Spokane7
68°
May 27, 2011 in City
No revenue problem, just every other problem
Now that the state – by which I mean all of us, in combination, led by our leaders – has arrived at an utter failure of a budget, it’s good to be reminded that no amount of human pain will ever change the tune of the oblivious.
“We don’t have a revenue problem.”
This is what Kevin Parker, who represents us in Spokane’s 6th District, had to say after the Washington Legislature passed a bill that recovered a $5 billion deficit entirely from teachers, schools, disabled adults, college students and the homebound elderly – without raising a penny in new money from any source. Not a single closed loophole. Not a dime of new taxation on any candy bar or bank loan or boob job.
It was, top to bottom, pathetic, and it’s a failure we can all share – from our knee-jerk approval of Tim Eyman’s initiatives, to our legislators’ and governor’s unwillingness to challenge the conventional wisdom about taxation, to the persistent, nefarious rhetoric about “revenue” that rises constantly like methane at a dairy.
“We don’t have a revenue problem.”
I guess “not having a revenue problem” means … what, exactly? Here’s how Parker seems to formulate it: there’s $4 billion more in state tax revenue expected to come in this biennium compared with 2009-2011. That biennium was the worst ever, the rock bottom so far, and we raided the piggy bank and relied on the federal government to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
In other words, that extra money – which went to schools and health care and other non-revenue-problems – wasn’t “revenue.”
“We don’t have a revenue problem.”
We don’t have a revenue problem the way you wouldn’t have a revenue problem if you took a 10 percent pay cut, got a little help from an uncle to cover the shortfall one year, then got a 1 percent bump the following year.
That 9 percent drop? Not a revenue problem. What you have, friend, is a spending problem.
No, “we” don’t have a revenue problem, as long as you’re not counting teachers, whose revenue will be going down by 1.9 percent, or other school employees, whose revenue will drop 3 percent. There’s no problem with our revenues, unless we’re trying to pay for colleges, which will absorb $535 million in cuts and jack up tuition by … however much the colleges want.
The lack of a revenue problem doesn’t include disabled adults, for whom an entire program was eliminated. Or seniors who need in-home care and will get fewer hours of it. Or low-income fetuses – the unborn! – whose at-risk moms won’t be getting nursing support before birth. That means more of them will be born small, with smaller brains, into circumstances that give them very good odds for having extra misery later in life – misery that also happens to be a drain on public revenues.
But, hey – no problem.
Parker’s point may be narrow, but the implications are not. This is a bit of political rhetoric that Republicans drag out all the time. Everyone from John Boehner to Orrin Hatch has deployed it lately, and they spout it pretty much verbatim. The intent seems to be to comfort and placate us with the certainty that the problems facing the state and nation do not require our sacrifice, that the suffering is overstated, that you should place irony quotes around the word “compassion,” that there’s no reason budget cuts ought to be seen as inflicting real pain on real people.
There’s no reason we comfortable folks without a revenue problem ought to feel bad about the very big problems we’re about to inflict on the least among us.
Because there’s no revenue problem. It’s all welfare mothers drawing down the account at the casinos. Pay no attention to the wealthy men behind the curtain.
Besides being a ridiculous falsehood – because it is at the very least a revenue and spending problem – this is also a hoary cliché with a long history. It began, according to an examination of the talking point by Slate, with Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of self-comforting nonsense.
He’s the father of modern conservatism in more ways than one, but one way in particular is growing thornier and more self-contradictory as our federal budget crisis deepens: The party of fiscal responsibility likes to pretend that tax cuts aren’t a “revenue problem.” No: tax cuts produce revenue. And massive cuts in services produce GDP growth. Money does not “trickle up” from poor people, of course, but it certainly does trickle down.
It just takes a long, long time, I guess.
Can you imagine a more self-comforting myth? When my taxes go down, it’s good for everyone. The best thing to do for the poor is unburden the rich.
As for taxes ever going up – as for their ever being a time when people ought to chip in and support schools or cops or libraries or the least among us – well, don’t be silly.
“We don’t have a revenue problem.”
We’ve got way more than 99 problems with this budget. It’s nice to be reminded that revenue ain’t one.
Shawn Vestal can be reached at (509) 459-5431 or shawnv@spokesman.com. Follow him on Twitter at @vestal13.
The draw of the unknowable 
Hank Greer on May 27 at 6:19 a.m.
Well said. It’s not a revenue problem because the misguided mantra is that the economy does better when there is no revenue.
