"I was at a meeting the other day about school issues. No bagels were provided so it was a particularly difficult session for me, and I attended under protest. Anyway, a friend of mine at at the meeting talked about a conversation he had with a school type who was asking for some tech thing, iPads maybe for his school. My friend said, you aren't asking for iPads, you are asking for money. The school guy said no, I'm not asking for money, I am asking for iPads. From a third party perspective, I propose the question, "In terms of policy, what was being asked for here? Ipads, or the cash to pay for them?" I submit that there is no clear cut, definitive answer to this question. Rather how the question is answered goes a long way toward telling whether the person answering the question is a Democrat or a Republican.
Republicans, their rhetoric tells us, believe policy should be driven by revenue considerations. In the Republican mind the two are inseparably linked. The result is the kind of thinking that emerges from Republican legislators and press releases. We have in Minnesota a two billion dollar surplus. For the GOP that means that we can buy two billion dollars worth of policy. Revenue, for them, determines and limits policy. Democrats, on the other hand, and without the same degree of consistency or clarity, believe policy should drive our revenue choices. That means if you decide you must have things like roads and schools, that decision includes within it, the decision to tax to pay for them. A lot of what plays out at the legislature and in our politics generally reflects these divergent world views. One funny thing about that is that these different view are so deeply engrained that those holding them have difficulty perceiving the alternate view. The friend who told me that the ipads were an issue of money, couldn't grasp that the folks he talked to saw money as an issue of ipads. My guess is that the other folks, wherever they were couldn't grasp the opposite view." Hiram
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Policy vs Money
MinnPost Veto Not sure what this meant, does anyone here understand? Since it seemed to have something to do with different perspectives, I thought I would shine some light on it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
The second paragraph speaks to the discussion we have frequently around here. The description of Republicans as being driven by fitting government into the box of the available revenue under current law versus a Democratic vision of determining what needs to be done and then taxing to pay for it.
At the moment I am looking at a movie about the national debt. The movie was released in 1952.
--Hiram
Maybe Liberals are Feelers and Conservatives are Thinkers...
"Republicans believe policy should be driven by revenue considerations."
"Democrats believe policy should drive our revenue choices."
"These different views are so deeply engrained that those holding them have difficulty perceiving the alternate view."
I think I can perceive the Liberal reality, I just can not understand it. It sounds like you are saying that they seek an idealistic policy with an assumption that the tax dollars will be just be available. And that they can just be taken from Private citizens / sector with no negative consequences.
It does make sense though since I can never get any of them to commit to a total tax as % of GDP target.
Now I am a big fan of people and/or families who set goals, and then use it to help motivate themselves to learn, improve, get promoted, etc to increase their household income.
However it makes no sense to me to create policy in a vaccuum. How many people do you know who create spending plans without considering their available income?
I never commit to a "total tax as % of GDP target" because this is a dumb question.
I look at things in a common sense way like would it be good for my 5th grade student with a first grade reading level to attend summer school (with all his friends so maybe next year 25% of our students could pass the MCA's.) My conclusion is summer school for students at my school is a good idea and with a billion dollar surplus we have the money available to pay for it.
Since my preferred education spending is not being considered I apply my common sense to options that are being debated. Should pre k education be given a little more money to get Dayton to sign the bill? yes, because a long delay will be very disruptive to schools. (I think it will take some savy leadership to get him to accept less than what he wants)
The notion that policy should be determined by revenues has more to do with feeling than revenue. It's simply an emotional way of putting off thinking rationally about policy.
"I think I can perceive the Liberal reality, I just can not understand it. It sounds like you are saying that they seek an idealistic policy with an assumption that the tax dollars will be just be available."
It's a question of whether we should make them available. My ideal is to have bridges that don't collapse in rivers. I feel that every time I enter onto a bridge, I should be able to make to the other side without getting wet. How persuaded should I be by the thoroughly rational and logical argument that however much I want a safe bridge, I can't have it because there isn't enough tax revenue to pay for it?
--Hiram
"It sounds like you are saying that they seek an idealistic policy with an assumption that the tax dollars will be just be available. And that they can just be taken from Private citizens / sector with no negative consequences."
Now you're projecting. No one has indicated that this happens in an environment divorced by reality. Barack Obama didn't raise the top tax rate to Eisenhower-era rates.
