To the editor:
The proposal by Kansas House Republican leaders to divert highway funds to pay for a cut in state income tax is a striking example of what my mother (in my youth) would have called “cutting off your nose to spite your face.”
When ideology (lower taxes lead to less government) trumps common sense (better highways lead to a stronger economy), what the residents of Kansas get is not less government but less effective government.
Similarly, many of Gov. Brownback’s recommendations to privatize — e.g. the administration of Medicaid — are likely to lead not to enhanced economy and efficiency but to 1) an added layer of bureaucracy and 2) diminished resources available to Medicaid clients.
The balance between government and private enterprise that, in the long run, works best and most equitably and fairly in both the public and private arenas, seems to be getting tipped on its head in Kansas at present.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Kansas does not need more highways until it can afford to take care of what we own. Under Sam Brownback a even a solid maintenance program is history.
What is Sam Brownback doing with our tax dollars? Where are they going?
grammaddy (anonymous) replies…
To the Koch brothers to be banked away for his presidential run in 2016.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
The usual suspects are up early this morning. Who has dibs on the "global warming" talking point?
Getaroom (anonymous) replies…
Today we will leave that conversation to the thousands of sane and rational experts in the field and not to the whopping the 16 "experts" paid the Koch Bros. et.al.)
Although there does seem to be a strong hot wind of denier coming from some cereal that lost its pizzaz after too long in the bowl.
tange (anonymous) says…
There does appear to be a rather common scent wafting from Topeka, these days.
BornAgainAmerican (anonymous) replies…
Tell Scott to take a shower.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
"When ideology (lower taxes lead to less government) trumps common sense (better highways lead to a stronger economy)"
But your ideology is trumping common sense here. You seem to think that less government means we can't have better highways. That's like saying that smaller government will lead to fewer cheeseburgers. It's just your ideology and no common sense.
"the residents of Kansas get is not less government but less effective government."
Since governments are only effective in being parasites on society then the less effective it is the better of society is.
voevoda (anonymous) replies…
I see that you're a proponent of converting all our highways to toll roads, Liberty_One. No thanks.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
All roads are toll roads, don't you know? There's no such thing as a free lunch.
voevoda (anonymous) replies…
Personally, I'd rather let the government figure out where we should have roads, and build and maintain them, and pay for them in taxes. What if a mismanaged private company goes out of business, closes the road (or lets it decay into impassability), and leaves commuters unable to get to work? What if private companies build a dozen competing roads between here and Kansas City, but no company invests in a highway between here and Topeka, because it can't make enough money fast enough? Private enterprise may be the best way to increase some people's wealth, but it's often not the best way to supply the needs of the public.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Gee, if a gas station closes, how will anyone ever get gas? What if competing gas stations build a bunch of stations in Lawrence, but none in Topeka?
Oh wait, these are silly problems that never happen just like your scenarios.
"Private enterprise may be the best way to increase some people's wealth, but it's often not the best way to supply the needs of the public. "
Sigh. The definition of a successful private company is one that serves the public's needs the best by offering those goods and services most in demand by the public.
And hey, that's great that you personally want that, and I have no problem letting you do that. How about you let me and anyone else who wants to opt-out? You see, my plans don't require the use of government coercion to work. They work just fine without any violence at all. Your plans always seem to require forcing others to do things they don't want to do.
Even so, strangely enough I'd wager you think you're more moral than me...
voevoda (anonymous) replies…
Roads and gas stations aren't the same thing, Liberty_One, so your analogy is nonsensical.
Your plans always seem to involve denying people public services, Liberty_One, even though most of us want them and are willing to pay for them. You're not advocating liberty, Liberty_One; you're advocating anarchy. You're advocating the suppression of the government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
You can opt out of using public services any time you want, Liberty_One. Nobody forces you to use public roads, or public water, or public offices, or public schools.
If you're not willing to pay any taxes for anything you don't like, you have the following choices:
1) Vote for candidates who think the way you do. If you're in the majority, then you'll get your way.
2) Be self-employed, and live a subsistence existence on rented land, using no public services and buying nothing and selling nothing. Then you won't have to pay any taxes. And you'll have complete autonomy--something that ought to appeal to you.
3) Move to a country that doesn't have taxes on its citizens. If you can find one and think you'd be safe there.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
"Roads and gas stations aren't the same thing, Liberty_One, so your analogy is nonsensical."
No, the analogy is apt because your questions were of the absurd kind that without some sort of guiding hand, market actors will not get it "right," yet they clearly do get it right all the time.
"Your plans always seem to involve denying people public services"
Public services is a euphemism for loot. And yes, I want to deny people a share of the loot and to return the loot to its rightful owner.
"even though most of us want them and are willing to pay for them. "
If most everyone wanted these things and was willing to pay for it, then why on earth do you need the government to do it? There's no law of physics that dictates that a private company can't build and run a highway. It's the very fact that you DON'T think that everyone wants these things so much that they are wiling to pay for them that makes you believe government coercion is necessary.
"You're not advocating liberty, Liberty_One; you're advocating anarchy.'
False. I'm advocating the minimum government necessary.
"You're advocating the suppression of the government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
You make the false assumption that all the people agree. Clearly they do not.
"You can opt out of using public services any time you want"
The problem is opting out of paying for them.
"If you're not willing to pay any taxes for anything you don't like, you have the following choices:"
Your choices ignore the fact that YOU are the aggressor, not me. You are the one violating my rights and you have the gall to tell me if I don't like I should leave the country or just abandon society or vote in people who will enforce my will upon you? You are the aggressor into my rights, and as such, you have these choices:
A) convince others to voluntarily contribute to your schemes
B) pay for them yourself
C) learn to live without them
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
Love your music.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
:-)