American Politics MDCLXVIII - Warning! May contain non SB1070 posts

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Everyone wants free stuff. But do these people who do not enjoy the tax burden enjoy the services that are paid for by this tax burden? That is the question.

In this context, the relevant question is whether taxpayers could get the same services for less.

Am I talking to Tormund? "Forced payments?" I guess I'll just respond by using the advice you offer to public employees: If they don't like it, they can quit. I hear The Republic of Congo has very low tax rates.

You were talking about spending cuts as if they were some kind of windfall to taxpayers. It's important to remember where the money came from in the first place. And in fact, we're not talking tax cuts at all. Just no tax increases, so I have a hard time seeing the "benefit" to taxpayers at all.

Public employees are sharing the risks, already. Lack of cost-of-living-adjustment increases are common. Cost reduction from attrition is also common. Several states are using furlough days to save cost.

That sounds exactly like what Christie did in New Jersey, without furloughs, though. And the public employee unions are going apeshit over exactly the steps you outlined.

The other bit to add, too, is that in good economic times, public employees do not see commensurate levels of increase in compensation. One of the differences between public and private sector is that wage levels are less volatile in the public sector. We do not get double year-end bonuses when the times are good, so we should not have to bear extra burden in cost-saving when the times are bad. In the private sector, you take high risks for higher potential rewards. In the public sector, you trade the higher rewards for lower risks.

Okay, I get it. It's your ox getting gored. And you want people who are already hurting due to the recession to cough up more in taxes so you don't have to suffer through a pay freeze. But in fact, I'd agree with you that what you say is generally accurate in terms of the public/private tradeoff, although a lot of private sector employees aren't bonus eligible either. But the whole key is the baseline. Some public sector employees may be "underpaid", and some may be "overpaid". In New Jersey, Christie has argued that the overall package of compensation for most public employees is too high. That may not be true in other states.

What? why should a public employee share the burden of a private employee's pay cut, when the public employee does not share in the benefit?

The public employee shouldn't, because the public employee isn't paying the private employee's salary to begin with. The private employee, on the other hand, was taxed to pay for the public employee's salary, and so should logically receive any benefit of a cut because it was their money to begin with.

Still, ultimately, public employees do share the burden, because the wages for public employees are derived from taxes. When people earn less, they pay less taxes, which will eventually find its way to the budget for the wages of public employees. That typically results in lack of pay increase for the public employee, which is a de facto pay cut given the rise in cost of living.

That's what should happen. The argument in New Jersey was that it wasn't happening, and that public employees were going to continue getting pay raises when the rest of the state was in the shitter.

[TrackerNeil]

That's possible, but I don't think so. Christie does not appear to be, at least yet, the type of compromising waffler who gives up just because he's taking flak. He's popular precisely because he has refused to take the easy way out and increase taxes. Which isn't surprising because New Jersey already is the most heavily taxes state in the entire country.

I'm not sure how popular a guy with a 43% approval rating is, but I guess if you pay attention only to Rasmussen your point is fair. However, I'd point out that Christie has not had enough time in office for voters to feel the pain of his service cuts...that is, assuming he really makes them. I suspect Christie's not going to cut anything popular, which means he won't save very much money and won't reduce the debt. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Oh, and TerraPrime's laughter at your assertion about voters be willing to pay higher local taxes for valued services? I'd like to double down on that. Voters are rarely willing to pay higher taxes under any circumstances, particularly when they are being asked to vote on doing so.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'm not sure how popular a guy with a 43% approval rating is, but I guess if you pay attention only to Rasmussen your point is fair.

Okay, then I'll just say that he's doing exactly what he said he'd do during the campaign. Whether he gets reelected or not is a different issue.

However, I'd point out that Christie has not had enough time in office for voters to feel the pain of his service cuts...that is, assuming he really makes them. I suspect Christie's not going to cut anything popular, which means he won't save very much money and won't reduce the debt. But I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I can't link right now, but it seems that the freeze he imposed already closed the gap.

Oh, and TerraPrime's laughter at your assertion about voters be willing to pay higher local taxes for valued services? I'd like to double down on that. Voters are rarely willing to pay higher taxes under any circumstances, particularly when they are being asked to vote on doing so.

Democracy is a bitch, ain't it?

