (fill in the blank) - City Hall or you?".
Please see the FAQ "Why is the private sector better than the public sector?".
Suppose you want to have curbside pickup of your trash, recycling, compost, limbs and branches, and furniture.
Alternative # 1 is to create a Street Department as a new branch within City Hall.
The Street Department chooses which stuff they will pick up.
You have no input into that.
The Street Department chooses which days they will pick up.
You have no input into that.
The Street Department chooses which times they will pick up.
You have no input into that.
The Street Department chooses which containers they will pick up.
You have no input into that.
You can try to make suggestions to the Street Department, but the Street Department has no incentive to listen to your input.
The Street Department has no incentive to spend its money wisely, because it is spending Other Peoples' Money (OPM) (i.e. the taxpayers's money).
The Street Department has to compete with all other branches of City Hall to get its funding. It will likely get less than it asks for, and the budgeting process is highly politicized.
The budget has increased, so City Hall has to increase your taxes, in order to pay for the Street Department.
How does this affect you?
You might not like the Street Department's choices of which stuff they will pick up.
You might not like the Street Department's choices of which days they will pick up.
You might not like the Street Department's choices of which times they will pick up.
You might not like the Street Department's choices of which containers they will pick up.
You might not like that you don't know what it costs, because it is virtually impossible to dig that amount out of the city's budget.
You definitely don't like that your taxes increase.
The net result is that you're being coerced to pay (taxes are coercive), you're being coerced to pay more than you want to pay, and you're being coerced to put up with the curbside pickup that City Hall offers you.
That's a lot of coercion.
You don't like being coerced.
Alternative # 2 is to create a private sector for-profit business.
Let's call it the Madison Street Company (MSC).
There are several similar companies in this area.
All of them must compete for your business.
They compete by offering you better service, lower price, or both.
Better service might include:
your choice of which stuff they will pick up;
your choice of which days they will pick up;
your choice of which times they will pick up;
your choice of which containers they will pick up.
All of them have a strong incentive to spend their money wisely, because they are in business to make a profit for their shareholders, and if they don't make a profit, their shareholders will sell their shares, which will lower the share price.
How does this affect you?
You like that your taxes did not increase.
The net result is that you can choose which company, and you can choose the service and the price.
That's a lot of choices.
You like having lots of choices.
Choice is better than coercion, so a private sector for-profit business is better than City Hall.
By the way, there are already private sector for-profit businesses that would be happy to compete to offer you curbside pickup, but you'd have to pay them, and most people don't want to pay both [1] property taxes to City Hall for curbside pickup and [2] a private sector for-profit business.
Suppose there is one individual who owns a piece of private property.
Let's call him Alpha.
Alpha has the right to decide whatever he wants about the property.
Suppose there are two individuals who jointly own a piece of private property.
Let's call them Alpha and Beta.
Alpha no longer has the right to decide whatever he wants about the property, because Beta also has that right.
If Alpha and Beta want to make compatible decisions, then there is no problem.
What if Alpha and Beta want to make incompatible decisions?
Either Alpha coerces Beta (Alpha wins, Beta loses), or Beta coerces Alpha (Beta wins, Alpha loses), or they negotiate and arrive at a compromise (Alpha will win some and lose some, Beta will win some and lose some).
In the absence of coercion, on average Alpha will win 1/2 of the time and lose 1/2 of the time, and Beta will win 1/2 of the time and lose 1/2 of the time.
Suppose there are three individuals who jointly own a piece of private property.
On average, each will win 1/3 of the time and lose 2/3 of the time.
Suppose there are four individuals who jointly own a piece of private property.
On average, each will win 1/4 of the time and lose 3/4 of the time.
Do you see the trend?
The more owners there are, the more negotiations and compromises there must be.
The more owners there are, the more time it takes.
The more owners there are, the less each one wins, and the more each one loses.
Now consider the City of Madison, with approximately 12,000 residents, owning a piece of public property.
No decision will be made by all 12,000 residents.
No vote will be held for all 12,000 residents.
Decisions will be made by committees in City Hall.
You will have no say in the process.
Your elected representatives, and appointed committee members, will have all the say.
You can try to influence committee members:
you can speak at committee meetings (if City Hall permits you);
you can telephone or email committee members;
you can put up signs on your property;
you can post on social media;
you can attend a protest.