"When I make a decision, I like to find the basic truth or principle to be applied, regardless of the specific situation involved."
What if an analysis of the specific situation conflicts with or contradicts a basic principle? In science, what happens to a scientific theory when it conflicts with experimental evidence?https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=feynman+scientific+method&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001
"I like to analyze pros and cons, and then be consistent and logical in deciding. I try to be impersonal, so I won't let my personal wishes--or other people's wishes--influence me."
What if the truth is illogical? Is the choice to be impersonal itself personal or impersonal?
The following statements generally apply to me:
"I enjoy technical and scientific fields where logic is important."
But what if truth conflicts with logic? Which result should we prefer?
"I notice inconsistencies."
Are you able to distinguish between inconsistencies and differences?
"I look for logical explanations or solutions to most everything."
Is this with an awareness that lots of things don't have logical explanation, and lots of logical explanations are wrong?
"I make decisions with my head and want to be fair."
Why this preference for fairness? Why do we think the fairest decision is the best decision?
"I believe telling the truth is more important than being tactful."
But is this done with an excessive confidence in an ability to determine or know what's true?
"Sometimes I miss or don't value the "people" part of a situation."
Is this because of a failure to understand that truth is often subjective?
"I can be seen as too task-oriented, uncaring, or indifferent."
Is this a result of a failure to understand that we make choices whether we want to or not. Such as the choice to favor the logical result over the experimental result?
--Hiram
Laurie,
So are you okay starting programs when we "have extra" revenues during the boom, and stopping them when the inevitable cyclical recession occurs? (~8 year cycle)
Hiram,
We currently give the gov't ~38% of the country's GDP to use in the best interests of the country, and hopefully to increase that GDP for the benefit of all of us.
So are you saying that we should not hold the politicians accountable for prioritizing that spend to ensure we can drive safely over all bridges? We should allow them to build light rail and bike bridges while the existing bridges crumble?
It seems that you indicating that politicians should just keep introducing policy as if the golden goose contains an infinite number of eggs.
Hiram's Scientific Method Link
"It's a question of whether we should make them available."
I think is the biggest difference. Conservatives see Public and Private property as very different things, whereas Liberals believe that all money is Public property.
If the policy wishes cost more than the allocated money in the checking account, just pull some out of savings...
That also explains why Liberals will not commit to a % of GDP target, they think the government should have access to as much of it as they wish. I mean it is their isn't it.
Sean,
By the time Obama got to wanting to raise taxes, the GOP was back in control of the House and thwarting his actions. Remember all the times the Democrats blamed the GOP for blocking progress.
By the way, thanks to the GOP being so difficult and GDP growing... It looks like we are back down to 35%. Total Spend Curves
Absolutely astounding. Had you not said so directly, I would swear that what you describe as the Republican outlook was that of Democrats, and vice versa. Several examples come to mind. Last session, the DFL passed a big tax increase before passing the policy bills to say where the money would be spent. This year, Republicans wanted to spend existing money on roads and bridges, setting the policy by means of prioritizing spending on them, while the DFL insisted that this priority could ONLY be achieved from new revenues (gas tax), and finally settling on doing NOTHING for their supposedly highest priority of roads and bridges. Gov. Dayton vetoes 100% of education funding until he can extract a change in policy on pre-K. The legislature already agreed, in a surprising bipartisan fashion, to substantially increase funding for a pre-K scholarship program for at-risk kids that has been working well. Dayton holds up the money for ALL education until this useful program is scrapped and all schools burdened with his new, horribly expensive, untested and likely unworkable pre-K scheme.
Maybe I can twist my mind around to see it in the words Hiram uses, but I don't think I will try. Instead, I think I would describe the difference thusly. Democrats believe that all policy problems are solved by throwing money at them. Republicans believe you solve the problem with policy, and allocate only the amount of money, if any, needed to make that policy change happen.
" Last session, the DFL passed a big
tax increase before passing the policy bills to say where the money would be spent."
Nope.The tax bill was the 11th omnibus bill (of 17) passed in DFL-majority session.
"This year, Republicans wanted to spend existing money on roads and bridges, setting the policy by means of prioritizing spending on them, while the DFL insisted that this priority could ONLY be achieved from new revenues (gas tax), and finally settling on doing NOTHING for their supposedly highest priority of roads and bridges."