[Nymeria Sand]

As one of the aforementioned government/public sector employees, I'd just like to add that we do work within budgets--it's not a bottomless pit or free piggy bank we have. We lay off people when necessary. And we are always, ALWAYS conscious of just whose money it is we're spending. We know we answer to the taxpayers of the United States of America.

And the pay sucks. I could make three times in the private sector what I do in the public.

[TrackerNeil]

Democracy is a bitch, ain't it?

Why FLoW...are you proposing that democracy is the cause of New Jersey's fiscal difficulties? Perhaps you'd prefer another system of government.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Why FLoW...are you proposing that democracy is the cause of New Jersey's fiscal difficulties? Perhaps you'd prefer another system of government.

Of course I'd say that a democratic form of government created the problems in NJ, but it also can fix them. Why would that suggest another form of government?

I do think that democracies make better decisions where benefits are more clearly tied to taxes, though. That's why voters, when faced with the a direct question of raising of taxes to pay for a program on a local basis, are more likely to vote it down. When benefits are provided and taxes collected at higher level, the link between the two is more attenuated, and people are more likely to vote themselves benefits without regard to cost.

[BloodRider]

Spin this Arizonians.

[Lord Mord]

BloodRider,

Spin this Arizonians.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to see. The lightening is suspect but not downright anything in particular, just opportune. OTOH, the remark that the mural was only painted in the first place to stir up controversy is utter bullshit and offends basic reason, let alone any moral sensibilities.

[BloodRider]

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to see. The lightening is suspect but not downright anything in particular, just opportune. OTOH, the remark that the mural was only painted in the first place to stir up controversy is utter bullshit and offends basic reason, let alone any moral sensibilities.

I get what you are saying about the mural. It was the radio show that got me riled, which I guess you agree with. It runs parallel with the whole coy racism - where they give just enough wiggle room to avoid blatant racism. But it seems pretty obvious what goal they are shooting for. Thus the "spin this" comment. 'Cause that's what I expect to see.

Neo-Con waves two fingers:

"This is not the racist tea party you think you saw."

[TrackerNeil]

I do think that democracies make better decisions where benefits are more clearly tied to taxes, though. That's why voters, when faced with the a direct question of raising of taxes to pay for a program on a local basis, are more likely to vote it down. When benefits are provided and taxes collected at higher level, the link between the two is more attenuated, and people are more likely to vote themselves benefits without regard to cost.

I agree, but I'd point out that when tax cuts are funded through deficit spending the problem only gets worse. Jonathan Chait talks about this alot, and I can only give a very loose paraphrasing of what he's said more eloquently. Essentially, Republicans are unwilling to raise taxes no matter the need, and they are unable to significantly cut spending because that means touching defense spending or entitlements. Cutting the first means they're against the troops, and cutting the second means shorting very popular plans like Medicare, Social Security, and so forth. (We saw what happened to GWB in 2005 when he proposed privatizing SS.)Therefore they continually find themselves unable to significantly advance their own agenda because there is just no money for it.

The last Republican president to raise taxes was George HW Bush, as part of a deal with congressional Democrats that involved both tax hikes and spending cuts, and he got hammered for it by his own party, even though most agree it was the responsible thing to do. But it's as if Republicans are no longer concerned with being responsible; they just want to cut taxes. It's crazy, but there you have it.

To come back to the discussion, you just can't expect most Americans to vote to raise their own taxes; people just aren't wired that way. That's what legislators are for, among other things, but these days they can't do even that without Republicans running filibusters or shutting down government or some other loony stunt. Or, like Governor Christie, suggesting that huge debts can be paid down by spending cuts that they themselves aren't truly willing to make and Americans aren't willing to tolerate. Small wonder, then that Americans think they can have both low taxes and a high level of services.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I agree, but I'd point out that when tax cuts are funded through deficit spending the problem only gets worse. Jonathan Chait talks about this alot, and I can only give a very loose paraphrasing of what he's said more eloquently. Essentially, Republicans are unwilling to raise taxes no matter the need, and they are unable to significantly cut spending because that means touching defense spending or entitlements. Cutting the first means they're against the troops, and cutting the second means shorting very popular plans like Medicare, Social Security, and so forth. (We saw what happened to GWB in 2005 when he proposed privatizing SS.)Therefore they continually find themselves unable to significantly advance their own agenda because there is just no money for it.

