Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs I Like Ice Cream

I don't think we've been lied to THAT well

Advertisement

The crazy tax plan, by itself, isn't really the problem in my opinion. One learns to expect this kind of thing from certain types of politicians.

Democrats raise typically raise taxes to provide services. Republicans lower taxes and cut services.

There's a basic expectation, or there should be, that government services and taxes offset one another. If a street light costs $10 per year to operate, then $10 in taxes comes from somewhere. This doesn't strike me as terribly difficult math.

I never really understood why the Governor's office kept championing the tax plan that's on his desk right now. The projected state budget deficit quit being an "if" and turned into a "how massively huge?"

The "Dynamic Scoring Method" mentioned a couple of days ago was about the last straw. I read that as, "I'm going to give you some numbers I grabbed out of a hat, and call them 'budget projections.'" It's just plain insulting.

The "why" is easily enough explained. Cutting social programs, like education and public safety and victim's advocacy programs, is easier to to explain when there's a "budget crisis" going on "right now!"

Why there's a budget crises never comes up during the program cuts, or is inaccurately described. It's all a very dishonest process.

If taxes are going to be cut, that should be done along with funding for some government program or another. Cut $10 tax revenue, turn off that streetlight. That sort of thing.

Today, Scott Rothschild wrote an article about another tax plan going through the legislature. I'm not usually the conspiracy theory type, but I think that one's a red herring. It's not going to pass, and Brownback's going to be "forced" to sign a less-popular, budge-crisis inducing tax plan currently justified by a "Dynamic Scoring Method." That way, we get a horribly imbalanced state budget, and folks blame the legislature, rather than focusing on Brownback himself.

Here's to hoping I'm wrong.

Really, what's the problem with the concept of defining the role of government, then levying taxes that properly cover that cost?

Comments

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.