Hey, this worked. He is unelectable.
Also, have you heard of the Bush tax? (Via Matt at Not Geniuses.)
« Sexing The Text | Main | Nader Arrested As Enemy Combatant »
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
I read the intro page at the Bush Tax site, and I have to say that while I understand its point, I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing that costs have been shifted to the local governments.The whole concept of taxation is for a government to take money from its citizens in exchange for services. The fact that the taxes are now being levied at a level of government where citizens actually have the opportunity to run into the person who approves those taxes and services at the local coffee shop is primarily a good thing. Most people don't believe that they can impact what the federal government does with their money, but they do believe they can impact what their neighbor, the local councilman or state representative, does with it.Shifting tax burdens is not a new tax, it is simply a shifting of already existing revenue sources from the amorphous and vast coffers that result from a national income tax to the limited coffers of the local governments and people who use the services - a place where the gathering of that revenue is much more accountable to the public will.
Posted by: Jamie | December 21, 2003 at 05:57 PM
Yeah, it's kind of unfair, insofar that the taxes are being shifted, not increased. It does have a valid point, though: federal tax cuts do not necessarily lessen the overall tax burden; they may instead just shift the burden around. The relevant question is, who is paying more, and who is paying less? Income tax cuts being replaced with property tax or wage tax increases hurts the people with the least ability to afford it.
Also, I know I am partisan, but the idea that state or local governments are somehow more responsive to citizens than the feds doesn't correspond to my experiencing with state and local government. At least, I can't see how the feds could be less responsive than, say, the average Pennsylvania township council. In some ways, the smaller the governmental unit, the less likely the ruling faction will be responsive - because they are the biggest group. The beauty of the central national government is that many interests are represented, even if the government is much more removed (both literally and figuratively) from the common person. But, of course, I am a partisan and I have been struggling against this federal-government-is-bad idea for over ten years now, so maybe I am jaded.
Posted by: Mithras | December 21, 2003 at 11:37 PM