The last Republican president to raise taxes was George HW Bush, as part of a deal with congressional Democrats that involved both tax hikes and spending cuts, and he got hammered for it by his own party, even though most agree it was the responsible thing to do. But it's as if Republicans are no longer concerned with being responsible; they just want to cut taxes. It's crazy, but there you have it.

To come back to the discussion, you just can't expect most Americans to vote to raise their own taxes; people just aren't wired that way. That's what legislators are for, among other things, but these days they can't do even that without Republicans running filibusters or shutting down government or some other loony stunt. Or, like Governor Christie, suggesting that huge debts can be paid down by spending cuts that they themselves aren't truly willing to make and Americans aren't willing to tolerate. Small wonder, then that Americans think they can have both low taxes and a high level of services.

Regardless of what generic "Republicans" may do, Christie isn't ducking anything. He has chosen cuts, or at least a freeze, over higher taxes. He's also said that he doesn't care if it's popular or not, that he ran on a certain platform and will stick to it. Deficit spending isn't an option, so at some point, voters will have to choose between less taxes and fewer services (or perhaps just less compensation for public employees) and higher taxes.

And sticking to what he campaigned on is exactly why he's so popular with Republicans who are sick of GOP politicians who compromise too much, because those compromises always result in more spending.

[TrackerNeil]

Regardless of what generic "Republicans" may do, Christie isn't ducking anything. He has chosen cuts, or at least a freeze, over higher taxes. He's also said that he doesn't care if it's popular or not, that he ran on a certain platform and will stick to it. Deficit spending isn't an option, so at some point, voters will have to choose between less taxes and fewer services (or perhaps just less compensation for public employees) and higher taxes.

Christie really hasn't chosen to take responsibility for the cuts; he's letting school districts bear that burden. As to his platform, it was innately dishonest, because he simply can't eliminate $32 billion in debt through spending cuts, particularly when he also wants to reduce taxes. His platform was remarkably vague, however, so I imagine it would be difficult not to stick to it.

[lokisnow]

Christie really hasn't chosen to take responsibility for the cuts; he's letting school districts bear that burden. As to his platform, it was innately dishonest, because he simply can't eliminate $32 billion in debt through spending cuts, particularly when he also wants to reduce taxes. His platform was remarkably vague, however, so I imagine it would be difficult not to stick to it.

Not to mention that reducing taxes means a corresponding increase in the amount of spending needed to be cut.

That is to say, if he pushes through a 10 billion tax cut, it increases his spending cuts from 32 billion in debt to 40 billion in debt, and more likely incrases it to 41 billion or more.

Remember tax cuts pay for only 11% of themselves in a worst case scenario and for about 30% of themselves in a best case scenario (90s tech boom). So a tax cut of 10 billion needs a spending cut of 8.9 billion to accompany it in order for the tax cut to NOT increase the debt load.

Japan's lost decade was so much fun for them. I'm glad our American deficit hawks, by all their retarded hawking, are ensuring America will have a lost decade as well. Stupid stupid stupid to give a shit about the deficit when unemployment is where it is.

[Watcher]

To come back to the discussion, you just can't expect most Americans to vote to raise their own taxes; people just aren't wired that way. That's what legislators are for, among other things, but these days they can't do even that without Republicans running filibusters or shutting down government or some other loony stunt. Or, like Governor Christie, suggesting that huge debts can be paid down by spending cuts that they themselves aren't truly willing to make and Americans aren't willing to tolerate. Small wonder, then that Americans think they can have both low taxes and a high level of services.

To give a real life counter Arizona, for once did something right, just overwhelming (64%) voted a 1 cent per dollar sales tax increase. It's supposed to expire in 3 years and raise a billion dollars a year. That will help close a projected $2 billion deficit. OTOH our republican controlled government cowardly punted the tax increase decision to the voters instead of doing what we pay them for. They're more concerned with keeping the "browns" down then trying to find solutions to our budget.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Triskele,

Yeah, lots of people only worry about deficits when they're most needed.

I suppose Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain, and Hungary just need to borrow some more money?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Christie really hasn't chosen to take responsibility for the cuts; he's letting school districts bear that burden.

