Recent polls suggest that on the economy voters are split 50/50 on whether Romney or Obama would be better as president. Near as I can tell this is a reflection of the greatest con job since PT Barnum or Ponzi himself.
It's part and parcel of a grand con job that started with Reagan and trickle down economics but has spread into the great lie that all taxes are bad. All taxes retard business activity and dampen economic growth.
This starts with a kernel of truth. Too much taxation can cause business to move operations or not expand. However, the kernel does not blossom into all taxes being bad, which is where Romney is. Furthermore, taking business tax and equating it with income tax is a sleight of hand that only cause concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. Wealthy income earners are not businesses creating jobs, unless you count their personal servants.
Jobs are created by businesses. On the small business side these are often individuals, but their personal income and business income, while tied to one another, are not synonymous. Money generated by the business can be returned to further investment in the business or to the personal income of the individual. If the business is so profitable that the individual becomes wealthy, that is, is able to sit on large sums of money, it's in the broader interest of the society that such concentration be spread out. Taxation encourages that person to put more money into growing the business or into charitable endeavors that benefit the larger population, as both lower the taxes that the individual pays. If the person decides to do neither and pays the taxes instead, the money is also spread to a wider use.
Frequently the argument from the proponents of concentration of wealth comes down to this: "No one will want to become wealthy if the tax burden is X. Everyone will want to be poor because all the money is being distributed to the poor." Here's the thing. No matter how much money is given to the poor, they're still poor. That's because money isn't given directly to the poor. The money is used to provide opportunities, such as education and housing, or to provide staples, such as basic food that WIC provides. It's not even low middle class level of provisions, though. No one wants to stay at that level (unless they're fulfilling the Lazy and Stupid Theory). Most just have no knowledge of how to get out of it.
Conversely, the taxes that hit the wealthy are on a small percentage of very high income earners. They still have so much money left over that they can afford luxury goods and still have money to spare in large quantities. No one is going to want to give that up for some government assistance programs. That would be an extreme example of the Stupid part of the Lazy and Stupid Theory if it were to happen.
Despite all this, the GOP has managed to sell half the voting population on the idea that its in their interest for the 1% of the wealthiest earners to keep as much of their money as possible so that that 1% can create jobs. Never mind that money that comes in as income isn't used to create jobs. If the wealthy have more money to buy more toys, in some mysterious way a job will be created for you, the 99%. Oh, sure, it probably will be at Wal-Mart as a greeter, but it's a job and you should be kowtowing to the 1% for giving it to you.
Economic insanity. Doing the same thing (cutting taxes for the wealthy) over and over but expecting different results (less concentration of wealth in the hands of a few). Ever since Reagan the GOP has been selling this policy and nothing has ever trickled down to the rest. In fact, the other arm of the GOP plan is to provide even less government services for the rest of us. The only thing they want to maintain is the military to protect the 1%'s assets around the world.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
All Human Ills
I have a theory. It's a theory I've espoused for many years. My wife has occasionaly tried to disabuse me of the flawlessness of the theory, but so far I'm finding there is no flaw.
Here it is. All human ills that are not caused by natural phenomenon (earthquakes, hurricanes, etc) are due to either laziness, stupidity, or both. Hell, even some of the ills associated with natural phenomenon fit, such as building a city below sea level in a hurricane prone area.
But try applying the theory to anything that comes across your path personally or in the news. Somoene shoots someone else over a drug dispute? Stupid. Shooting isn't going to resolve the problem, just spiral it further. It's also lazy because the disputants fail to take other means to resolve their dispute. Or, more broadly, it's stupid because it's a product of making drugs illegal rather than regulated.
Someone cuts you off in traffic? Too lazy to look in their mirrors or too stupid to double check. My favorite, of course, is all the lazy bastards out there who don't use turn signals. I've posted before about the prevalence of this with luxury car drivers, but it's not limited to them.
So, go ahead and apply the theory to your life. Laziness and stupidity are the banes of our existence. Recognition of that is the first step in endeavoring not to be one of the perpetrators.
Here it is. All human ills that are not caused by natural phenomenon (earthquakes, hurricanes, etc) are due to either laziness, stupidity, or both. Hell, even some of the ills associated with natural phenomenon fit, such as building a city below sea level in a hurricane prone area.
But try applying the theory to anything that comes across your path personally or in the news. Somoene shoots someone else over a drug dispute? Stupid. Shooting isn't going to resolve the problem, just spiral it further. It's also lazy because the disputants fail to take other means to resolve their dispute. Or, more broadly, it's stupid because it's a product of making drugs illegal rather than regulated.
Someone cuts you off in traffic? Too lazy to look in their mirrors or too stupid to double check. My favorite, of course, is all the lazy bastards out there who don't use turn signals. I've posted before about the prevalence of this with luxury car drivers, but it's not limited to them.
