In the United States, it would be difficult for anyone to be unaware that it is election season. We are all being barraged by election/campaign messages—on our televisions, on our telephones, in our mailboxes.
Here in Illinois, our Democratic governor is up for re-election (this is the man who became governor when the infamous Rod Blagojevich was impeached, so this man was never elected governor on his own); and the man who was our state Treasurer is running for the Senate, to fill the seat once occupied by Barack Obama.
The State of Illinois is financially in crisis, with a huge budget deficit. Both the governor and the state Treasurer have said that, to rectify the deficit, our state income tax should be increased from 3% to 4%.
Probably no one likes to pay more taxes and, not surprisingly, Republicans are using pro–tax-increase statements by the Governor and the Treasurer as ammunition against them. Both the Republican party and the Tea Party keep railing against "big government" and politicians who want to increase taxes.
Now, let's remember that Bill Clinton left office with a surplus in the national budget. His successor, George W. Bush, cut taxes—and thus turned Clinton's budget surplus into a big deficit.
The conservatives who don't like tax increases also complain that the national debt is a "burden passed on to our children and grandchildren." They don't like the deficit but they don't like tax increases. Can you say "inconsistency"?
Also: the very same conservatives who don't like tax increases very generally support wars. The United States is fighting a war—no, two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan. These wars are expensive beyond most people's imagination. How do we pay for these wars, or any war? If the government does not have enough revenue coming in, it prints money or it borrows-- for example, by issuing Treasury bonds. (The relationship between government borrowing and "printing money" is a complex matter which I won't go into here.) This adds to the national debt.
So I'd like to ask the anti-tax folks if they'd favor immediately ending those wars. I think I know what they'd say. No, cut federal spending somewhere else.
Several government missions, like protecting us from unsafe food and unsafe drugs, are already underfunded. We've seen outbreaks of food-borne illnesses. The E. coli outbreaks caused by ground beef can be laid at the door of the Bush administration, which managed to not implement a Congressional mandate to increase inspection of meat-processing plants.
To some of the extreme anti-government people, I'd like to ask, Do you want the government to no longer help ensure the safety of our food, water, air, medicine?
Would you like the government to not have fire trucks to come to your aid when your house is on fire? To stop building roads? (By the way, we already have a near-crisis of deteriorating infrastructure: roads, bridges, sewer lines, and so forth.) To not install traffic lights?
Sure, let's just rely on the food industry to police itself. We all know that we can absolutely trust large business to act in the public interest.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For example, the people who divide and conquer the working & middle class don't care much about public services and safety net. Their vast wealth pretty much allows them to take of of their own protection and needs. Except chasing Osama Bin Laden. The income differential between the upper managerial levels and working people has expanded beyond belief.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed looking thru your blog. Thanks!
Unfortunately there are way too many Americans who expect and want all kind of things without paying a price. So many people are quick to label public initiatives as socialist and see taxes as no more than a tool for private manipulation, pleasure, and personal benefit. A political leader near but by no means dear to me commented awhile back on how he expected service workers to live with lesser means and always in the house lesser than his. I suppose by this mentality all service workers and service providers should be thankful they aren't expected to squeeze into some cramped old world bare to the bones maids type quarters where even meager means of existence are only to benefit wealthy estate owners. How colonial! I don't mean to sound inappreciative personally for business from any in my community who are financially better off but can't help but think remarks as this are haughty, deliberately disrespectful, unprofessional, tasteless, and very inappreciative to any who enrich American lives by providing services wanted. I would like to stress that nothing is for free and there are no free rides. I wish this particular subject were to be more stressed in American education so that by the time an individual makes it to a position of high management or political leadership they might be thoroughly aware and appreciative of the service sector and its contributions to our economy. Then everyone including our leaders would be eager and greatful to compensate those who daily help them without resentment for a job well done.
ReplyDelete