Well, you get what you pay for and thanks to our selfish short-sightedness, we’re going to be paying a lot more for it.
By the way, you can understand Kevin Parker’s comment better if you look at it from a different perspective. Facebook posting about his Dutch Bros. coffee shops and the opening of a new shop in between his legislative postings must be doing his business well enough so that his statement is true if by “we” he meant he and his wife.
Scoutster on May 27 at 6:27 a.m.
Yup. That about nails it.
So, we did it without more taxes.
We await the onslaught of good, high paying jobs financed by the wealthy, who have done so well? Sure.
Nobody believes the myth anymore.
Good essay.
hawken on May 27 at 6:27 a.m.
I’ll just let the big government, tax and spend liberals whine and tell each other how right Vestal is on this string. Forget the fact that 63% of WA voters made it clear last November. No more taxes.
johnclarke on May 27 at 6:40 a.m.
My suspicions have been confirmed Hawken, you can’t read. This author’s view escapes your pointed little head. Try reading this part again, over and over - and maybe you will start to understand.
“It began, according to an examination of the talking point by Slate, with Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of self-comforting nonsense.
He’s the father of modern conservatism in more ways than one, but one way in particular is growing thornier and more self-contradictory as our federal budget crisis deepens: The party of fiscal responsibility likes to pretend that tax cuts aren’t a “revenue problem.” No: tax cuts produce revenue. And massive cuts in services produce GDP growth. Money does not “trickle up” from poor people, of course, but it certainly does trickle down.
It just takes a long, long time, I guess.
Can you imagine a more self-comforting myth? When my taxes go down, it’s good for everyone. The best thing to do for the poor is unburden the rich.”
Scoutster on May 27 at 7:03 a.m.
Thanks, Hawken…That would be great.
Just don’t keep expecting the 63% to hold.
As Lincoln said “You can fool…”
WillyPeter on May 27 at 7:09 a.m.
Amusing to know that liberal ideologues like Vestal are raging because “their” progressive Olympia - for decades a Democrat governor, a Democrat senate, and a Democrat house - can’t get the job done to the far-left’s satisfaction.
polistra on May 27 at 7:14 a.m.
By focusing only on the numbers, BOTH sides are missing the bigger problem. We have budget problems because we don’t have an industrial policy. Since about 1975 we’ve allowed industries to fade while throwing most of the economy into the financial sector.
Both parties have participated in this, reaching a peak in the late ‘90s with complete removal of the limits on banking and speculation that FDR gave us in 1934.
Both sides have also cooperated in placing ever-greater environmental regulations on productive industries, and both sides have prevented the introduction of a single-payer health care system.
Both sides hate tariffs with a wild passion.
Every single thing that would make our industries more competitive has been ruthlessly eliminated; every single step that cripples our industries has been enthusiastically implemented.
Now we’re trying to run on bets and debts, speculation and mortgages. Those are important parts of a functional capitalist system, but they were never meant to be the ONLY parts!
Ninch on May 27 at 7:38 a.m.
Shawn is so naive and believes the old line that we should throw more money at education (even though NO research has shown that it works) or that we should “rescue” the disabled who were receiving and many abusing “cash” payments. This budget led to a much better solution to use housing vouchers.
What reduced revenue does for both government and households is to force a reassessment of what works. Most people really would not be against paying higher taxes for a safety net for the vulnerable or teachers/education if there was authentic accountability that these funds were being used effectively. And this deep critical analysis is what is needed instead of Shawn’s rhetoric using the same-o liberal talking points.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on May 27 at 7:41 a.m.
Its easier to cut money from groups of people who cannot afford the high priced lobbyists to fight for them.
leekinny on May 27 at 7:58 a.m.
” can’t get the job done to the far-left’s satisfaction.”
When the right throws roadblocks in the way to gum up the works the problem becomes obvious that there are way, too many, ‘Medicare destroying Republicans’, in state office as well as federal.
It’s beyond shameful what they our willing to do to the children of their own state and it’s most vulnerable.
leekinny on May 27 at 8:05 a.m.
“we should “rescue” the disabled who were receiving and many abusing “cash” payments.”
I guess you money grubbing, foreign-corporation-rear-end-kissing Republicans, are really proud of the image you see in the mirror. Maybe you might catch one or two percent who don’t deserve rescuing.
Jim9876 on May 27 at 8:15 a.m.