Sure. The GOP wanted to pay for their bridges by cutting health care. What is the logical relationship between the two? Is there something about improved or maintained bridges that reduces the cost of health care, or renders it less necessary? Where did the party of logic find the logical relationship between these two linked policy choices?
--Hiram
Sean is correct; "passed" is the wrong word. "Decided" is more accurate and may still be a technically incorrect statement of the history. I contend that the statement is "false, but accurate." Can I do that? :-)
"The GOP wanted to pay for their bridges by cutting health care."
So, if there is fat in the health care budget, shouldn't "essential" bridges be a priority? Unlike Gov. Dayton, Republicans don't see EVERYTHING in the budget as "top priority" that cannot be cut by one dime, nor do they believe the money must be the same or higher if the underlying policy is changed to require less funding, as was the case here.
"The GOP wanted to pay for their bridges by cutting health care. "
My point exactly, Liberals want to prioritize everything as critical and there is no program that should be cut as priorities change. (except maybe defense)
ACA was passed, Medicare was expanded, MN Sure was set up and great expense and Liberal MNs claim that we still need MN Care just as much as ever... We need it just as much as we need to make sure roads and bridges are safe...
if there is fat in the health care budget, shouldn't "essential" bridges be a priority
There is undoubtedly lots of "fat" in transportation budget too, if you look at if from a different perspective. Are roads to isolated Minnesota towns really essential? Are isolated Minnesota towns really essential? Kind of depends on your point of view. Do we support those isolated Minnesota towns represented by Republicans because it's logical? Or because it feels right? Or is there another rationale?
--Hiram
Excellent point !!!
That is why we have politicians and bureaucrats. We elect or hire them to balance these conflicting wants within the budget they are allocated.
There is a beautiful new asphalt road out near where my Parents live. It runs between Brandt SD and US Hwy 75. It was asphalt before but for some reason someone thought it had to be totally re-constructed.
Now... With all that waste in the system... Why would we give government more of our personal property to have them fix things that do not need fixing, providing handouts that don't need to be handed out, paying higher compensation than necessary, etc?
This is why GOP folks try to control budgets, without pressure on the politicians / bureaucrats they will always find something new to spend the money on.
Remember the old rule... Always, I mean always spend your budget whether you need to or not... Otherwise they will likely give you a smaller budget next year.
"This is why GOP folks try to control budgets, without pressure on the politicians / bureaucrats they will always find something new to spend the money on."
But then, they have to do back to their constituents and explain why the things they need aren't getting fixed.
--Hiram
I agree that the politicians are answerable to their constituents.
So constituents have a choice, remind them to stop spending money on lower priority issues and get focused. Or keep letting them off the hook by accepting higher taxes and cost of government year after year.
The GOP folks keep asking for prioritization, efficiency and effectiveness improvement. The DFL folks keep looking to get more revenue from the citizens to pursue all priorities somewhat equally.
So constituents have a choice, remind them to stop spending money on lower priority issues and get focused.
The problem is that the lower priority is the pothole in the next district over, not the one in front of my house. The representative of that district thinks his pothole has priority and his vote counts the same as my representatives.
Republicans want to pay for their priorities at the expense of the priorities of the districts they don't represent. That works only if they have the votes.
--Hiram
If Republicans vote only on parochial interest, then what do you call a DFL that votes to spend enough to fill ALL the potholes on an LRT line that will serve only a tiny fraction of constituents in just a few districts? How do they get the votes?
Mass transit in the cities is the price Republican legislators from Greater Minnesota don't want to pay to get their potholes filled.
--Hiram
Well I travelled about 250 miles of rural roads and found zero pot holes Friday and yesterday.
I personally have a belief that most of the out state expensive road work is not for rural residents, but for the urban and suburban folks who want a quick commute to their cabin.
In ~18 months we will get to see if the citizens are frustrated at "slow progress" or thankful that the DFL was blocked in raising their taxes again.
Maybe it is the DFL that likes ineffective government and not the GOP. I mean if the government is inefficient and ineffective, it supports the DFL's tax the rich platform?
Well I travelled about 250 miles of rural roads and found zero pot holes Friday and yesterday.
On behalf of urban and suburban voters, I can only say, "You're welcome. Glad to help out."
