This started as my reply to some readers’ comments, but it got involved enough — and I think the ideas expressed are relevant enough to recurring issues — that I’m making it a separate post.
To understand the context, you should first read the first four comments on the previous post:
"Unfettered growth rates?"
RTH has a point, even though he expresses himself in an uncivil manner.
Lee, LexWolf and Doug seem not to grasp the fundamental idea underlying representative democracy in a free society.
"All government has to have limits set by law from above…"
WHAT!?!?!? You just described fascism, or some other totalitarian system.
In THIS system, a free electorate chooses representatives to run government (an entity that derives its power from us) in keeping with our general wishes.
I say "general" wishes because — and this is what irks absolutists — the whole reason why we delegate representatives to start with is that it is impossible for the entire population to get together and make such complex decisions in real time, so "general" is as specific as voters’ directions to representatives can get.
So the representatives study the various challenges before them, and make decisions about laws, and expenditures and taxes. And if we don’t like those decisions, we replace them in the next election. Representatives are hyper-aware of that, thanks to the (unfortunate) fact that most seem to prize re-election above all else.
So, with a constant eye to their perceptions of our will regarding both taxing AND spending, they make their decisions based upon the factors present at a given time.
No one, of any political bent whatsoever, has the right to impose their ideological will upon future decisions of a representative body. And that is precisely what growth-limit advocates want to do.
Can you imagine how furious they would be if someone were to set an arbitrary minimum by which taxes must rise in the future?
And they would be right to be furious, because that would be wrong. It would be hijacking the political will of a free people going forward, and that would be unforgivable in America.
Well, so is this.
Related Posts
Nice try, Brad, but no cigar.
We understand the principle of “representative democracy in a free society” quite well. However, we also understand (and you apparently don’t) that our representatives long ago discovered that they could buy many people’s votes by spending the taxpayers’ own money on all sorts of projects. I wish I could say otherwise but it’s an undeniable fact that our politicians spend other people’s money much more freely than they would ever dream of doing with their own money. Most politicians (except perhaps anti-government ideologues) will gladly spend whatever money they can get away with, in an effort to get reelected. They have proven themselves unable to restrain their spending urges again and again.
This wouldn’t be as much of a problem if P+I or personal income growth were roughly equal to their spending increases. Unfortunately, they aren’t and thus these increases are not sustainable in the long run. The only way government can grow at twice the people’s income growth is to take more and more from the people in the form of taxes or borrowing.
The whole thing really isn’t that difficult to understand and I can only speculate as to the reasons for your inability or unwillingness to see this.
Just look at government at all levels like you would at the Warthen family. You make a certain income at the State. Every year you may get a small raise, more or less like P+I. From that amount, you plan your family budget. Government is just the other way around. First they decide what they want to spend – invariably more than they can afford – and then they simply charge the taxpayers. I would love to have an openended credit card like that – wouldn’t you? Unfortunately, you and I have to live within our limits. Why should government be any different?
No one, of any political bent whatsoever, has the right to impose their ideological will upon future decisions of a representative body.
Really, Brad? Where does it say that the legislature can’t change this law next year or in 5 or 10 years or whenever? Just as the law was passed, so it can be repealed or changed. Besides, what do you think constitutions do? Or how about those federal mandates that require our state to have certain laws or we will lose all or part of our highway money?
Overall, I never cease to be amazed at how bent out of shape you get when something goes for the people and taxpayers and against your big-government cronies.
That’s OK, I don’t smoke.
“I would love to have an openended credit like that – wouldn’t you?” Once again, the “no government is good government” choirboys (Lee, Dave, and LexWolf primarily) are trumpeting fiscal responsibility. I think they should raise their sights. Why don’t they carpool up to Washington and ask W why he and his buddies on the Hill have acted (in fiscal terms) like sailors on New Year’s Eve?
Oh, and (ahem)…
The representative bodies being handcuffed CAN’T undo it in future years. This is being imposed by STATE ideologues on LOCAL governments, which are by necessity more pragmatic and not as given to stupid political gestures or demagogic legislation. They are face-to-face with the people they govern, and will experience the immediate ire of the voters if they either fund services too little or raise taxes too high.
They can’t do a damned thing about what is being done to them by state lawmakers.