The state problem and the national problem are the same, as is the familiar refrain that “it’s not a revenue problem.” And yes, the people have spoken in agreement. They should be made to feel the consequences. At the state level, we should release more convicted felons, increase class size in our schools, abandon university programs or close some of the universities altogether. At the federal level, we should put Medicare recipients on vouchers immediately, not ten years from now. Oh, and how about getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan?
eagleproducer on May 27 at 8:19 a.m.
Higher education received an increase in funding from the last biennial budget. It’s just not enough to keep up with the cost of health care inflation for the employees who work for the higher ed system in Washington.
“One of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
That quote pretty much explains Ayn Rand and the “new right” in the U.S.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on May 27 at 9:06 a.m.
I was living in Boston during the latter half of Reagan’s presidency. I paid little attention to politics in general then, but I remember reading that Reagan had given a speech justifying some huge budget cuts for mental health programs. He said that the mentally ill don’t want to be confined in institutions, and actually it would be better for them if we closed the institutions and let these people be free. It would be the right thing to do.
Overnight, it seemed, the streets of Boston were full of homeless crazy people, huddling in doorways and the entrances to subway stations, screaming and crying and generally straddling the line between heartbreaking and scary. (Even if you wanted to give them money, they would sometimes snarl at you to scare you away.) They died a lot, too, from exposure to cold in the winter or heat in the summer; meanwhile places like Boston Common and the Fenway became places to stay away from if you didn’t want to get attacked (or step in a pile of human poo).
I hope those people appreciated what a favor Reagan had done for them. I’m sure the politicians who backed his budget cuts felt pretty good about themselves.
gmorton on May 27 at 9:40 a.m.
Shawn Vestal wrote,
“No, ‘we’ don’t have a revenue problem, as long as you’re not counting teachers, whose revenue will be going down by 1.9 percent, or other school employees, whose revenue will drop 3 percent … . the revenue problem doesn’t include disabled adults … Or seniors … Or low-income fetuses – the unborn! – whose at-risk moms won’t be getting nursing support before birth … ”
You nailed it pretty well, Shawn. There is no revenue problem unless you expect the State to act as everyone’s mother, or rich uncle, or year-‘round Santa Claus. If that is the role you insist it play, then you will always have a revenue problem, because the more free lunches you dole out, the longer the lineup at the door.
And of course, you have to pay to keep the cornucopia stocked somehow. You can only do that by seizing wealth from the people who produce it. So while your line at the front door keeps growing, those wealth producers are quietly slipping out the back – to India, Costa Rica, South Carolina, etc.
leekinny on May 27 at 10:03 a.m.
“those wealth producers are quietly slipping out the back – to India, Costa Rica, South Carolina, etc.”
Only those, except for South Carolina, who aren’t loyal to their community, state, or nation.
The vast majority of citizens don’t want to have anything to do with the dark, pessimistic, soulless vision of America held by The Tea Party whipped Republicans. Because of that we will prevail and the party of Tea, me and no will be an asterisk at the bottom of the history books.
mtharves on May 27 at 10:23 a.m.
Here’s a NY Times article supporting Vestal’s argument with some compelling data.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/the-case-for-higher-taxes/
william1977 on May 27 at 10:52 a.m.
We don’t have a revenue problem.
We have a leadership problem, we have a welfare problem, we have ethics issues, and a serious lack of sense in washington state government.
You get “x” dollars. That is it Washington State. Don’t come to us taxpayers wanting more- eliminate, cut, and reduce.
MrNatural on May 27 at 11:02 a.m.
Good article Mr. Vestal…
I do believe in economizing the best we can but this “something for nothing” ideology has got to wise up.
DickAdams on May 27 at 11:12 a.m.
“No man`s, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session”.
Benjamin Franklin
Dazzeetrader11 on May 27 at 11:34 a.m.
Looks like the SPokesman has begun it’s annual political campaign against Parker. Nice goin Shawn.
DId anyone consider that the bloat a state budget has LOTS of waste. This set of cuts is just the most obvious and is just the beginning? Lots to follow.
As long as a state decides to support all functions, Wa St will be broke. SImply put, it’s not right for the state to waste our money on things the unions suck from. Further though, the State has no business being in the “parental role”.
If the State was more business friendly……it’s not…no matter who ques up a link or two sponsored by the State saying how friendly Wa St is….it might have more jobs and more tax money from those who are employed…then the state can fund some things it really needs.