Sadly, committee members can ignore you.
Consider the number of meetings there must be.
Consider the number of negotiations and compromises there must be.
Consider how few winners there will be.
Consider how many losers there will be.
Consider the time it must take.
Oscar Wilde said, “The trouble with socialism is that it takes up too many evenings.”
I think he had City Hall meetings in mind when he said that. :-)
Purely from the perspective of efficiency, private property will always be better than public property, because there will be more winners, fewer losers, less negotiations, less compromises, and less time wasted.
Please read the FAQ “Why is choice better than coercion?”.
Please read the FAQ “Who should pay for what?”.
Please read the FAQ “What is the proper role of government in a free society?”.
For the purpose of this discussion, let's restrict ourselves to talking about spending money on things like public parks, public swimming pools, public golf courses, public art, etc. and not things related to “securing your unalienable rights”, e.g. police.
It is common for governments to hold votes on questions such as, “Should we spend (fill in the blank) dollars of our money on public (fill in the blank)?”.
In a vote, you have one ballot.
If the majority votes with you, you “win”, and you coerce the minority.
If the majority votes against you, you “lose”, and the majority coerces you.
Voting inevitably leads to winners and losers.
Voting inevitably leads to coercion.
Let's return to the original question: “Should we spend (fill in the blank) dollars of our money on public (fill in the blank)?”.
Exactly what is “our money”?
It is the sum of the taxes that the government took from you and all other taxpayers.
It came from coercion.
“There is no such thing as public money, there is only taxpayers’ money.”
-- Margaret Thatcher
After the government taxed you, that money was “our” money, “public” money.
The government didn't “earn” the money.
You have no control over how the government spends (what was) your money.
Either the government will decide how to spend “our” money, or it will hold a vote on how to spend “our” money.
If the government decides how to spend the money the government took from you, it is coercion.
If a vote decides how to spend the money the government took from you, it is coercion.
Taxing is the wrong solution. It is coercion.
Voting is the wrong solution. It is coercion.
After the government taxed you, it was coercion.
Before the government taxed you, that money was your money, which you earned, which you owned, in your pocket. You had the right to spend it the way you chose.
Before the government taxed you, it was choice.
“Every family should have the right to spend their money, after tax, as they wish, and not as the government dictates. Let us extend choice, extend the will to choose and the chance to choose.“
-- Margaret Thatcher
You can choose to spend your money on parks, swimming pools, golf courses, art, etc.
You can choose how much of your money to spend on parks, swimming pools, golf courses, art, etc.
You have total control over how you spend your money.
Choice is better than taxation.
Choice is better than voting.
Pay for what you use.
Don't pay for what you don't use.
You are always free to choose to give as much as you want to anything you want (e.g. public parks, public swimming pools, public golf courses, public art, etc.).
Let's review the proper reasons for, and purposes of, government.
First approach:
Please see the FAQ "What are the two kinds of transaction?".
Please see the FAQ "Why is choice better than coercion?".
If 100% of your transactions were voluntary,
and your life was 100% composed of your choices,
and no other individual forced or coerced you to do anything you didn't want to do,
then there would be little or no need for government.
Individuals need government to protect them from being forced or coerced by others.
Second approach:
Please see Milton Friedman's lecture "The Role of Government in a Free Society" here.
The Declaration of Independence states:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed ... with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".
You also have the unalienable right to own property.
Therefore, the only reason for, and purpose of, government is to "secure these rights".
The government produces the service of securing these rights.
That service comprises:
the military;
the police;
the courts.
Third approach:
The government plays the role of a referee in a game.
The referee doesn't decide who wins and who loses.
The referee enforces the rules.
When a player breaks a rule, the referee imposes a penalty on that player.
It is not the government's job to "level the playing field".
It is not the government's job to "make life fair".
It is not the government's job to give you (fill in the blank).
It is not the government's job to give you anything.
It is not the government's job to take from others (or everyone) in order to give to you.
The government does not produce anything.
Only individuals and businesses in the private sector produce things.
In order for the government to give you something, the government has to take that something from the individual or business who produced it.
The government has to "rob Peter to pay Paul".
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."
-- George Bernard Shaw
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.