It seems to me that we have for too long allowed two fallacies
into our political discourse. One is a current problem for the
Republican Party, especially in California. This is the fallacy
that you can get out of all your troubles by cutting taxes. It has
become the Republican mantra and favorite campaign slogan.
It seems to me that we have for too long allowed two fallacies into our political discourse. One is a current problem for the Republican Party, especially in California. This is the fallacy that you can get out of all your troubles by cutting taxes. It has become the Republican mantra and favorite campaign slogan.
In bad times, we may find that cutting taxes will temporarily stimulate the economy. In good times, we are told to cut taxes to return government’s excess to the people. Of course, bad times always follow good times and so we are always faced with the solution of cutting taxes to restore our economic health in one manner or another.
At some point, the Republican Party will have to find a new campaign slogan and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association will become irrelevant. The final conclusion of all of this reduction in our “tax burden” will be the abolishment of all government because government would have no money with which to operate.
I think that the State of California has reached that point. The prospect of Democrat vs. Republican wrangling over the budget frankly depresses me. While I do not think that either party is willing to approach this crisis in a responsible manner, the Republican reaction of “no new taxes” appears to be the worst sort of logic.
In the world of business, solving all problems by cutting expenses is a strategy for going out of business. One entrepreneur was often quoted as saying “You can not save your way out of trouble. You have to sell your way out of trouble.” Since going out of business is not an option for government, we need to find some other solution.
The solution proposed in Gov. Davis’s new budget is equally objectionable. Having in the past taken away much of the revenue generated by local taxes, the Sate of California now wants to transfer significant responsibilities from the state to county and city agencies. They are willing to give some additional revenue to local government, but only from those “new taxes” they want to implement, an action which they hope will inoculate these actions from future reductions.
This is really an extension of the shell game that our state Legislature played last year. Rather than being willing to make any fundamental changes, they only moved money around, borrowing from one account to fulfill obligations in another. Now, the state wants to transfer responsibilities without giving those same local agencies control over their own financial future. They seem to count a return of the dot com good times and another period of economic growth to make the crisis go away.
This brings up the hope for perpetual growth, which is the second other fallacy in our discourse. Growth is seen by all as being unending goodness. Every governmental agency encourages growth. Nearly every community in California wants to have growth take place within its boundaries, providing additional tax base to pay for the commitments that have already been made.
Yet, perpetual growth is a fallacy. There are limits that which are set by geography and climate that will eventually limit growth in every area. In California, the ultimate growth limit is probably water, but there are others. For some communities the limit may be transportation. For others, it may be the decline of a key local industry or even a change in the preferred lifestyle of its citizens.
What then, should our legislators be doing between now and June 30? They need to take a hard look at all of the functions of the state government. The first question should really be “is this something that government ought to be doing?” If not, then government should stop doing it.
If the function rightfully belongs to government, then we must consider the second question, how to provide adequate sustainable funding so that programs will continue to be funded into the future. Transferring functions to some other level of government without adequate, sustainable funding is irresponsible. The legislature needs to examine whether rural areas with limited economic bases or growth potential can deliver services on their own.
I doubt that most politicians anywhere would have the political will to go through this process. I am certain that the polarized California Legislature does not. Both major parties will spend the next two years posturing for re-election and never get to the first question, let along the second.
A new television series is based on the premise that a registered independent can play one party off against the other to do good for their constituency. The division in California’s current legislative session is such that this ploy would be irrelevant. We are left with one party playing games with our money while the other only sits around and cries “foul.” Unless there is substantial change in the parties themselves or the further emergence of the Green or Libertarian parties, we will continue to have what we have.
“I find I have a great lot to learn – or unlearn. I seem to know far too much and this knowledge obscures the really significant facts, but I am getting on.” – Charles Rennie Mackintosh
Wes Rolley is an artist and concerned citizen. The Board of Contributors is comprised of local writers whose views appear on Tuesdays and Fridays.