What you’re seeing is the necessary retreat from things the STate shouldn’t have funded in the first place. I hope it continues. Parents: Don’t have kids if you won’t parent them. The State cannot afford you anymore.
Lousy article from the author. One sided and shallow.
eagleproducer on May 27 at 11:34 a.m.
gmoron: There are several states that passed “millionaire taxes” over the last few years and ALL the research indicates there wasn’t an exodus of either wealth or intellectual capital as a result. When it comes down to brass tacks, the U.S. is still a better place to conduct business and live when compared to other options. Sheesh, look at what bin Laden was able to get for his million dollars in Abottabad…
The state isn’t my mother, father or any other type of relative. They are my employer and they have decided to cut my pay even though I’ve jumped through every contractual hoop imaginable to receive negotiated increases. The loss in pay will mean I contribute less to charities whose funding is also being slashed. I hope you can bulid a strong bunker out of your Ayn Rand novels.
The NLRB recently ruled that Boeing can’t “move” to South Carolina because it violates legal contracts they have with their workers. Look at Texas, the supposed business paradise for the last ten years. They are dead dick broke with little hope of recovery because they don’t have an educated populace to dig themselves out of the hole builty by Governor Perry and his moronic minions.
william1977 on May 27 at 11:36 a.m.
One good question to ask- which i can’t seem to find any “direct” answers to..
How much does the state of Washington pay for ALL its employees. A total $$$ amount..
Best i can find is it is broken up by category- but what is the TOTAL. I’m guessing it’s pretty high… $2 Billion?
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/persdetail/default.asp
That would be a great place to start- looking at what is really, truly needed in terms of “employment” to make this state function. I bet it is truly way over employed for the business of running the state services.
Be interested to know that total figure amount in real dollars.
pjc on May 27 at 11:38 a.m.
… but the state certainly has a spending problem.
gmorton on May 27 at 11:48 a.m.
Eagleproducer wrote,
“The NLRB recently ruled that Boeing can’t ‘move’ to South Carolina because it violates legal contracts they have with their workers.”
That is false. There are no “legal contracts” that include any such prohibition. The NLRB’s Acting General Counsel merely declared that the proposed move is a “retaliatory act” for previous strikes, and thus an “unfair labor practice.”
I hope you are better informed on the materials you cover in your classroom.
CougarGold on May 27 at 11:52 a.m.
Here is an interesting historical look at budgets for the State:
http://www.fiscal.wa.gov/FRViewer.aspx?Rpt=Recast+History+Expenditure+Statewide+Summary
Note that there is NO actual budget reduction by dollar, year over year, in this comparative period. Huh, maybe there isn’t a revenue problem afterall?
CougarGold on May 27 at 11:55 a.m.
On that link, you can develop a number of reports. Look at Operating Budgets by Fiscal Year. The particular report that comes up with that link is total ops and cap exp. by biennium. The numbers there are pretty telling too.
gmorton on May 27 at 11:55 a.m.
leekinny wrote,
“Only those, except for South Carolina, who aren’t loyal to their community, state, or nation.”
People who believe they are “entitled” that others serve them and to the fruits of others’ labor, and the political demagogues who pander to them, do not inspire loyalty. They arouse contempt.
gmorton on May 27 at 12:02 p.m.
CougarGold wrote,
“Note that there is NO actual budget reduction by dollar, year over year, in this comparative period. Huh, maybe there isn’t a revenue problem afterall?”
Those figures should be adjusted for inflation (reported in constant dollars) and population growth. But you would still find a constant increase, every biennium.
Like malignant tumors, government always, inexorably grows – until it kills its host.
leekinny on May 27 at 12:37 p.m.
” that others serve them and to the fruits of others’ labor - They arouse contempt.”
You do realize that is bizzare and all encombassing in pointing of the fickle bony finger of contempt. Everyone contributes, in their own way, small and large, well-known and hidden.
It’s a sickness for power-loving and privlaged minds to be blind to the emmence value of the smallest lives among them. Just as someone with a broken leg or cancer would attract our prayers, so, must those suffering from spiritual sickness.
I know that’s really hard (frustrating to the point of eyes popping out) to do and that I’ve had my fill of them, too. But the ‘mercy we show is the Mercy we recieve’, in most faiths, regardless, if the recipent is in a preschool level.
eagleproducer on May 27 at 12:38 p.m.
gmoron: My bad. I was thinking of another corporation who wanted to re-locate to South Carolina and before the courts could rule their move was against negotiated contracts with their workers they withdrew their request claiming the South Carolina didn’t have enough Jethro’s and Elli Mae’s to peform the highly techinical tasks their business requires.
