Category Archives: Public Policy and Governance

Greg Ballard’s Curious Approach to Fiscal Discipline

There has been a good deal of discussion on local blogs about our Mayor’s ham-handed approach to the just-concluded Gay Pride celebration.

The Indianapolis fire department has participated in the Parade previously, and this year, IMPD announced that it, too, would participate–and show that our local police serve all parts of the Indianapolis community. The day before the Parade, Ballard unexpectedly reversed course, and told IFD it could not use a city fire truck, and IMPD that it could not officially march at all.  (Several members of the police department did march, in uniform, but in their “individual” capacity, and the department’s Hummer was nowhere in evidence.)

Yesterday, Mayor Ballard was interviewed by Amos Brown, who asked an entirely appropriate–and foreseeable–question: why had the Mayor prevented the police from driving an official vehicle in the parade? The obviously bogus response was that the decision was made in order to save tax dollars. It had nothing to do with the fact that this was a gay event, or that Micah Clark and the Indiana Family Institute pitched a fit about the symbolism of treating the gay community like all other taxpaying citizens. Nope–just being fiscally responsible.

I asked a friend of mine who is a police officer whether IMPD officially participated in other community celebrations, and he rattled off a list: St. Patrick’s Day, Veterans Day, Black Expo and several others. I guess those constituencies must be more deserving of the tax expenditures involved.

And that brings up an interesting question: just how many dollars are we talking about?

What is the cost of vehicle depreciation and gasoline during a trip down Massachusetts Avenue? Ten dollars? Five?

Yesterday, the media reported that the Ballard administration stands to lose a three-million-dollar Federal grant, because it hasn’t complied with the grant’s staffing requirements. This makes Ballard the poster child for “Penny wise, pound foolish.”

Comments

Appropriate Snark

I see where the Superintendent of Schools of a small district in Michigan reacted to draconian cuts to education in that state with a nice piece of snark: He wrote a letter to the editor proposing to turn his schools into prisons, since spending on prisons was protected from the deep cuts imposed on other state functions.

He had a point.

The Governor of Michigan–one of the current crop of crazed right-wing “true believers”–insists that the state needs to cut spending, which it undoubtedly does. But where does he propose to make those cuts?  He proposes to reduce K-12 spending by nearly a billion dollars (yes, that’s not a typo–a billion dollars), to significantly reduce spending for universities and community colleges, and to make further cuts in Michigan’s already meager welfare payments. Along with his obedient legislature, he also raised taxes on pensions for seniors.

At the same time, he got the legislature to lower business taxes by $1.8 billion. This isn’t even “class war”–it’s insanity.

I understand there is a recall movement underway. For the sake of the people living in Michigan, I hope it succeeds.

Why Evidence Matters

Steve Benen has an important post up today at Political Animal, discussing the GOP’s recently-unveiled and badly misnamed “Jobs bill.”

As Benen points out, “the jobs agenda, such as it is, is practically a conservative cliche: the GOP wants massive tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, more coastal oil drilling, and huge cuts to public investment. Republicans are confident this will work wonders, just as they were equally confident about the identical agenda in the last decade, and the decade before that, and the decade before that.

Indeed, the most glaring problem with the GOP jobs agenda is that it won’t work, but nearly as painful is the realization that it’s already been tried, over and over again, to no avail. They either haven’t heard the famous axiom about trying failure repeatedly and expecting a different result, or they don’t care.

The agenda is the agenda: tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, cut public investments. Good times and bad, deficit or surplus, war or peace, it just doesn’t matter.”

The entire post is well worth reading.

Way back when I became politically active, I bought into the theory that tax cuts for the wealthy would spur investment, and that investment would create jobs. It made a lot of sense; unfortunately, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that it doesn’t work that way.

The ability to change ones opinion when faced with new evidence is how humans learn and thrive. When people “double down” on beliefs even when faced with facts debunking those beliefs, we call that a delusion.

Comments

Car Talk

When the federal government decided to bail out Chrysler and GM, I’ll admit I was torn. I am inherently skeptical of “too big to fail,” and I’m convinced that we have way too much corporate welfare. I’m a believer in free enterprise, defined as a genuinely level playing field, where private businesses all play by the same rules, and sink or swim on their own merits. But I also recognized that we were in the midst of a recession that might well have become a depression. The economy was so fragile–and the probable loss of American jobs that would accompany bankruptcy was so massive–that we really didn’t have a choice. I figured the taxpayers would lose a lot of money, but on balance, that would be cheaper than a depression.

I was wrong.

Yesterday, Chrysler repaid the nearly $5.9 billion lent to it by the administration, including fees and interest payments — and it did so six years ahead of schedule. Not only has Chrysler paid us back, but together, GM and Chrysler have added 115,000 new jobs since emerging from reorganization.

It was a gutsy call, and it paid off. But I’m sure the “Party of No” will explain it away, or credit the Bush Administration, just as they’ve tried to do with respect to another gutsy call–taking out Bin Ladin.

Robin Hood, Willly Sutton and Tax Policy

Back in the 1950s, there was a concerted effort to keep schoolchildren from reading “Robin Hood,” because the story exalted a communist–Robin Hood, after all, took from the rich to give to the poor. (We are not the only generation to live with widespread paranoia.)

The notion that taxes are robbery has a long and inglorious history in this country. Rather than thinking about taxes as the dues we pay for civilization, taxes have been framed as extortion. Progressive taxation, especially, is characterized (in Ayn Rand fashion) as robbing the deserving, productive rich to feed the unproductive mobs of poor. This myth has endured despite the fact that there is no empirical evidence supporting the notion that lower taxes on the rich spur job creation, and in the face of the truly obscene paychecks going to the “titans of finance” whose credit default swaps and other financial chicanery produced nothing of value and threw the country into recession.

This morning, we awoke to see that the Congressional Republicans are proposing dramatic cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. As my husband observed, the GOP evidently has no problem taxing the poor. He’s right–taking medical care from the elderly, poor and disabled is simply a tax of another name.

The proponents of this “reverse Robin Hood” taxation are both heartless and stupid. They are heartless because they are attacking the most vulnerable in order to protect the pocketbooks of the most affluent, who are currently paying the lowest percentage of their incomes in taxes in more than 50 years. They are stupid because there is no way to balance the budget on the backs of those who have little or nothing.

When Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he replied “Because that’s where the money is.” Any genuine effort to reduce the deficit would take a lesson from Willie.

Comments