Sunday, October 25, 2009
Ruminations...
After yet another discussion with my oft-mentioned buddy Scott concering New York's various attempt to raise revenue and cut spending, I had an epiphany.
As a conservative, it would be easy to rail against the massive deficit spending, government programs, and various taxes increases New York is inflicting on it's populace (with plenty more coming, of that I'm certain) On the other hand, as a civil servant it's more than a little hypocritical of me to even broach the subject, and this has been pointed out to me on more than one occasion.
I can only reply that this is a valid point, but the crux of my argument is that I know what I have will eventually be lost; it's only a matter of time. Few things last forever. Some will have the good fortune to ride the beneficent wave to their own end, but I know that will not be among them. Our economic existence is as finite as anything else, but we as a society are hastening our own downfall with frightening abandon.
This brings me back to my discussions with Scott. While we both agree that collectively we are living well beyond our means and paying for our prior excesses will be hideously painful, we diverge on how this should be done. Spending cuts are required, and higher education will not be spared. Community colleges will be hit, as will SUNY and CUNY. I'm not certain how much Albany supports the CUNY system, but it does. While New York will cut expenses, it will do so in a way that drives conservatives nuts. Instead of eliminating programs, the state will cut spending accross the board. This is political code for "We will restore this social program as soon as we can get away with it." If they were truly serious about our crippled finances, programs would be gone permanently.
So far so good. The above point of view is hardly uncommon. It is hardly heeded. Anyway, let me return (finally) to my epiphany. Scott was railing against the newest taxes from Westchester County and Albany, which add new charges for collecting sales tax (yes, you must now pay for the privilege of collecting sales tax for New York), and paying for a class in mowing lawns. Yes, these are ridiculous, and this is not where Scott and I disagree. We diverge on this point: taxes in New York must go up. There isn't enough potential savings available in the present political climate to avoid new fees. I'm a little pissed I need to buy new plates for my car, but that may not go through. The dirty little secret of New York is that is effectively a welfare state. Wall Street's massive pay allowed NYC, Westchester, and the state to redistribute wealth to the poor in NYC and Upstate without the common person starting armed revolution. Yes, we live in a very high tax state, but it would have been much worse if Wall Street didn't take money from all over the nation and the world and give it to a few New Yorkers. It's no coincidence that the darkest financial hour in New York State's history (the budget crisis in '74) occurred during a crippling bear market.
So I don't want to pay higher taxes, but I realized the following: everyone in New York (and America), knowingly or unknowingly, actively or passively, has been benefiting from the waste and deficit spending for decades. We are all guilty, whether we want to admit it or not. Everyone has been getting services from the government paid with borrowed money from the Chinese, Japanese, whomever. If you've received care from a nurse educated by WCC, you have benefited from government waste. His tuition was subsidized by the county and state government, and he may have received financial aid paid again with deficit spending. The tax cuts that increased your paycheck in 2002 were paid by deficits. There were no attendant spending cuts. You may have railed against the $8000 home buyer tax credit (and rightfully so...), but did you also protest the deductions you received for mortgage interest and/or property tax? I doubt it. I certainly didn't. As such I'm as much to blame as someone receiving welfare, SSI/D, etc. I get something for nothing just like everyone else, including Scott, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh. It's not like I sent the IRS more money.
Finally, and I say this specifically to my fellow conservatives, the deficit spending truly mushroomed under Reagan. He wanted to resurrect the American economy, and he did it though deficit spending. While the percentages (and dollar amounts) are minuscule compared to today, the philosophy of something for nothing was cemented during this period. It helped that the most spoiled generation in American history came of age during this time. Yes, I speak of Baby Boomers and yes, I'm a bitter Gen-X'er. Don't shoot the messenger, OK? It's amazing that at the time, deficit spending was seen as a risky political proposition. It is risky, but not politically. Dick Cheney once quipped the "Deficits don't matter." People take the quote out of context. Cheney knew that deficits do matter - economically. Politically, you're safer spending money you don't have than petting kittens at a rally. You won't piss off dog lovers or those allergic to cats with brand new military hardware built in a favored congressional district. Everyone loves jobs; not everyone loves cats.
In fact, the true political risk comes from closing deficits. Elder Bush was raked over the coals when he tried to raise revenue. Of course, he exacerbated the situation with "Read my lips." Dude, those lips lie! Because people don't realize they are part of the problem, they don't want to be part of the solution. In this case, higher taxes are part of the solution, as disgusted as I am to say it. These taxes won't even pay for new services; they'll just pay off the national (and my state's) credit card. Eventually, we will need to make radical changes to sacred cows like Social Security and Medicare, but that will be tackled another day.
