Below are the lead in comment from CommonSense and my reply.
"One observation I have of the right, where they have a major misperception (or maybe I mean misconception- shades of GW) of the left, is that the left wants to take all their money and give it away to people that don't deserve it. The typical person on the right needs to understand that taxes are lower now than at any point in their lifetime and that you do not get anything for nothing!
When governors cry budget problems right after they cut corporate taxes (again), of course a reasonable person will ask how ANYONE can think it is ok to hack away at government to the point that it doesn't work, then cut more funding BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK! The proposals put forth by the right are absolutely ridiculous- turning local government over to private companies - firing ELECTED OFFICIALS; selling power companies at the governor's whim,.... each day gets more outrageous.
The thing about taxes is that there is a minimum that is necessary to run a government responsibly and deliver good services. When money is tight, you don't cut family expenses until you starve and freeze to death- you INCREASE revenue by asking family members to contribute according to their means.We just want the rich, yes I said rich, to contribute to the government that has made it possible for them to live the high life while the rest of us hope we don't get fired or perhaps have our union rights legislated out from under us."
That said, which state parks should we close (which is your favorite, let's start there) and just how should we adjust the public school budget that has been cut, cut, cut?
My Response and Question:
If you do not like controlling the budget? (manage and slow growth, ~ CPI)
How would you proposed we citizens promote wise prioritization and year after year productivity gains from our Government/Social systems?
I truly believe that we could double their budget and they would find "good" ways to spend it all.
An example in Schools, exactly how many foreign languages need to be offered? Or exactly how many bike paths do we need in out state MN? Or why is the Public supporting radio broadcasts? Or why is the DNR buying land for wildlife habitat?
I like Common Sense's analogy, except I think we are cutting back on the family's cell phone and cable usage. Not their food and heating. Probably don't need that second job yet."
Thoughts?
9 comments:
I have to agree with leftists who, though normally totally unmoved by notions of morality, declare the budget "a moral document." I agree that government should never, ever, "rob Peter to pay Paul" and it doesn't matter one whit how poor Paul is (or is not). Anytime government takes from one who earns it and gives it to one who hasn't, they are wrong in the moral sense. If, of course, the "giver" receives something of value in return-- roads, bridges, police protection-- that is provided "efficiently" and equitably or in proportion to taxes paid, that's a fair trade.
Just eliminate all the thievery and your budget problem disappears. Everything else is just free enterprise and private charity.
J. Ewing
One way that I know that public agencies/departments deal with cuts is to not replace workers who retire (often early retirement incentives are offered.) To me this seems like some some mix of cut in service and increase of productivity, as workers who reamin pick up some of the duties.
Many people in my church group have retired in past couple of years from state, county or college positions and non have been replaced. I guess as we keep cutting we will find out where the cuts hurt the most. I think schools are to the level where their is little fat left to trim.
I have this question posted at MN Publius, MinnPost and here. So far I have 2 attempts at answering it, and one philosophy statement. The 2 attempts both discuss the results of controlling spending, and offer no alternative ideas. And J. of course would reward King John for trying to string up Robin Hood. (hahahaha)
So let's try this with one of my favorite analogies. Let's say hypothetically that you have a 16 yr old daughter.(ie Gov't & Society) Now she truly LOVES and NEEDS her clothing, shoes, friends, car, movies, etc. For simplicity and accuracies stake, let's say her only source of income is from her Parents.(ie Tax Payers)
Now the interesting thing about Teens is that they have unlimited WANTS, that they see as NEEDS. Therefore they are always interested in securing more funds from their Parents. I mean there are always new movies, new shoes, new clothing, new phones, events, etc. And Lord knows they are NEEDED !!! (if you do not understand this, talk to someone with a teenage daughter)
Now what is a parent to do to ensure that their child spends wisely, learns to prioritize and does not drive the household into bankruptcy? Should they:
- Set an allowance that increases by inflation each year? (~3%)
- Set an allowance that increases by three times inflation each yr? (~9%)
- Give the Teen more money whenever they ask? (ie no limit, trust the Teen)
- Give the Teen money only when they can justify it to the Parent's satisfaction? (Parent Control by line item)
- Other?