And legislators are unlikely to undo such a high-handed act. You know why? Hint: It’s not because they are such wonderful respecters of “limited government.” It’s because they suffer no political consequences when local government fails in any way. That’s the locals’ problem, and they are more than content to arbitrarily limit what local governments can do in their never-ending bid to pander to people like you.
The notion of political accountability for actions is thrown out the window when we don’t let each level of government make its own decisions.
“All government has to have limits set by law from above…”
That describes the core principle of our US Constitution, limiting government to “certain enumerated powers”. The same people who set up the federal government set up the state governments, and most of them were very educated in how unfettered democracy had degenerated into despotism in both Greece and Rome.
It is bad enough that so many people can graduate from the 6th grade without understanding the core principles of American government. What is shocking is how many media editors are ignorant or simply reject Americanism for their own concoction of socialism.
“That’s OK, I don’t smoke.”
s’OK, Brad, there are other uses for cigars besides smoking them, you know. Just ask Bill Clinton. Either way, you didn’t earn one though so you’ll have to buy it.
“The representative bodies being handcuffed CAN’T undo it in future years……They can’t do a damned thing about what is being done to them by state lawmakers.”
Sure they can. They can pressure their representatives to change this law just as the rest of us can pressure them for school choice or property tax relief. This time they lost (and the people won). Next time maybe they’ll win.
“This is being imposed by STATE ideologues”
Amazing, over 50% of our representatives exercise the powers of their office that you think they should have, and they are all IDEOLOGUES. How did that happen? If they passed a law banning smoking statewide, would they also be IDEOLOGUES?
You really shouldn’t get your panties all in a twist like this over such a minor thing. There are undoubtedly ways around the “problem” although I quite fail to see why P+I wouldn’t be enough. Maybe not directly on property taxes but what would prevent the Locals from starting or raising fees for people to use parks, libraries or soccer fields, foe example? Or aggressively charge a fee when police or firefighters have to respond to a false security alarm? Even better, maybe they will now make a real attempt at cutting useless crap and start prioritizing as they should have done all along.
Methinks you are underestimating the vast abilities of government at all levels to pick our pockets. I have no doubt they’ll manage quite well even without your Chicken Little impersonations.
The formatting seems to be messed up in your post, so it’s kind of hard to tell who’s saying what. I think I get the drift.
As much as I hate to say this, Lee’s right in one respect – imposing limits on government by law is not fascism or totalitarianism. But I agree with you and Ms. Scoppe that this particular limit is a really boneheaded one.
Oh, and RTH was a paragon of civility, in that particular comment thread, at least. đŸ˜‰
Brad,
Would you be opposed to a question on the ballot in November giving voters the rigth to decide on the P+I growth cap? Or how about a couple simple non-binding referendum question:
1) Is your tax burden:
A) Just right
B) Too high
C) Too low
2) Is the value the public receives
for the tax dollars it collects:
A) About what you’d expect
B) More than you’d expect
C) Less than you’d expect
The answers to #1 and #2 would seemingly be the best indicator of the public’s perception of taxes.
You still haven’t answered my question from the other post – are you comfortable with the level of wasteful spending in the current budget? Maybe you don’t think there’s any… but if you do think there is some wasteful spending, wouldn’t we be able to hold down tax increases by attacking the issue from that perspective versus the easy way of just bumping up taxes every year?
It’s funny how when you basically throw up your hands and say “Let’s let smart people like Jake Knotts figure out how much we should spend”… What is the legislature’s incentive to be responsible stewards of the public’s money? Once elected, an incumbent basically has to just be only a little greedy and the gravy train will continue for years. It usually takes death or a felony charge to get someone out of office.
And can you find out from Cindi whether she controls the checkbook in her family? Based on her convoluted view of income and spending, I would bet her husband’s got that sucker locked up in a safe. đŸ™‚
VOA – record level taxes are being collected thanks to the booming economy masterminded by W. The deficit is also way down. Give credit where credit is due.
Doug – you are right on about the legislators. There is even a bridge called the Jake Knotts bridge on 378. Fittingly a nice wide one. Then recently we have Sen. Leatherman who gleefully announced “he got” $7 million for a Florence Arts building. The pork never stops and all Brad wants is non-smoking in the state. Not really, he also wants to make sure school vouchers cannot become a reality.