--Hiram
"Mass transit in the cities is the price Republican legislators from Greater Minnesota don't want to pay to get their potholes filled."
Once again, somebody wants to propose a transportation budget as a matter of trade-offs, rather than one of priorities. Mass transit serves, percentage-wise, about the same population as those rural highways, though urban-dwellers have other, far more cost-effective alternatives. If the legislature can suggest a policy that delivers twice the "transportation" for the same money, why would they do otherwise?
"Once again, somebody wants to propose a transportation budget as a matter of trade-offs, rather than one of priorities.
"How can you talk about priorities without talking about trade-offs? What other point does establishing priorities have?
"Mass transit serves, percentage-wise, about the same population as those rural highways, though urban-dwellers have other, far more cost-effective alternatives."
I have to ask, if rural roads serve not just in absolute numbers but on a percentage basis fewer residents than mass transit, how can we justify building or maintaining them at all? Let's say a million people live in Minneapolis, and 10 percent of them use mass transit. That's a hundred thousand people. Let's say also in a town of ten thousand people, 10 percent use the roads. That a thousand people. Who should be the priority? The town's thousand people? Or the city's one hundred thousand people? In a world without trade offs, why should the city's residents have any reason to respond to the small town's concerns at all?
--Hiram
I think that is why many GOP folks are against the large local government aid payments, yet the DFL seems to demand them.
As for roads in the country, there are 2 kinds. Ones that the locals use and need, and ones that are used to transport goods, cabin owners, tourists, etc.
The first set can easily be paid for by the taxes that the local folks pay. (ie property, income, sales, gas, estate, etc) As for the second, I think there are far far more cabin commuters than light rail commuters.
Please remember that Jerry, I and the GOP are for collecting less in Federal and State taxes, which would leave the local folks more money to spend as they wish.
"Please remember that Jerry, I and the GOP are for collecting less in Federal and State taxes, which would leave the local folks more money to spend as they wish."
The problem here is that the local folks are poor and don't pay much in taxes. Therefore, they don't benefit much from tax cuts.
--Hiram
"The problem here is that the local folks are poor and don't pay much in taxes. Therefore, they don't benefit much from tax cuts."
Yes, the local folks are poor and can't afford cars to get to jobs they don't have, so let's build a Billion-dollar choo-choo down through their neighborhood and subsidize their rides on it.
"that the local folks are poor and don't pay much in taxes"
Who are you talking about?
Who are you talking about?
the people in Greater Minnesota.
--Hiram
Though you may be correct about the NE 1/4 of MN, I think you are incorrect about the rest of the State. Please remember that agriculture is a HUGE wealth creator for our State.
I always wonder where the city folks think their wealth comes from?
I mean farming is a great wealth creator. One buys a large amount of inputs from the community and businesses, you put them in the ground, and the sun / environment turns them in to value added product, then they enable a great deal of processing, jobs, etc.
I always find it amusing that city folks often look down on the country folk who helped develop and power this state's economy.
(You might want to check median household income by county before you make such statements.)
Is this map good enough for you?
Please remember that housing and many services are much less expensive for those living out state.
Cheaper housing also contributes to lower property tax capacity to fund things like roads, schools, etc. (Which is why we have LGA.)
With land at $5,000/acre and few roads, I think the farmers would disagree with you.
When I researched this previously there was a slight cash flow to the country because there are more older folks there who are on medicare. However those numbers did not seem to include all the huge metro improvement projects. (ie stadiums, light rail, etc) And they did not acknowledge that most of the big out state road projects are being done for the benefit of metro businesses and cabin owners.
Doesn't matter if they disagree with me or not, the numbers don't lie. If you take the numbers from this link versus the land area, you'll see that rural areas have significantly lower tax capacities.
Tax Capacities
For instance, in Carver County -- which has a mix of suburban/exurban areas and areas with plenty of the wealthy farmers you refer to -- the average tax capacity per acre of the incorporated cities is 36x higher than that of the rural townships. And even if you take the lowest tax capacity city (New Germany) against the highest tax capacity township (Laketown), the delta is still 3.4x.
Tax Capacities
Tax capacity by itself is immaterial. One needs to know total taxes and total governmental spend for a location.
Sure, it matters, unless you can provide government services for 1/36 of the cost.
See my new post.
Post a Comment