During her acceptance speech, Kamala Harris noted that Donald Trump is a deeply unserious man whose election would have very serious consequences. She might have broadened that observation by characterizing the GOP as an unserious political party.
I exited the Republican Party back in 2000, when the GOP’s transformation then underway was usually described as “rightward.” To the extent that “rightward” meant “toward fascism,” that description was accurate–but insufficient. It is equally accurate to note that the GOP has become increasingly unserious about governing.
Democrats do continue to focus on real governing issues–what should our foreign policy look like? What changes should be made to tax policy? What is government’s obligation to provide a social and physical infrastructure? The GOP, in contrast, is focused on areas that are mostly off-limits to government under our Constitution: books they disapprove of should be removed from public libraries! Private companies should be forbidden from undertaking DEI activities! Women should be forced to give birth!
GOP priorities aren’t those that have traditionally been considered governmental.
Indiana’s state tickets provide a picture-perfect example. The Republicans are all MAGA culture warriors, while the Democrats are focused on traditional governance issues: public education, taxation, the proper limits of government control over individuals.
The difference between the parties on issues of actual governance was recently explored by conservative economist Michael Hicks, who analyzed the seriousness of recent tax proposals. The headline was instructive: “Property taxes dominate the race for Indiana governor. Only 1 side has a real plan.”
Indiana voters have now seen three separate property tax plans from candidates running for governor and lieutenant governor. All three offer insights into some of the fiscal philosophies of the candidates, the quality of their policy development process and the respect they have for Hoosier taxpayers.
Hicks began by discarding the plan offered by the Libertarian candidate for governor.
Their proposal is to eliminate all residential property taxes, and instead tack on 7% sales tax to your home. I view their proposal as political posturing against the promiscuous use of tax abatements and tax-increment financing.
If you are tired of huge tax breaks for large companies, Indiana’s Libertarian Party is focused on your concerns. But their plan fails to consider things like the need to fund police protection, fire departments or provide heat to school buildings in winter.
In other words, it’s a very “unserious” plan.
Then Hicks took on MAGA Mike Braun’s plan.
The Republican — Mike Braun/Micah Beckwith — plan seems to have done two things. I say “seems” because it went through five major changes in three days after it was first announced. So, nailing down facts is not a trivial task.
The first thing this plan offers is the addition of a much larger exemption to homeowners. While this sounds alluring, it really has little or no effect on individual tax liability. Property taxes in Indiana are based on local government budgets, with caps placed on the value of the property, not the exemptions. So, for most Hoosiers, the first version of the Braun/Beckwith plan (or Beckwith/Braun plan according to the lieutenant governor candidate’s social media) had little or no effect on tax liabilities for most homeowners.
In response to major criticisms, the plan changed, but as Hicks noted, in its current iteration, it would either cut local government tax revenues or shift taxes to other taxpayers — primarily farmers and businesses.
Within farming communities, the property tax shift was enormous. Some farmers would see 70% tax increases…rural communities would see huge increases in farm taxes. Urban places would see big cuts in public services because of property tax caps, and suburban communities would need to pass school referendums to maintain bus service.
Hicks then turned to the Democrats’ plan, which would cut property taxes by roughly the same amount as the Braun/Beckwith plan, but in a way that doesn’t shift tax liability to farmers, renters or businesses. That plan
also ensured that local governments — schools, libraries, police and fire departments, and parks — would not face deep revenue losses.
Their plan had two distinguishing features. The first was that almost every element was analyzed by the Legislative Services Agency, with much of it taken from existing property tax proposals the legislature has been working on for the past 18 months. This means we know how much savings are to taxpayers, and how much and to whom the lost tax revenue flows.
The second key feature of the McCormick/Goodin plan was that most of the revenue losses were borne by state, not local government… Notably, the Democratic plan actually caps property tax growth for individual taxpayers at a reasonable level.
Indiana Democrats want to govern. Unserious Republicans want the power to win the culture war.
Comments