You worry about your kids, mr. libertarian. I’ll concern myself with my students.
eagleproducer on May 27 at 12:40 p.m.
gmorton: Name one “host” that has been killed.
Squid on May 27 at 12:50 p.m.
I agree with one sentence in this article: “Not a revenue problem. What you have, friend, is a spending problem.”
Does anyone realize that whatever money is given to our Government will never be enough and they will always want more? They will spend any money they get, and always be broke. The old “I can’t be broke, I still have checks left” Democrat way of thinking.
Give any independent responsible business owner a week with full control of the Government wallet, and the budget will have a huge pile of extra cash. Or…. you could just keep finding ways to blow it, like one of the stereotypical lottery jackpot winners. Spend your money on luxuries, instead of assets. Give money to people who will blow it and ask for more. That kind of thing.
Yup, Not a revenue problem. What you have, friend, is a spending problem.
leekinny on May 27 at 12:59 p.m.
Just how many factions are their in the party of ‘I’m a uniter not a divider?
There’s the one of…
Paul
Mitchell
the Speaker whose name doesn’t follow the rules of proper English
Cantor
the Munster’s kid
Bat S*** crazy
Palin
etc…etc….etc
If you Republicans were organized and not shaking in your boots terrified of the Tea Party maybe we could move good things ahead. But, as long as you are that fractured and stagnant, you don’t desrve to have your hands anywhere near government.
leekinny on May 27 at 1:05 p.m.
squid:
That’s called prejudice and rationalizing away your own responsibilities to the nation and it’s people. Feels good but it’s only self deception.
mtharves on May 27 at 1:05 p.m.
Squidward,
Please look at the link I sent earlier in this thread to a NY Times article and then look at the graph of federal revenue vs federal spending. Note the short period during the middle to late 90’s when your comment is refuted. We took in more than we spent. We’ve done it before and can do it again.
Squid on May 27 at 1:46 p.m.
My responsibilities are to to give the Government a higher PERCENTAGE of my income? I don’t mind giving more money, as my income goes up, but most taxes are based on a percentage. Just when will the spenders be happy? What percent of my income or spending will be enough? It will never be enough.
The Government (and Democrats) is like a teenage girl….. They will always want more, and the things they “need” keep getting more expensive. Oddly enough, that teenage girl wants money for her friends too, and she has expensive taste.
Gotta learn to live on what you make. Gotta learn that the bread winner doesn’t have a bottomless wallet. Cut up that credit card, because the limit has been reached long ago.
eagleproducer on May 27 at 1:55 p.m.
Squid wants us all to believe he doesn’t have a home mortgage and is debt free at the end of the year, much like he desires his goverment to operate.
Then he deducts his interest for that mortgage off his taxes, forcing those without property or paid-off mortgages to subsidize his lifestyle.
A hypocrite of the highest order.
Tax collections, as a percentage of GDP, are at near all time lows. Quit your freaking whining and cut a check.
Squid on May 27 at 1:57 p.m.
Oh, and by the way…. Remember the days before PC? The days when we would go to war and give it all we had and got out? These days, the bleeders have changed the rules of war, and it is costing us big time. We could have leveled Iraq or Afghanistan in a couple days, but that would be wrong, since innocent citizens and children would be killed. Then, after we are done, we have to help their new form of Government get established, and then rebuild what we destroyed. Makes no sense to me.
The old school way of get in, destroy, make your point, and get out worked much better, and it was cheaper and quicker. An added benefit was that they learned not to mess with us. Now we are mocked with our smart bomb only, then fix what we destroyed strategy. I thought Obama was going to pull our troops out of Afghanistan is three months? Maybe you should blame him, instead of Bush?
nslopeofw on May 27 at 1:58 p.m.
Eagle,
You could work during your 3 month vacation, and easily make up any loss in pay. If one take’s a teacher’a wages, and knowing they only work 9 instead of 12 months a year, @ $40K, that is $4,445 a month vs. $3,334 a month for those who have to work all year. So, if you grabbed a minimum wage job for the summer, and worked the same amount of time as most everyone else, you could easily make up for that cut.
