Any economy, no matter how far it falls, will eventually improve. Yes, even with Keansian ideas being put into play. Even an economic collapse will eventually improve, with the possible exception of the one that formed in Ayn Rand’s mind as she was writing Atlas Shrugged. Government shortfalls will eventually end as well. But unless something is clear to taxpayers, they will return.
Basically, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
California is a prime example of what happened. In that state, the people have the ability to put measures on the ballot directly for the people to vote on. They could include just about anything, and often they include measures proposing various programs that require money. But tax increases are incredibly hard to pass, requiring a 2/3 majority to pass any tax increase.
Now, I’m far from a fan of taxes. I see them as legalized theft in their current form. But, especially in California’s case, the people there have been trying to have their cake and eat it too. In their case, and the way plenty of people see it all over the nation, they want low taxes. I don’t blame them. After all, no one wants higher taxes, but when you want all kinds of government programs that take care of things like health care or state parks or whatever, you need to remember that someone needs to pay for it.
As a Libertarian, I tend to vote against programs like those, not necessarily because I think they’re bad, but because they invariably need tax dollars of some sort to run. Even if they’re funded by federal grants, which some folks seem to think is magically appearing money, it’s still our tax dollars and so I oppose them. Many others don’t see it that way. They don’t mind paying extra in taxes for all these services and programs. I don’t mind those folks, since they’re at least being consistent. But far, far to many people in this nation want all the programs and no taxation.
It. Can’t. Happen.
Someone has to pay. As Robert Heinlen once said, “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” It’s true. It may be free to you, but someone is paying. In the case of government programs, that someone is going to be the taxpayers. If you pay taxes, then that means you. Congratulations!
Now, what about those who want the programs, but not increased taxes? Frankly, they’re part of what’s wrong with this nation. They’re oblivious to the basic idea that someone has to pay. Then, when they find out it’s them, they want to get up in arms about it. It’s pathetic really. After all, who did they think it would be?
Now, there is a group of folks who don’t want increased taxes but want programs who are still fairly consistent. They want other programs cut to cover the expense, and I don’t want to be remiss in not mentioning them. But they’re only exempt from me considering them as part of the problem if they are wanting a dollar for dollar cut. You want a $50 million dollar program, then cut $50 million from something else. Otherwise, those taxes are either going to increase, or you’re going to have budget problems down the road.
Like I said, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You’ve got to decide what you want more, programs or low taxes. Which is it?
You can have: High Taxes / High Services; High Taxes / Low Services; or Low Taxes / Low Services. You can’t sustain: Low Taxes / High Services.
Personally, I favor: Low Taxes / Low Services. In fact, the lowest, most evenly spread, non-progressive taxes and the most minimalist, essential, non-intrusive into the private sector, Constitutionally mandated, government services.
IMHO, California’s state economic collapse is a glimpse into our nation’s economic future, if we continue the course of the current administration. Our current Congress and President obviously choose the “High Tax / High Services” California budget model. It’s both humorous and pathetic to hear the President and Rep. Sanford Bishop now start talking about fiscal responsibility and not passing debt to our children. It’s just a prep for the upcoming humongous tax burden, which is the inevitable consequence of their massive spending spree. They sound like such hypocrites.
Cartman,
I agree with one exception. I don’t think government is capable of “High Taxes/High Services” simply because it is government and inherently inefficient. I believe we can have either more or less government period.
Good point Wilson. If you factor in inefficiencies of government, it’s more like: High Taxes / High Costs of Services
I don’t know, I think it’s possible to have high services, but not at a high enough rate to justify the tax rate it would take to support what there is. It’s kind of relative. One service that’s not absolutely vital is “high” to me
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. –George Bernard Shaw
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. –P.J. O’Rourke
True Tom. And by its nature, we can only speak generally because the “necessity of services” and what is “essential” are subjectively in the eye of the beholder. I think there is a consensus however that we cannot sustain the current level of government spending. Despite this, it is unfortunately increasing.
cut 1/3 of the employees in EVERY government agency..Do it based on performance and not seniority, you’d be amazed how light our government can run, I contend that Government employment is a form of welfare
Tim Nelson Says: “cut 1/3 of the employees in EVERY government agency..Do it based on performance and not seniority, you’d be amazed how light our government can run, I contend that Government employment is a form of welfare”
I second that motion.
well, y’all will be happy (in some respects) to know that one particular person (me) is no longer employed with the government
I understand the “cut 1/3 sentiment” but it isn’t even marginally realistic. You couldn’t get away with that in the private sector and certainly not in government. And Tim: Government employment is NOT a form of welfare. We the people demand a multitude of services from the government and someone has to provide them. As I’ve said here before there are literally thousands of government employees that work their butts off every day. Are there slackers; sure but to classify all government employees as welfare recipients serves only to demonstrate your ignorance.
Wilson- Meen there and done that in the private sector, cut 1/4 of the workforce, increased production 10% and went from working 1800 man hours to 925 and did it in 3 weeks!
It’s amazing how many people slack when not properly manged!
but to classify all government employees as welfare recipients serves only to demonstrate your ignorance. I’d say the odds are on my side being more worthless slackers than rump busting bureaucrats
Whatever; how can I; a mere mortal, argue with a managerial wizard such as yourself?
It’s about having the guts to act on the knowledge you have. If people aren’t pushed they slack..If they don’t they need to be your managers.