BY MARK SCHUMANN

“The rate savings with FPL was and continues to be so large that it outweighs any worst case tax increase,” Glenn Heran said in an email he wrote to me today.

Heran, President of the Taxpayers Association, is correct in pointing out that from the beginning of the discussions on selling Vero Electric the public has been told electric rate savings would more than make up for any tax increases.

What the public was not told was that when the time came to increase taxes to compensate for the loss of revenue from Vero Electric, the Tea Party/Taxpayers Association would firmly oppose doing what is necessary to preserve city services.

Heran went on to assert that, “as the President of the Taxpayers Association, my views on limited government are clear.”

Well, the issue, it seems to me, is that no one who speaks on behalf of the local Tea Party or the Taxpayers Association is willing to be clear about what they mean by “limited” government.

Are they prepared to say that a “limited” government should not be in the business of subsidizing cultural organizations such as the Vero Beach Museum of Art, the Riverside Theatre and the Riverside Children’s Theatre with $1-a-year land leases? Or, is going after recreation programs such as the public pool at Leisure Square, or guarded public beaches, or a racquet complex for people who are not members of private clubs more their cup of tea?

Sure, it is true there are savings to be had by delivering government services more efficiently, just as there are cuts to be made by renegotiating more realistic labor contracts.

But, it is also true that the limited government crowd continues to pretend the city has not already cut its overall General Fund budget by some 25 percent since 2007. They are equally reluctant to acknowledge that Vero Beach’s current property tax rate is about half that of comparable cities. This tax rate has, of course, been kept artificially low with subsidies from Vero Electric.

Some would have us believe only the County Commission has made the kind of draconian spending cuts that have lead to economic stagnation throughout much of Europe. The reality is that the city has made some deep spending cuts of its own in recent years.

Now the cheerleaders for “limited” government are applauding the City Council’s plan to slash another 11 to 15 percent in spending, event if the cuts will lead to diminished city services, and even if those cuts will lead to a budget surplus.

Councilman Richard Winger reasons that any company that focuses on what it can take from its customers by reducing services or cutting back on quality deserves to go out of business. The same applies to city government, he said.

“The question we should be asking is how can we more efficiently delivery and pay for the services people want? We should not be looking at taking away services,” Winger said.

The relevant debate is no longer about whether to sell the electric system. What matters now is that more people who care about preserving the quality of life in Vero Beach engage advocates of “limited” government in a vigorous debate about what level of services the public wants and is willing to support through increased taxes.

If too many of Vero Beach’s citizens remain unengaged, they may well wind up with the “limited” government they deserve.