1
   

Who Should Pay? State Or Federal Government?

 
 
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 07:38 am
I'm posting the majority of the article here so you don't have to sign in/join:

Quote:
GOP Governors Fight Tax Limits
Foes of Big Government Blame Crunch on Cuts in Federal Aid

By T.R. Reid
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 27, 2005; Page A04

DENVER -- Gov. Bill Owens (R) has been crisscrossing the country for years promoting the virtues of this state's strict constitutional limits on government spending. He has repeatedly urged other states to adopt restrictions of their own, based on Colorado's "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" amendment, known here as TABOR.

But this summer, Owens says, he'll be traversing his own mountainous state pushing the opposite message. Midway through his second term, Owens is working to persuade Coloradans to suspend the limits he championed and let the state government spend $3 billion more in tax money than TABOR would allow.

Owens thus becomes another low-tax, limited-government advocate who has found those principles hard to hold onto amid a sluggish economy and a sharply diminished flow of federal money to the states.

In the past two years, Republican governors including Nevada's Kenny Guinn, Idaho's Dirk Kempthorne, Georgia's Sonny Perdue and Ohio's Bob Taft have dumped no-new-taxes pledges to push for major new revenue and increased state spending.

Perhaps the most stinging reversal for tax-limitation groups in Washington was the quick conversion of Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. (R), who was President Bush's first budget director and an outspoken advocate of lower taxes -- until he was elected governor of Indiana last November. In his first state budget, Daniels recently proposed a 29 percent increase in the income tax, targeted at the upper brackets. Daniels cited a $250 million revenue shortfall and said spending cuts of that size were untenable.

All of these tax-raising Republicans offer the same basic reasons for their change of heart. "I have done something that is absolutely not part of my fiber," Kempthorne said when he proposed Idaho tax increases in 2003. "But I'm not going to dismantle this state, and I'm not going to jeopardize our bond rating, and I'm not going to reduce my emphasis on education."

Guinn provided a similar explanation after he pushed through the biggest tax increase in Nevada history.

"Some people say that makes me a bad Republican," said the former banker and corporate executive. "Well, I would be a worse Republican, and a worse grandfather, and a worse citizen, if I didn't find enough money to educate our children and fund our Medicaid program and provide decent prenatal care."

For Owens, as for his fellow GOP governors, a key reason for the tax increases at home has been tax-cutting in Washington. Facing sharply decreased revenue and record deficits, Bush has targeted transfers to the states as a ripe place to reduce federal spending. In his budget for fiscal 2006, the biggest single reduction is a $60 billion cut in Medicaid funds that help the states provide health care to the poor.

"The federal cuts have been very difficult for states to manage," said economist Bert Waisanen of the National Conference of State Legislatures. "Governors have to run programs like Medicaid, No Child Left Behind, homeland security. But there is less and less money coming from Washington to pay the bills."

For all those problems, Colorado hardly seemed a likely state to throw in the towel on spending limits. Among the 30 states that have enacted some form of tax or spending limits, Colorado's was known as the toughest. "When legislators around the country call me to ask about spending limits, they always want to know how it is working in Colorado," Waisanen said.

The TABOR constitutional amendment passed by the voters in 1992 says that government spending levels must be based on changes in population and inflation. Tax increases at any level of government must be approved by referendum. When tax revenue exceeds the permitted spending level, taxpayers must get a refund the next year; thus the state cannot build up "rainy day funds" in good years.

"The result is the public sector cannot grow at a rate faster than the private sector," Owens wrote in a column for the Wall Street Journal praising TABOR.

During the boom years of the 1990s, with population and personal income soaring, the limits worked well. But the economic downturn and the reduction in federal support during the first Bush term proved disastrous for Colorado's finances. The state put off building roads and maintaining infrastructure. It reduced services and raised fees. Spending on higher education fell so sharply that the president of the University of Colorado declared the flagship state school a "private enterprise."

Voters grew increasingly angry and demanded changes from Owens and the Republican-controlled legislature. But GOP leaders refused to act. "So long as I am governor, we will not raise taxes," Owens pledged in 2003.

Last fall, the Democratic Party launched a statewide campaign against the TABOR limits -- and scored a huge victory at the polls. While Bush was easily carrying the state, Democrats took control of the state House and Senate.

"We have a clear mandate," said Rep. Andrew Romanoff, Democratic leader of the state House. "The voters sent us here to do something about the TABOR roadblock."

Owens conceded the point. On St. Patrick's Day, he agreed to a plan designed largely by Democrats that will suspend the spending limit for five years, allowing the state to spend $3.1 billion that otherwise would have been refunded to taxpayers.

Because this is considered a tax increase under the TABOR rules, voters must approve the change in November, or it will not take effect. Owens says he will campaign with Democrats to win voter approval of the anti-limits plan. "This will put Colorado back on track," the governor said.

The striking turnabout by a onetime tax cutter has generated rage in some GOP circles. Republican legislators have rapped their governor as a "turncoat" and a "big spender." Owens has fired back. After Rep. Joe Stengel (R) announced his opposition to the proposal, Owens said: "When the next volume of 'Profiles in Courage' is written, there won't be a chapter on Joe Stengel."



I'm in agreement that states should have independence as a way of bringing representation closer to home and keeping things local.

However, with the federal cuts putting higher demand on state budgets, I have to wonder what happens to the poorer states? States with large immigration populations?

I'm not a CPA or mathmatician. What are the consequences, pro's and con's of having states make up larger portions of their budgets?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 497 • Replies: 6
No top replies

 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 09:07 am
It all comes from our pockets...
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 09:41 am
I had this idea, and I know it's crazy. But what if, instead of filing one return for the feds, one for the state, and, in my case, one for the borough I live in, I filed just one return and paid all of my taxes to my nearest locality, who then had to kick up a percentage of total revenue to the next and so on until it got to the feds. Wouldn't that make sure that the states, who have to implement most of the mandates from congress, got their money first? Wouldn't it also be so much easier on us taxpayers?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 09:54 am
Federal budget cuts are putting a lot of pressure on state budgets. One of the ideas behind having so many programs federalized is that the bureaucracies involved do not need to be duplicated fifty times. This is one of the reasons federal government has expanded since Roosevelt's "New Deal". In spite of the fiscal advantages, many people oppose the expansion of federal government because it diminishes the power of individual states.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 02:31 pm
Sure seems like the poorer states are getting the short end of the deal, though.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 04:35 pm
squinney wrote:
Sure seems like the poorer states are getting the short end of the deal, though.


Since you mentioned immigration states, if it would allow the states to have greater control, would you allow states to start the control of their own immigration standards and control? Remember prop.187 in Cali? It was to allow the state to have certain control over their immigration and it was killed by a state or federal judge that said it was federal govt who controlled immigration standards. When it went to go before the State Supreme court Gray David removed the law even though a majority of the states citizens voted in favor. Would you allow some of this control to be handed over to the states?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Mar, 2005 04:48 pm
Baldimo, without any real research my knee jerk reaction would be yes. If the states had more control it would help them decide more accurately how they were to tax their citizens and budget. Obviously California or New Mexico would have more funds going to immagration control than say Iowa or Missouri.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Who Should Pay? State Or Federal Government?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 12:16:22