What we have, (using reality, not emotional rhetoric) are our elected officials unable to live with only spending as much as is coming in. It really is very simple. If you get $1000 a year, but spend $1200 a year, you cant stay out of debt. Its simple mathematics that everyone (hopefully still are) learned in grade school.
johnclarke on May 27 at 2:01 p.m.
Right you are Eagle, there is really no argument. Until taxes are returned to like 20-21% of GDP, we will have a shortfall. Simple math that seems to escape those big thinkers on the right. I don’t know why someone can’t just get out the ‘ol pie charts and maybe the pretty colors will help. Where is Ross Perot when you need him.
Squid on May 27 at 2:08 p.m.
I do have a mortgage, I am not debt free, but I do live on the money I earn. I can’t raise my rates any time I feel like I need a new swimming pool, truck, or airplane. (no, I don’t have a swimming pool or airplane, but I would if I could raise my rates, like the Government does)
No one is stopping you from writing a check, but I’m sure that, like all Democrats, you would rather have someone else pay your taxes, so you don’t have to. Kinda like this story that is complaining that the rich need to pay more.
Why can’t you understand that the spending is the problem? Seems pretty clear to me. When I’m broke, I don’t buy a new truck. When the Government is broke, it seems to go on a spending spree and bails out companies that don’t need it. No big deal, right?
nslopeofw on May 27 at 2:13 p.m.
Well, i for one would welcome a flat tax %. Then all the big thinkers on the left could start paying a fair share. If we set a flat rate of 20% for everyone, and 10% for companies, it would work.
Just think of it as a “redistribution of obligation’s” to live in this great nation. Then we could also change the social security tax as well. 10% flat rate for everyone.
We’d all pay our fair shares. Its not unlike wealth redistribution. It just makes it equal for everyone, instead of those who get off with paying little or no taxes.
johnclarke on May 27 at 2:17 p.m.
Squid, there is years and years of clear historical data available. There is no mystery to what the machine needs to keep running, it’s statistics. One thing you and I agree on, spending cuts are in order and the #1 thing on that list has got to be the military and homeland security. Unfortunately the snake oil salesman on the right won’t even consider it, and no President that wants to get relected in these times will appear “weak on terror.”
ManleyPointer on May 27 at 2:17 p.m.
I don’t care what tax rates are. I just don’t want to pay ANY. I’d be good with that.
Squid on May 27 at 2:20 p.m.
nslopeofw, you forgot to mention that they only work part time. Right around 6 hour days, unless they don’t have 6 classes. And then there are those one and two week vacations that most part time jobs don’t have. Holidays that most of us don’t get. You’re right… They could make much better use of their time, if they want to pay more taxes.
Yup, I agree with the flat tax, but like I said, the Dems always want someone else to pay their tax for them, and they would scream about it. That 10% flat tax might be just the thing to keep the Dems from raising taxes, since when it gets raised to 11%, it will be coming out of their pocket too.
CougarGold on May 27 at 2:24 p.m.
johnclarke - military and homeland security spending (your stated desired cuts) are federal and don’t help the state budget much, if any. In fact, I would argue that the state budget would be further harmed as much of that spending is with Boeing and, consequently, our tax revenues would be negatively impacted. I’m not here to argue for or against military spending cuts, only to point out that, for the purposes of this specific story, it’s largely unrelated.
Squid on May 27 at 2:28 p.m.
JC, are you actually saying that you think we should be weak on terrorists? Anyway, it worked for Obama. Remember when he said we would close Gitmo, and stop “torture?”
Scoutster on May 27 at 2:32 p.m.
It is unrealistic to assume that the state government can maintain the same level of services at the same per capita level of taxation AND maintain services.
Here’s an example: a child born with a long-term health issue requires $X in 1999. Twelve years later, that 12 y/o now needs care. That care is not going to cost the same as in 1999. Medical inflation alone will see to that.
Now, add in the fact that this problem is multiplied by the thousands, that the costs of labor and services have gone up, and it is impossible to keep taxing at the same level.
THEN, add in the costs of compliance because so many people are concerned about fraud, waste, and abuse,and the way to control that is to–HIRE MORE PEOPLE! But wait, we don’t want more people on the govt payroll! (I personally think we can solve a lot of our funding problems by being more intelligent about how we manage agencies, but those who hate government often seem to want to hire more white collar policemen because they are sure someone, somewhere is ripping them off.)
Now, some would say: let’s just stop paying for such services. That’s a legitimate point of view, but you will have to deal with the social costs (dead disabled kids in this example).
Scoutster on May 27 at 2:42 p.m.
