Craig,
I'm a California resident and socially liberal, fiscal conservative.
Hello.
I'm 100% against tax increases because of Haliks comments here.
Before we get to the facts, the tone of that comment sounds more emotional than based on the facts.
A reason to support or oppose tax increases is the list of pros of cons in thesituation - but many do it for emotional reasons, whether anti-government ideology (and your tone does not sound like that's the issue at this point), or anecdotal experiences, or resentments over paying tax, etc. It's not easy to argue with those reasons.
While you've made a lot of good points to justify the temporary tax increases, what say you of this?
Thanks. I posted a response previously I might borrow from, but let's answer your points.
Why does the private sector have to drastically cut back workforce during tough times while the public sector largely does not? That is the most frustrating thing for me as a taxpayer, especially one who has worked as a consultant in the public sector and seen the downright laziness and lack of effiency of government workers.
I think that's sometimes true in both sectors. It's easy to see 'government waste' and be very resentful - there's an issue to understand there that sometimes, even inefficient, annoying, wasteful programs can be a net good and reacting with just 'cut it' can be a bad idea.
There are always challenges in 'improving efficiency' in both sectors, but sometime, in the meantime, it can make sense to pick a flawed program over no program. Other times not.
I would challenge the idea that the government hasn't had many cuts; but I'd also suggest that the economic downturn is just the time when some government services and benefits are needed MORE. It's not the time for the new capitol to be built, for the new Leerjet for the governor, for the showy new Beach projects for pleasure; but it is the time for increasing public healthcare for an increase in people who lack insurance.
I know some teachers have been laid off but it doesn't seem like public sector cuts are anywhere near the private sector. Do you have any references to justify tax extensions, instead of reducing the public sector workforce?
Frankly I don't have numbers comparing public and private, but remember part of an economic downturn tends to be private sector employment reductions.
I posted on this before, but the question is, of the three legs of the economy - consumer spending, business spending, government spending - in a downturn when consumer and business spending start a cycle reducing each other and things are crashing, do we want to also cut government and increase the cycle of crash, or do we want to listen to the economists who say that's the time government spending is essential to protecting the economy - keeping businesses open with money reaching consumers?
It IS a time for government to 'tighten its belt' for spending not helping the recover or beneficial to the society - but not all spending, penny wise pound foolish.
I can mention that one statistic I did before - that CA's revenues decreased 24% just as demands for services in the recession went up. That's a damned good reason to keep extending the taxes we had to meet needs and not add a lot of debt (which the constitution prohibits). We should look at all the cuts we can - and Democrats have made many - but a closer look at the budget seems to suggest to many that the choice between the 'cuts to the bone' and extending the tax increases is better made to extend the taxes.
Frankly in my opinion, and this is not about you, I think much of the 'other side' is at the mentality of a child pouting against taxes out of petulant ignorance with basically no idea what the choices are - that's not how to make policy though it is how to get elected in some districts with 'no new taxes' pledges.
I would say take a look at the choices being made, and pick, those cuts or those tax extensions. IMO history supports the more balanced Democrats' approach.
IMO the Republican approach leads to inadequate investment and a smaller pie for the whole society, always increasing the share of the wealth for the rich, and more poverty.
If you think the cuts are more attractive, that's all I can ask is that you looked at it and have your opinion. If you decide the balanced approach is better - we agree.
Either way, I think if you do that you are far ahead of most on the right.
One point I'll make: government spending is not all like a spending budget, where you say 'if I can buy a new boat I will, if I can't afford it I won't'.
It's also spending that is investment - that protects the economy keeping it functioning, that keeps the family in trouble from becoming the homeless, sick, criminal situation, that it can help the economy recover. It's not a business because of that.
Just as an ailing business can often do better by borrowing and cleaning up the store and improving products and advertising, than by selling its stores.