“…our representatives long ago discovered that they could buy many people’s votes by spending the taxpayers’ own money on all sorts of projects.”
So what? They’re still bending to the will of the governed, and it would appear that we governed want all that spending, or we wouldn’t take the bait. I happen to like parks, recreation programs, libraries, schools, emergency rooms, beaches, bridges, roads, police and fire protection, so, yep, as long as they’re buying my vote with that stuff, it’s for sale.
Tim,
You must be one of the few people who loves
to go down to the DMV and watch efficiency and customer service in action. And maybe you can kick in a few extra bucks on your next income tax payment to buy another $4 million dollar bridge over 277… or add a few bucks to your property taxes so every classroom can have a $11K smart board to show pretty pictures on… or pay an extra buck on your next restaurant bill so we can get that telescope that Columbia so desperately needs.
Are you willing to say how much you personally pay for those wonderful services? The taxes my wife and I pay to SC (state and local) are at least $15K per year. If it were $5K, I probably wouldn’t complain. Our tax system punishes people for working hard by forcing them to pay more for others benefit.
I’m not opposed to paying taxes for things that are necessary and serve the public good. For example, Richland County Public library has saved me at least $500 per year in book purchases and seems to be a great example of government working well. But I believe there is significant waste, corruption, and patronage in the current budget that should be addressed before we
routinely increase taxes. The problem is that anytime anyone suggests cutting spending, people like Brad and Cindi Ross-Scoppe start the “we’re doomed” rhetoric full force. I’m not sure I can grasp what their motivation is to focus on taxes instead of spending. I guess it’s just because it’s easier.
The county library is a good example of a public service that is not really necessary, is provided by private parties to a greater extent than it is by government, and often is mismanaged in an arrogant fashion which holds the taxpayers in contempt.
The current library expansion was cooked up in secret. Only part of the plan was shown to the voters in order to trick them into supporting the spending. After the branches were built, they operated part time until the outraged voters were coerced into paying more taxes for staff and books.
Anyone who questions the operations, choices of books, rationale for having dozens of copies of pulp fiction and no few classics, etc, is attacked with some tangential rhetoric.
Not to go down a library rathole, but I find the service excellent, the libraries clean and quiet, and the selection of books acceptable. And the fact that I can order any book in the system via the web and have it show up at my local branch in a couple days is nothing short of fantastic. The new checkout system that uses some sort of electronic tags is great – although I do find it funny that every time I check out books that way, a librarian will usually come around from the other side of the desk and watch me use the touchscreen.
Here’s a perfect example of Brad’s idea of republican government. Bush’s Health and Human Services Secretary Leavitt has used loopholes in the tax law to create a charitable foundation, taking 1.2 million in tax writeoffs. The charity paid out less than 1% of its assets for several years and also loaned money back to Leavitt and his family.
It’s all a scam to avoid paying taxes.
Imagine how hard these crooks would have to work to steal money if we had a flat tax and a national sales tax.
Here’s the link to the scum:
Another crook
Sorry if I don’t address everything here; I’ve read through the comments rather hastily as Fridays are our busiest day of the week…
Folks (from Lee to kc, which is quite a spectrum) seem confused by the difference between constitutional powers and limitations and political, operational decisions.
Basically, there’s no point in having a deliberative body if it is prevented from making the most routine sort of decision — such as how much to spend, and how to raise the revenue. That is a power that constitutions grant to legislatures, and logically so.
Let me give you an example from another realm. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war (a power which it has ceded to the executive for my entire lifetime, but we’ll set that aside).
Whether to GO to war is a political decision that must be made by those holding office at a given time, depending upon their reading of a given situation.
Basically, telling a legislative body that it can only raise taxes by a pre-determined formula would be like the constitution telling Congress that while it has the war power, it should not exercise it if the war will cost more than X amount. While there are antiwar types who would love a constitution such as that, I would be afraid to live in such a country.
As for Doug’s facetious question regarding a referendum (at least I HOPE it was facetious), of course not. In a representative democracy (as opposed to a direct democracy), the only proper role of a plebiscite is to change the constitution. NO other kind of decision should be made that way — that is the role of the Legislature.
