This article from Bloomberg Politics: (Bloomberg) -- Republican governors meeting in Washington this weekend said financial conditions in their states have deteriorated so much that they must raise taxes, even if it means crossing their own party.
In the face of a historical antipathy deepened by the Tea Party movement, chief executives in Alabama, Nevada and Michigan among other states are proposing increases this year to address shortfalls or to spend more on faltering schools and infrastructure. They advocate higher levies on businesses, tobacco, alcohol and gasoline, in some cases casting the increases as user fees.
The governors are at a crossroads. They are choosing between the path of Governor Sam Brownback in Kansas, who has refused to change course even after tax cuts provoked furious opposition, and that of Alabama’s Robert Bentley, who has said the state’s perennially precarious budget has reached the breaking point. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-23/tax-increases-much-regretted-necessity-for-republican-governors
Michigan it's understandable as Detroit drains 194 million from the state treasury. Add to that the 50 million being lent to distressed school districts and yes they will need to raise taxes. Happens when you have a broken state working it's way out of the hole.
ReplyDeletep.s. Governor Jennifer Granholm signed the biggest tax increase in Michigan history, with most of the $1.4 billion coming from business. The personal income tax—which hits nonincorporated small businesses—was raised to 4.2% from 3.95%, and the Michigan business tax levied a surcharge of 22%.
The state is a mess.
How come no politician can never find a program or spending to cut instead of always needing to raise taxes?
ReplyDeleteWhy is it government never self audits, consolidates similar programs, eliminates waste, outdated programs that have outlived their usefulness?
DeleteGovernment is a growing organism seeking more power, control over people.
Do 101 million Americans really need food aid from 73 different government programs, some collecting from multiple programs? Couldn't 1 aid program provide all the assistance? Food aid was set up to assist the under nourished. Sees it's a great success as 60% of Americans are over weight or obese.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
DeleteJanuary 20, 1981: From Reagan's Inaugural Address.
"How come no politician can never find a program or spending to cut instead of always needing to raise taxes?"
DeleteI actually don't believe this is really true. After the cold war, there was plenty of willingness, even from Republicans, to cut spending to the military. There have been plenty of instances where spending was cut. But, I still find it interesting that the year 1980 marks a sharp growth in our national debt...I wonder what happened right about that time. Hmm.
Max,
DeleteProbably should have been a little clearer.
Overall spending.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/
Rarely goes down and if it does, it's short term.
The real sharp increase came in 2008 and has never retreated from the historic highs.
2008: 2.9 trillion
2015: est 4 trillion.
All that without inflation so says the government.
I get the point you are making Lou, and like a broken record, I keep going to context. No matter who was POTUS, we were going to get a bailout bill. Yeah, it was an off the chart explosion in spending, and it was a 180 degree different response than what was done before the great depression. Whether it was the right move or not, is debatable, but to sort of make an argument that this was spending just for the sake of spending is specious as best. We are currently reaping the fruits of decades, not just eight years, but decades of bad decisions.
DeleteAccording to this http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/indicators/federal-budget-pie-charts Healthcare costs are 26.3%, Social security 24.3%, and defense is 17.3%. Income security, IE food stamps for the deadbeats, is 14.3% Education is 2.5% and environemental spending is 1%. Where do you cut? How do you do it in a way that doesn't create more problems?
For all their wailing, I don't think the Republicans have done anything meaningful here. Not trying to extend our typical pissing contest of saying who is worse, but objectively, this issue of spending is at the heart of every Republican election. I don't dispute their point, but I never hear a realistic plan. Food stamps and other assorted social programs are 14% of the budget. Cutting here is like asking your waiter to hold the garnish, give you all the rest of the food and take 50% off the bill. To me, it's just a stark fact that as boomers age, there is little to no chance of cutting the big budget items, no matter who is POTUS and no matter who controls the other houses.
If our spending is not sustainable, which is what I think your main point is, my return question is why is there not an ounce of focus and why we spend so much? I mean, yeah, 99.2% of everything is Obama's fault, but what about the rest? You and I can't change anything, but just for discussion sake, if we are going to waste time here instead of doing other things, can't we at least discuss creative suggestions once in awhile?
And there in lies the problem. We have worked our way into a serious problem where costs will continue to escalate. Now we have the ACA to consume even more.
DeleteOne day soon:
1. Means testing SS/medicare.
2. Higher taxes for everyone including those who pay nothing.
3. Higher costs/taxes for healthcare.
4. Higher taxes for the SS disability fund bankrupt next year.
The question you have to ask, why is it we did not return to 2009 levels after the emergency? Instead government continues to consume.
Do we really need all the government we have today?
Guess the best thing to do is sit back enjoy the ride until the gov runs out of gas as there is zip you or I can do about it. We made a change with the R's who claimed they would fix it. They like their brother D's just rubber stamp it and send it through afraid voters will not vote for them in the next election.