Good example of what I”m talking about is the headline today: City Hall will now have a security guard.
That costs money. Is it waste? Fraud? Duplication? A union contract? Bad management?
No, it’s a needed service that will increase the costs of doing business.
eagleproducer on May 27 at 2:44 p.m.
manly: thanks for being honest.
Squid on May 27 at 2:55 p.m.
Scoutster, that is why taxes are based on percentages of spending and percentages of income. The beauty is that there is more income for the Government as costs rise. Get it?
As far as the security guard thing goes…. If they use cops, it wouldn’t cost a dime to add security. The cops get paid wherever they are, or whatever they are doing. Make every cop have security duty at City Hall on a rotation. Free security. It’s not necessary to increase costs. Get it?
Scoutster on May 27 at 3:07 p.m.
Squid…
Does your household spend more, percentage wise, on medical care than it did 10 years ago? I’m guessing it does.
Gasoline?
Food?
Taxing people at 18% in 2001 and taxing people at 18% in 2011 does not pay for the same level of services in 2011 as in 2001.
Government services aren’t static, they experience increases in people’s expectations.
Once, we let old people with bad hips suffer. Now we replace them at $75K a shot. Which is better?
Get it?
ManleyPointer on May 27 at 3:12 p.m.
How about those old people pay for their own hip replacements? How about that, hmmm?
Squid on May 27 at 3:34 p.m.
Yup, I do spend more on those things, so the Government gets a percentage of that too. Get it?
My house is worth more, so the Government gets more money. Get it?
My income is higher, so when I make more money, so does the Government. Get it?
Do you think the Government’s overhead is increasing faster than my overhead? Probably, but that would be because it wastes enormous amounts of money and creates new ways to waste it. Get it?
It’s cheaper to maintain and use what we already have. Get it?
We do have higher costs, due to illegal immigration, welfare, and unemployment extensions. Maybe we could pare some off of that to save a buck? Get it?
Efficiency. Cost reduction. Spending freeze. (what happened to that, by the way?) Get it?
Think those hip replacements weren’t paid for through their income taxes, long before they needed them? The Government mismanaged those funds. Just what percentage of that 75K hip replacement is due to Government intrusion, or lack thereof, in the first place? Get it?
Scoutster on May 27 at 4:39 p.m.
Squid..
I’m not trying to argue with you. I am simply pointing out that our expectations of govt are greater every year.
Therefore, it is mathematically impossible that we tax at a per capita equal rate every year without either cutting services or raising taxes. That was the argument folks were making above I was responding to. Sorry you don’t get that.
Now, whatever cause you have for the increases in expectations (immigrants, poor people, rich people, cable TV, bad politicians, the French, whatever) is irrelevant to what I am stating.
To imagine that a Medicaid stay in the hospital today SHOULD cost just as much as it did in 1985 is simply…well, let’s just say it’s not realistic.
(And, no, they didn’t pay for that $75K hip during their working years. In their working years, they paid for their Dad’s services at the time they were delivered. Their new hip today is on me as a working person. Same with SS. They are not savings accounts. Never were.)
ManleyPointer on May 27 at 4:46 p.m.
No, I don’t think those hip replacements were paid for through their income taxes. Income taxes are not properly used for providing hip replacements for seniors.
Squid on May 27 at 4:57 p.m.
Well then, I guess your solution would be to tax everyone 100%. Give them a few groceries at the end of the week, and a place to live. Make them ride bicycles. Democrat Utopia!
Problem is….. 100% taxation still won’t be enough. They learn to spend all that they make.
If we raise taxes 1% every year, then we should be at 100% in 82 years, by your 18% figure. Yay! Actually I think we already pay over 50% in taxes, if you consider all the taxes it took to produce any given product, by all the companies involved in making that product. By my figures, if we raise taxes 1% every year, we can be at 100% taxation in my lifetime!!! YAY!!!!
gmorton on May 27 at 5:44 p.m.
leekinny wrote,
“Everyone contributes, in their own way, small and large, well-known and hidden.”
Contributes to what? Surely not to the cost of government, given that 49% of households pay 0% of federal income taxes.
But that’s what wages, salaries, and profits are for – to compensate those who contribute to some project, in proportion to the value of their contributions.
And, what is the difference between a “hidden” contribution and no contribution?
gmorton on May 27 at 5:49 p.m.
leekinny wrote,
“But the ‘mercy we show is the Mercy we recieve’, in most faiths, regardless, if the recipent is in a preschool level.”
