Friday, April 24, 2009

Tea anyone?

I don't know if I should celebrate our collective ignorance, or shrug, and accept that this is what we've become; for better or for worse. It's evident that a great many Americans do not know how their government works; do not have much of an understanding of economics ( and I don't profess to being Paul Krugman ), or how taxes are doled out. That's too bad, because there might be some real heat in these less than stellar times.

I live in Washington state; a great place to be rich. We have a regressive tax base, so everyone pays the same. Maybe that sounds fair, but with no state income tax, we rely on spending rather than income. For a state that considers itself progressive in most things, it's a real poke in the eye. The more money you have in this state the less you have to pay, as a percentage of your worth. Obviously you can spend more, but you don't have to. You can choose to pay what the poorest pay. The basics cost what they cost regardless of who's paying; food, housing, medical care; the things we need to survive. Sales taxes; property taxes; business taxes; that's our tax base, so no surprise when times get tough, when people lose their jobs, when the rest of us over-extend; the state's tax revenues drop like real estate valuations. One year we're in the black, the next we're down by billions; 9 over the next two years.

There goes money for education; there goes money for the less fortunate, for those in poor health. Even as more join their ranks; there's no money. History means nothing, even as it speaks to the direct benefit of education for the growth of business, the growth of innovation, the betterment of society as a whole. Yet the notion of more taxation equity is a non starter. The rich don't even need to lobby themselves; they have the Tea Party movement, such as it is, to lobby for them, Never mind that the great majority of these worked up folks aren't rich and would probably benefit from a more progressive tax base. It's already been pointed out that the country has been given a substantial tax break by the new administration, and that as a percentage of their income Americans are paying less than they have in decades.

It is, of course, the great American tradition to hate taxes and hew to our own individual wants. We inherently know what's best; when the chips are down we have confidence in ourselves. In and of themselves, those aren't bad things; in fact, it's what has made American great, and what has distinguished us from the rest of the world. But we seem resistent to the nature of the government we have today. It is not a small nimble organization. It's huge. We ask much more from it than we care to acknowledge. We expect it to be well organized and managed, yet we expect it to be there for us in time of need as well as want, even if those wants are counter-intuitive to our beliefs. Yet we allow it to be a pravaricator of small minded needs rather thanwhat best for the whole. If we believe in self reliance, then there's little need for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; jobless benefits beyond what we put in to support them; which poses the question of whether there're needed or not if we are truly self reliant. No need for pensions and the like; we're smart enough to handle our own affairs far from the intrusion of big government.

That government fails us, or fails to live up to the perceptions that are our own, fall squarely on our own shoulders. We elect the people who represent us. It is their job to set the laws; derive the structure of the government, appoint those who will administer it, and judiciously tax to support its function. If government fails; it is our failure. You can't, one the one hand, claim self reliance and then expect the government to bail you out when you find yourself in the dumps; but we do. Or I should say some do. The sheer size of our economy, and it's inter-connectedness to our daily lives, as well as our government, is the reason behind our now massive indebtedness. If we were as self reliant as we'd like to believe, then we'd have let the chips fall where they may. The banking and lending industries would probably end up massively smaller. With job losses and consumer debt so high, spending would fall off the table, which in turn would create more business and job loss in those sectors that cater to our consumer lifestyle. Values plummet. The economy shrinks. A lot. Let me say that again; a Lot. That means a lot of people out of work with nothing to do. Historically that tends to be not so good for a stable society.

That's the problem. The lot. That the government has decided to spend far beyond it's means is nothing new. We as a society seem reluctant to pay for what we demand. We're attacked; we respond, yet when comes up to paying for it, we don't; we cut taxes instead. And for those who can most afford it. It makes no sense. It makes sense to pay for what you need. It makes sense to save for the inevitable crashes, in the good times, so the hard time are at least cushioned. Unfortunately good sense isn't politically expedient. There are any number of things that the government can do to cut the debt; restructure Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; reduce military spending to what we really need for 21st century security. Those are the big spenders; entitlements and the military. If you don't want to pay to cover those cost; you have to cut and restructure. Most of the bailout money will be repaid, and once the banks find their footing; the financial crisis will work itself out. The government will have to deal with it, as it has many times before. An ordered society isn't free, and doing your own thing has it's costs as well. Nothing is without cost. Bitching about it, while a temporary balm; solves nothing.

Either way; limited, overarching, or something in between; whatever government you want still has to be paid for.

No comments:

Post a Comment