As a conservative, it would be easy to rail against the massive deficit spending, government programs, and various taxes increases New York is inflicting on it's populace (with plenty more coming, of that I'm certain) On the other hand, as a civil servant it's more than a little hypocritical of me to even broach the subject, and this has been pointed out to me on more than one occasion.
I can only reply that this is a valid point, but the crux of my argument is that I know what I have will eventually be lost; it's only a matter of time. Few things last forever. Some will have the good fortune to ride the beneficent wave to their own end, but I know that will not be among them. Our economic existence is as finite as anything else, but we as a society are hastening our own downfall with frightening abandon.
This brings me back to my discussions with Scott. While we both agree that collectively we are living well beyond our means and paying for our prior excesses will be hideously painful, we diverge on how this should be done. Spending cuts are required, and higher education will not be spared. Community colleges will be hit, as will SUNY and CUNY. I'm not certain how much Albany supports the CUNY system, but it does. While New York will cut expenses, it will do so in a way that drives conservatives nuts. Instead of eliminating programs, the state will cut spending accross the board. This is political code for "We will restore this social program as soon as we can get away with it." If they were truly serious about our crippled finances, programs would be gone permanently.
So far so good. The above point of view is hardly uncommon. It is hardly heeded. Anyway, let me return (finally) to my epiphany. Scott was railing against the newest taxes from Westchester County and Albany, which add new charges for collecting sales tax (yes, you must now pay for the privilege of collecting sales tax for New York), and paying for a class in mowing lawns. Yes, these are ridiculous, and this is not where Scott and I disagree. We diverge on this point: taxes in New York must go up. There isn't enough potential savings available in the present political climate to avoid new fees. I'm a little pissed I need to buy new plates for my car, but that may not go through. The dirty little secret of New York is that is effectively a welfare state. Wall Street's massive pay allowed NYC, Westchester, and the state to redistribute wealth to the poor in NYC and Upstate without the common person starting armed revolution. Yes, we live in a very high tax state, but it would have been much worse if Wall Street didn't take money from all over the nation and the world and give it to a few New Yorkers. It's no coincidence that the darkest financial hour in New York State's history (the budget crisis in '74) occurred during a crippling bear market.
So I don't want to pay higher taxes, but I realized the following: everyone in New York (and America), knowingly or unknowingly, actively or passively, has been benefiting from the waste and deficit spending for decades. We are all guilty, whether we want to admit it or not. Everyone has been getting services from the government paid with borrowed money from the Chinese, Japanese, whomever. If you've received care from a nurse educated by WCC, you have benefited from government waste. His tuition was subsidized by the county and state government, and he may have received financial aid paid again with deficit spending. The tax cuts that increased your paycheck in 2002 were paid by deficits. There were no attendant spending cuts. You may have railed against the $8000 home buyer tax credit (and rightfully so...), but did you also protest the deductions you received for mortgage interest and/or property tax? I doubt it. I certainly didn't. As such I'm as much to blame as someone receiving welfare, SSI/D, etc. I get something for nothing just like everyone else, including Scott, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh. It's not like I sent the IRS more money.
Finally, and I say this specifically to my fellow conservatives, the deficit spending truly mushroomed under Reagan. He wanted to resurrect the American economy, and he did it though deficit spending. While the percentages (and dollar amounts) are minuscule compared to today, the philosophy of something for nothing was cemented during this period. It helped that the most spoiled generation in American history came of age during this time. Yes, I speak of Baby Boomers and yes, I'm a bitter Gen-X'er. Don't shoot the messenger, OK? It's amazing that at the time, deficit spending was seen as a risky political proposition. It is risky, but not politically. Dick Cheney once quipped the "Deficits don't matter." People take the quote out of context. Cheney knew that deficits do matter - economically. Politically, you're safer spending money you don't have than petting kittens at a rally. You won't piss off dog lovers or those allergic to cats with brand new military hardware built in a favored congressional district. Everyone loves jobs; not everyone loves cats.
In fact, the true political risk comes from closing deficits. Elder Bush was raked over the coals when he tried to raise revenue. Of course, he exacerbated the situation with "Read my lips." Dude, those lips lie! Because people don't realize they are part of the problem, they don't want to be part of the solution. In this case, higher taxes are part of the solution, as disgusted as I am to say it. These taxes won't even pay for new services; they'll just pay off the national (and my state's) credit card. Eventually, we will need to make radical changes to sacred cows like Social Security and Medicare, but that will be tackled another day.