Sounds like something you might do through your church, with your own money, not through the State with other people’s money.
gmorton on May 27 at 5:58 p.m.
Squid wrote,
“Yup, Not a revenue problem. What you have, friend, is a spending problem.”
The tables for Washington State CougarGold linked show that perfectly clearly.
Here’s the graph for all governments in the US, federal, state, and local, as percentages of GDP:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html
Until the advent of the “New Deal,” that percentage hovered around 7%, for 150 years, except during the Civil War.
gmorton on May 27 at 6:10 p.m.
johnclarke wrote,
“Until taxes are returned to like 20-21% of GDP, we will have a shortfall.”
How naive. Once they are at 21%, the parasites will demand more free lunches, and the pols who pander to them in exchange for their votes will deliver them – on credit. Then they’ll insist that taxes must be raised to 25% of GDP. *Ad infinitum*.
That’s been the pattern since the 1930s.
Federal taxes need to be *reduced* to less than 10% of GDP. That would more than pay for the services the Constitution authorizes the gummint to provide.
gmorton on May 27 at 6:24 p.m.
Scoutster wrote,
“Taxing people at 18% in 2001 and taxing people at 18% in 2011 does not pay for the same level of services in 2011 as in 2001.”
Er, yes, it does, unless the costs of government have increased *faster* than the economy has grown, i.e., because more bureaucrats have been hired to do the same job, or their salaries have increased faster than those of the taxpayers.
Both of those are factors, but the “level of services” is not the same either. New “services” (i.e., free lunches) are added in every session of the legislature.
Squid on May 27 at 7:28 p.m.
Thank God! There is someone else who knows what percentage means! I felt so all alone!
Maybe Liberals didn’t do well in math class. Maybe when they vote for a 1% tax increase, they thought that meant one cent???? Suddenly it all makes sense! They feel guilty that they only gave one cent. I GET IT NOW!!!!
Scoutster on May 27 at 7:40 p.m.
Thank you, Squid.
I am pleased to defer to your obviously superior intellect.
You win.
Squid on May 27 at 10:15 p.m.
Say what? Is this some sort of fiendish plot to trick me?
Scoutster on May 28 at 1:56 a.m.
You wouldn’t get it.
william1977 on May 28 at 7:09 a.m.
These posts go in circles..round and round- not unlike how the government and the state here functions.
State gets “x” dollars. That is it. If they can’t manage with that- then someone suffers. just the way it is. No raising taxes, no increasing burdeon on business..
When it’s gone- it’s gone. People need to fend for themselves.
Government- all forms should be :
-very basic
-cover essentials for infrustructure, basic security, and key operations for commerce.
that is it people.
If you need more- then you are not doing your part being a citizen of this country.
Squid on May 28 at 11:03 a.m.
WOW! You’re so clever! You remind me of Wile E. Coyote. Almost had me. Almost!
Gonna keep my eye on you, you rascally little feller!
Bud up, bud up, bud up….. That’s all, folks!
ChefGus/ John Olsen on May 29 at 6:32 a.m.
Late to this thread..but:
The House of Charity houses 110 homeless men, many of whom are Veterans ( yes real veterans, not faux veterans)… and this summer for lack of “funding” ie donations to Catholic Community Services.. the 110 beds will be closed on July 1st. They will remain closed until October 1st. While the meal program at House of Charity will remain intact with a lunch served around 1100 hrs each day the men that “live there” many of whom do hold jobs but cannot get an apartment etc will be sleeping in tents and sleeping bags.
Point here is that instead of 110 Homeless Men being tucked up safe and sound and sober at HOC at 1900 hrs each night, they will be wandering our streets and neighborhoods… and mixing with the punks that already circulate with seeming impunity (ie the stabbing the other day) around in our down town core. hang on to your hats…. j
MrParker is a real supporter of our homeless feeding efforts so i am surprised at his stance on this public safety issue.
eagleproducer on May 30 at 10:47 a.m.
Let’s show Parker what a “revenue problem” looks like by not buying his overpriced coffee drinks.
Citizen on May 31 at 7:05 p.m.
The Spokesman-Review endorsed their golden boy Parker. So much for that dizzy comment above about the S-R’s “annual political campaign against” him. To some, anything short of an accolade is an attack. Laughable.
Put on your big girl pants, move on and stop sulking. If you cannot, time to get out of the kitchen, little barista.