There has been a lot of conversation taking place, especially on the GOP side, about the billions of borrowing from local governments that takes place in this current budget deal.
Let me start out by saying that if I were to articulate the biggest problem with it — it is the "borrowing" part of it. The last thing that the state should be doing, if we are going to solve our chronic budget woes, is borrow money that has to be repaid (I guess this applies to education as well). Ideally you want to cut state spending to match available revenues — and we already know the state is maxed out on taxes. In the case of the education piece, I would put a repeal of Proposition 98 on the ballot…
Anyways, once we get past the borrowing problem, you get into the question of "from where" you are borrowing the money — for the purposes of this diatribe, local government.
As a taxpayer, I guess being the simple guy that I am, I had a ledger with only two sides — my money, and the money I give to government. I don’t distinguish what services or programs are paid for by which taxes I pay, nor do I track on whether it is federal, state or local taxation. It’s all the same — it’s all money that I have earned that is being taken from me. So for me, my top priority is that "government" pay for what it does without reaching back into my pocket.
But I do want to add a political factor, which frankly impacts my opinion on this issue quite a bit. Last February, the groups that represent local governments (most notably the League of Cities) were passionate advocates for a budget deal that resulting in Californian’s being hit with over $18 billion in higher sales, income and car taxes — as well as a cut in the child tax credit. They also backed the statewide ballot measures that, had the voters not wisely rejected them, would have resulted in another $16 billion in taxes.
One is left to conclude that local government advocates are aok if taxpayers (including their own constituents) are "harmed" by a budget deal, as long as their own budgets are not hit.
So my reservour of sympathy of local governments, politically, who get jammed in this deal is practically non-existant. What is that maxim? Treat others the way you want to be treated?
Pardon the lack of sophisication of these sentiments, which I admit come more from my heart than my head. But it is what it is — I have a high level of resentment for the local politicians who drive the agenda of these groups, and a degree of cynicism for the "good guys" in these groups that don’t leave them, and decry their controversial, anti-taxpayer public policy positions.
Let me get out my violin. Cry me a river.
July 24th, 2009 at 12:00 am
I agree with you, Jon. While, as conservatives, in general, we prefer government spending to be as local as possible, in this case it’s all essentially one pot. Spending needs to be cut at all levels. I strongly object to the borrowing components of this plan, though. That is the very “kicking the can” scenario that I thought we weren’t going to permit this time. Where in the heck are we going to get the money to pay back these cuts to local governments and education? And why should we?
I don’t mind at all if the whole thing falls apart. I still think this is the time to fix the problem once and for all and it is a mistake to let the democrats get away with all of the gimmicks in this plan and with still overspending some $10 to 15 billion on an annual basis (probably more, as the revenue projections in the plan are still grossly exaggerated). And, all the better if it falls apart because of a lack of democrat votes.