So Christie isn't responsible for those cuts? Wow, I guess "Worker's World" :commie: is going after the wrong guy.

http://www.workers.org/2010/us/christie_0610/

As to his platform, it was innately dishonest, because he simply can't eliminate $32 billion in debt through spending cuts, particularly when he also wants to reduce taxes.

Well, he never promised to eliminate the pre-existing $32B debt, so I don't see how you can call his platform dishonest. But the truth is that there's no reason why he can't reduce the total debt without hiking taxes, or even with lowering taxes. He already eliminated the entire annual deficit in just one year with a freeze. Any additional cuts he makes are gravy from which some combination of reduced taxes and/or debt reduction can be had.

What you really mean is "he can't [balance the budget/reduce debt] without cutting programs I don't want to see cut." But I wonder -- why is NJ already the highest taxed state in the entire country? How can 49 other states survive on less?

His platform was remarkably vague, however, so I imagine it would be difficult not to stick to it.

http://www.christiefornj.com/about/88-ways-chris-christie-will-fix-nj.html

[awesome possum]

But I wonder -- why is NJ already the highest taxed state in the entire country? How can 49 other states survive on less?

I wonder where you get that NJ is the highest taxed state in the country? I've searched for actual data to back this claim up but can't find it. It's one of the most taxed states, yes. But it also, as of 2008, had the second highest median income in the country. Gee whiz, who ever thought that a state whose people make more than the vast majority of other states on average would also pay more taxes on average. It's not like the two go hand in hand or anything.

But thanks for your intellectual dishonesty.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I wonder where you get that NJ is the highest taxed state in the country? I've searched for actual data to back this claim up but can't find it.

Gee, I googled "New Jersey Taxes Highest in Country", and you'll never guess the very first thing that popped up:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/44.html

It's one of the most taxed states, yes. But it also, as of 2008, had the second highest median income in the country. Gee whiz, who ever thought that a state whose people make more than the vast majority of other states on average would also pay more taxes on average. It's not like the two go hand in hand or anything.

They have the highest state and local tax rates in the country. Which almost stands your argument on its head, because if they are the wealthiest, you'd think their rates wouldn't need to be nearly as high, would you? Unless, maybe, you had a hugely bloated patronage form of government that wasted money because it was so easy come, easy go.

Not surprisingly, when you figure in corporate tax rates, etc., it turns out it also has the worst tax climate for businesses in the entire country as well. Same link.

But thanks for your intellectual dishonesty.

You're welcome.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

But the bottom line is that mass unemployment is a bigger problem than a huge debt is. Mass unemployment is the worst thing an economy can face, so if more spending can battle unemployment, it's a risk worth taking.

I realize that whether or not spending can help is an entirely other discussion.

But isn't that "other discussion" really the predicate for the entire point? And why does it need to be government spending anyway?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yes, that's a fair point. Here's a bit of a breakdown of the way I see it.

-If spending cannot ever help an economy or unemployment numbers, than the entire conversation may be moot, but

-not everyone agrees on that, and if spending can help those things, then it's logical that such spending would be much more important in more difficult economic times.

-Also, if US debt doesn't matter in the way that it does in other countries, then there's an even stronger argument for spending in difficult economic times.

There are a lot of ifs, but it helps to underscore the complications of the current situation.]

Fair enough. I don't think those are issues on which it is easy to agree, but at least acknowledging that there are legitimate questions about them is a fair compromise.

ETA: Just to clarify my own position, I am not positive that running deficit is the right move, but I suspect that it could be. I just get frustrated with how many voters seem to get really upset about a deficit at precisely the moment when it might be a good idea to have a deficit.

I think you're answering your own question, though. It may be because those are the voters who don't believe that a deficit is the right solution, particularly oe of this unprecedented magnitude. I mean, I don't think the outcry is "no deficit at all", but rather "no deficit of this unholy magnitude."

And on a related point, though not specifically related to the deficit itself, I think there is a sense that looking as the government as the engine to fix this may be the wrong place to look. By that logic, the primary question we should be asking is not "how can we create jobs", but rather "how can we best encourage private industry to create jobs". Those are, at bottom, two completely different ways of looking at the problem that will lead to two completely different courses of action. The simplest way to "create jobs" is for the government to hand out a bunch of money and pay people to work. But if you ask the question from the perspective of private jobs, that's about the last thing you'd want to do.