http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110308/ap_on_re_us/us_broken_budgets_anti_tax_pledge
So I just read this article on yahoo news and it brought up some interesting questions for me. I had never really heard of the "pledge" to not raise taxes that was being discussed but I did find it disconcerting. If we consider the theory of paradox it would seem that a pledge of this sort would limit any side from being able to work towards a compromise.
It also occured to me that, though tax increases are not always discussed in the family policy realm they do weigh heavily on family policy and family perspective. On one hand families may be burdened with increased taxes that they really can't afford in tough financial times and on the other hand if tax increases don't happen many states will be cutting services to those very same families, again placing a burden on them to make up the difference.
I also think this article, though I will admit bias towards the left, provides an excellent example of how groups outside of government can really guide and affect policy . . . and this group isn't even big oil or big food.
The comments posted were also very interesting and continued to bring up questions for me. I don't really know if there is a right or wrong answer on this issue but I would love to hear your comments as well!
I am a bit shocked that many of the legislators don't want to increase taxes at all. To me, that seems to go against policies and programs that provide support for the public. One quote that I found especially disturbing was: "Brown also has called for more than $12 billion in spending cuts to higher education, welfare programs, health services for the poor, in-home care, state parks and a wide array of other programs." I don't claim to have a perfect understanding, or even a somewhat perfect understanding, of how these programs are run, but they are essential. I know there can be cuts in almost any program (needs vs wants), but by saying that there would be no tax increases ever means that these types of programs would be the first to be cut. (Probably because they don't benefit the legislators themselves....)
ReplyDeleteI agree with the following statement: "Former California state Assemblyman Roger Niello said the pledge has become "a policy straitjacket" that prevents rational debate about tax policy, even among conservatives who generally share the same philosophy." Megan also mentioned this when stating that from the view of the theory of paradox, this type of pledge would not allow compromise.
On a personal note, I was in San Francisco a couple weeks ago. I was somewhat shocked to see that their sales tax was over 10% on everything, including food. For someone from Wyoming, this seemed a bit extreme at first. Then I started thinking about how many people live in CA and how these taxes help provide necessary support for many of the people. It might seem contradictory: to have such high taxes when there are so many who need state support. It would be nice if sales taxes could also be based on wealth. The higher the tax bracket, the higher the sales tax paid. But that's a whole different issue, I guess.
This article is astounding to me. I cannot believe that anyone would sign such a pledge, even if against raising taxes. As someone who is not a fan of taxes (like everyone else) and opposed to many public programs such as welfare and government health care, it still blows my mind that they would be so closed minded about the options on the table.
ReplyDeleteMaybe people don’t fully understand that government gets ALL of its revenue from taxes. That means if states have deficits without being able to raise taxes they are required to cut services. Those cut services come in the form of lower quality education, at all levels, decreases in law enforcement, child protective services, quality control enforcement, public transportation, road maintenance…the list goes on and on.
Likewise, that reduced spending slows down the economy further. It is exactly what happened during the great depression. People lose their jobs, tax revenues go down,…property values decrease, tax revenues go down,…people stop spending money,…tax revenues go down…etc…etc…etc…Tax revenues decreased so government cuts and cuts and cuts to stay within their budget. The down side is, the private sector needs government contracts to stay buoyant during economic slowdowns because the public stops spending. Without that influx of money economic recovery takes longer, sometimes much longer. Now this is not to say that budgets should not be evaluated and spending reduced…it should, government frequently spends excessively. However, local economies would likely be devastated by budget cuts, particularly in the $12 billion dollar range.
On a side note, I have to admit that I just loved the quote,…
"He's taken strong positions to rein in spending and huge cost-drivers in government, specifically unsustainable public employee pension and health benefits," said Christie spokesman
I’m willing to bet that those same unsustainable programs are the only reason government gets quality workers, especially in lower positions, because it definitely isn’t the wages that attract them. If public employee pensions and health benefits are unsustainable, for people that work for them…why does everyone continue to support social programs like public health care and social security…
Very well argued, David. Roads, law enforcement, public education, etc. All of these are paid for by taxes. To never raise taxes in the face of rising costs of living or population growth is to risk a societal downward spiral. If you've ever been a victim of a crime, or been a student, or driven the roads, you have benefited from taxes.
ReplyDelete