Of course, the questions you proposed (and this is what I assume was facetious) would be the sort of thing you would put on an opinion poll, not a referendum. And of course, the way you worded them, you would only put them on a poll if you were trying to stack things in favor of cutting taxes.
Just in case you weren’t kidding about that, I should tell you that polls tend to show that if you ask them whether they would be willing to pay more in taxes to support public education, a majority will say yes — just as they will say yes if you ask them in a vacuum whether they think they pay enough in taxes.
We shouldn’t decide to spend more on education based on a poll any more than we should set our taxes that way. In both cases, those are decisions for deliberative bodies (not the voters, and not the constitution).
Since I had an issue with my 2005 property tax bill this week, I have it here it in front of me. Maybe some facts will help in this conversation.
My home propery tax bill was just above
$3000. Of that, 44% went for schools and 23.% more went for school bonds. That’s two thirds of every property tax dollar.
The county got 10% (6.2% + 3.6% for bonds).
Fire service was 5.3%.
Library 4.4%
Recreation 4.1%
Riverbanks Zoo – 0.7%
Midlands Tech – 1%
Mental Health – 0.4%
Garbage – 6.7%
My libertarian view is that we could cut
Riverbanks Zoo completely, Midlands Tech should be funded at the state level not locally, recreation could be cut in half, and trim the school budget easily by 5%
just by consolidating the two Richland districts and cutting wasteful technology spending. That would yield an overall cut of about 6%. After we’ve done that, then we can talk about growth rates.
We’re not confused at all. We know more about being American citizens than you do, and care more about freedom. The point of having a deliberative body is to choose the right way to do the few things which a limited government is elected to do – not a license to trade off ways to extract as much tax revenue as possible. That’s why we have constitutions, and why politicians and newspaper editors ignore the letter and spirit of the law.
Our forefathers knew corruption first hand, but they did not envision the epidemic of cowardice and shirking that would come to characterize modern Americans. Perhaps we need to add some of the safeguards they thought unnecessary, such as every tax increase being approved by a referendum.
Doug, I picked on the library because it is one of the better public services, but still costing over twice what the taxpayers were told, still run arrogantly from a back room with no oversight.
That’s the good project. There are a lot that have no redeeming public utility. They just exist to line the pockets of cronies.
For some examples of what politicians will do when they have no restraints…
* US federal income tax, prior to 1981 had a top bracket of 92%.
* The Beatles left England because their income tax would have been 103% of their income.
* France has had $120 BILLION of capital flee the country since 1999, when they passed a surcharge on “the rich” which was as much as 101% of income. Other nations have welcomed these productive exiles from democratic socialism.
Doug, the schools are consuming that much of the tax dollar yet continually clamor for more. And with their lobbying clout, they usually succeed. More money will never be enough for the education leadership. There will always be that new assistant superintiendent they so sorely need, or the new facilities, or the new director of public affairs (to market the school to the captive parents and families), and so on.
Brad and Cindi don’t mind handcuffing future governments and taxpayers with decades of bond payments.
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated.” –Thomas Jefferson
Brad’s idea of the perfect form of government is the same one that allows Bernice Scott to move the road near her property up from #161 to #1 on the paving list. Little acts of greed… voters not paying attention… and she’ll win re-election for as long as she wants.
The same Bernice Scott who voted to send herself and other County Council members to retreat on Providing Efficient Government… in Hawaii.
I can give you an example of a state politician who used his clout to have an entire highway paved in time for his daughter’s wedding. The road really didn’t need repaved but the asphalt had been sunbleached, the lines were worn off, and so hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent for this favor. I bet the list like this is endless. That is why the Governor is fighting the entire legislature, nearly all of them are in on the game and the goodies.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for that endless list of government waste and corruption to be published in The State.
Exactly, Lee. Because if The State focused on corruption and wasteful spending, how could they justify supporting yearly tax increases?
I mean, if we actually cut the waste and fraud and were able to put into office HONEST people who considered stewardship of the public’s money to be their primary objective, we might actually see some real improvement in this state.
I’m still waiting for Brad’s answer to the simple question: “Are you comfortable with the level of waste, fraud, and patronage that exists in the current budget?”
No, I think he wants more.