Remember that any increases above inflation come directly out the household's discretionary spending. Therefore Dad does not get that new Lawn mower and/or Mom lives with those old dingy Countertops...
So what should we do to ensure Government prioritizes wisely, strives to improve its effectiveness, and does not bankrupt us taxpayers? And Individuals/ Society have unlimited Wants just like that Teenage Daughter... Which they all see as Needs.
If you do not like holding budget growth to an inflationary level. You must have some ideas ...
I still don't have ideas in response to your questions. My only thought is I'm grateful for my teenage sons with their fewer wants. It's very difficult in my family at x-mas and birthdays because neither kid can think of anything he wants or needs.
Older son needs will be changing dramatically in a few months, however, in the form of $20,000 yearly tuition. I might have to cut back on the blogs to work some extra hours to help keep him from going too deeply into debt.
Maybe the state is like that, the needs change, like the cost of providing health care for the growing numbers of elderly and low income people go up, so we can't always keep increases in spending to the cost of inflation.
The problem is that if we raise taxes for a 20+ yr increase in expenses. The Liberals of the future will kick and scream at the "Draconian Cuts" at the end of the time period. Once people get used to a certain revenue stream, they have a real hard time giving it up...
Maybe it would be better if we started selling Public assets and then we can buy them back in 30 yrs... Kind of like Parents selling a Lake home when their kids go to College to help pay the bill.
Or as we have discussed... Start downsizing the military... Cut social services in other areas... Cut back on Light Rail, etc, etc, etc. Then we can build these up again in thirty years.
Since the Government / Society can not start working extra hours... It seems we better hold the budget growth to a reasonable level and force these Public Servants to make some hard choices or make them improve the system effectivity.
They/we did not save for the "College" type expense, it seems to me they/we had best tighten our belts...
Thanks for your thoughts. Still looking for an answer.
So how is it that your so sure when federal tax revenue is at a 50 year low and state spending is also at a low as % of GDP that this is the correct baseline for limiting spending to inflationary increases? Also, do you know of anyone looking for a used tent? Maybe I should sell off some assets to raise those college tuition dollars we need.
Show us the DATA... Total tax at all time low against GDP...
I have a tent the I can sell...
Gov Rev Graph
So after looking at the graph... I agree with you that Income tax revenues are down for the last couple years. 2007: 37% and 2009: 27%... A 27% drop in revenues as related to GDP...
Now let's think about this, some would say taxes have gone down too much. But we know the rates have been fixed for ~10 years. So that isn't it. Oh what else can it be???
Maybe it is because the stock market tanked and many people saw their income go down more than 27%. Or many people lost their jobs and saw their income drop more than 27%. Or many folks like me lost more than 27% in wages and bonuses. Now this would certainly make Tax revenues tank more than the GDP, since the employees that were not laid off often had to carry the load.
So let's average the past 20 yrs... I would say it is about 34% of the GDP... Which is way above the previous 20 yrs. (~31%)
I'd say it looks like taxes have been trending the wrong direction. And at this rate govt/society will cost our country ~37 of GDP over the next 20 yrs.
Do we really want to burden our kids with this? Or do we want to say that 34% is more than enough... It is time for government to get lean.
So I think this seems like a good benchmark for rates. We just have to get people earning good incomes again and this will take care of the tax revenue problem...
The reality is Govt needs to be able to scale back their spend quickly during a recession, just like our households need to. Or they need to save up during the good times.
Apparently I need to repeat my analysis of our federal budget situation. Counting only the national debt pre-Obama and the current unfunded mandates of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, every newborn American baby owes $333,000 to the federal government. Now where a baby that age is going to get that kind of money I don't know. If the government were required to follow the laws it applies to private corporations it would need to raise that money very quickly and set it aside for the payment of these commitments. That could be done by simply increasing federal taxes to 100%, no deductions or exceptions, for the next eight years. if we also wanted to continue to fund current federal government spending the tax rate would have to be increased to 120%.
Some might call this an impractical solution, but so is raising taxes by ANY amount when our leaders are busily SPENDING our grandchildren's inheritance, before they are even born. The First Rule of Holes applies.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment