That's the issue with whacking taxation (essentially, government income) at the federal level. It's fine to say "it's better to handle it locally" but the local government(s), not having had to handle these expenses before, takes on the responsibility with ... wait for it ... more taxes!Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
Tim Pawlenty made a big deal out of the fact that he didn't raise taxes while he was Governor of Minnesota. Instead, he and his buddies in the state Legislature just kicked the can down the road with "creative" accounting/borrowing/synonyms and by announcing that some state functions were now county and city functions. So my county taxes went up.
Then the (previous and Republican) Mayor of St. Paul decided he needed that no-tax feather in his cap and announced that he would not raise taxes on St. Paul homeowners. Sho' nuff, my property taxes did not rise. But someone failed to deliver the memo to parks that kept growing grass and sewers that failed to clear themselves of debris and streets that collected snow and streetlamps that refused to keep their bulbs lit. As a result, I now pay "fees" for city duties which previously were paid by my taxes. And I'm now more out of pocket than I was back then.
As far as I'm concerned, keeping "taxes" flat and supplementing them with "fees" (that everyone has to pay) is a hoax, a semantic trick. No one interested in "small government" seems to look at it in the macro sense. If Republicans want to hand education to the states, fine. Then get rid of NCLB. if it's such a great idea, states will adopt it. If social services belong to the states, then quit lobbying against choice. For some reason, "smaller government" never seems to apply to people's lives. Unless guns are involved.
Reply With Quote