So, go ahead and apply the theory to your life. Laziness and stupidity are the banes of our existence. Recognition of that is the first step in endeavoring not to be one of the perpetrators.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Traditional Marriage
In the ever ongoing debate about whether gays should be allowed to have marriages recognized by the civil law of the states, much is said on the opposing side about traditional marriage being between one man and one woman. Sure enough, that's generally been the case in Western history, but how those marriages are viewed historically versus now is very different.
Most marriages in the US are entirely as between a man and a woman deciding to marry one another. That's a fairly recent change, particularly in the higher classes of society where marriage has been about family alliances and binding ties rather than love and affection. Considering that the upper classes were the ones who created the laws about such things, it's interesting to note how different the view was.
I've been reading Cervantes's Don Quixote for probably about a year now. I only read a couple of chapters a week because I'm reading several other things at the same time. Recently I came across a passage in which Don Quixote was talking about marriage. Much of the book is about the travails of various couples in love and the impediments to them marrying. Don Quixote, in his fantasy role of knight errant, is often defending such unions, and yet he declaims the following at length.
"If everyone married the person they love parents would lose their power to marry their children when and to whom they should; and if it were left to daughters to choose their husbands as they pleased, one would pick her father's servant, and another a man she has just seen walking down the street and who she thinks looks jaunty and dashing, even though he is in reality some wild swashbuckler; because love and fancy easily blind the eyes of the understading, which are so necessary when making decisions about settling down in life, and with marriage there is such a danger of making mistakes, and great circumspection and the special help of heaven are needed to make the right choice. When a pruduent man sets out on a long journey, he first looks for someone trustworthy and agreeable to keep him company. Well, should not someone setting out on the journey of life, with death as his destination, do the same, particularly since the person he chooses will keep him company in bed, at the table and everywhere else, as a wife does her husband? The companionship of one's wife is not some article of merchandise that can be returned or bartered or exchanged after it has been pruchased; it is an inseparable appendage that lasts as long as life itself lasts. It is a noose that once placed around the neck becomes a Gordian knot, never to be undone except by the scythe of death."
Now, Quixote is generally considered to be insane in his actions but entirely rational in his arguments, so far as the other characters and the narrator of the book are concerned, so I take this as a position that the general society of the time found appropriate.
Advocates of traditional marriage, then, ought to be careful of that for which they wish, lest they return to the tradition of parentally chosen marriages and no divorce under any circumstances. I don't know what heterosexuals in the US would do if they didn't have divorce. Divorce is a fair recognition that people make mistakes in their decisions and should be able to rectify those mistakes. You might as well ban bankruptcy as ban divorce. They're both designed to reorganize and repair mistaken relationships.
Most marriages in the US are entirely as between a man and a woman deciding to marry one another. That's a fairly recent change, particularly in the higher classes of society where marriage has been about family alliances and binding ties rather than love and affection. Considering that the upper classes were the ones who created the laws about such things, it's interesting to note how different the view was.
I've been reading Cervantes's Don Quixote for probably about a year now. I only read a couple of chapters a week because I'm reading several other things at the same time. Recently I came across a passage in which Don Quixote was talking about marriage. Much of the book is about the travails of various couples in love and the impediments to them marrying. Don Quixote, in his fantasy role of knight errant, is often defending such unions, and yet he declaims the following at length.
"If everyone married the person they love parents would lose their power to marry their children when and to whom they should; and if it were left to daughters to choose their husbands as they pleased, one would pick her father's servant, and another a man she has just seen walking down the street and who she thinks looks jaunty and dashing, even though he is in reality some wild swashbuckler; because love and fancy easily blind the eyes of the understading, which are so necessary when making decisions about settling down in life, and with marriage there is such a danger of making mistakes, and great circumspection and the special help of heaven are needed to make the right choice. When a pruduent man sets out on a long journey, he first looks for someone trustworthy and agreeable to keep him company. Well, should not someone setting out on the journey of life, with death as his destination, do the same, particularly since the person he chooses will keep him company in bed, at the table and everywhere else, as a wife does her husband? The companionship of one's wife is not some article of merchandise that can be returned or bartered or exchanged after it has been pruchased; it is an inseparable appendage that lasts as long as life itself lasts. It is a noose that once placed around the neck becomes a Gordian knot, never to be undone except by the scythe of death."
Now, Quixote is generally considered to be insane in his actions but entirely rational in his arguments, so far as the other characters and the narrator of the book are concerned, so I take this as a position that the general society of the time found appropriate.
Advocates of traditional marriage, then, ought to be careful of that for which they wish, lest they return to the tradition of parentally chosen marriages and no divorce under any circumstances. I don't know what heterosexuals in the US would do if they didn't have divorce. Divorce is a fair recognition that people make mistakes in their decisions and should be able to rectify those mistakes. You might as well ban bankruptcy as ban divorce. They're both designed to reorganize and repair mistaken relationships.
Friday, May 25, 2012
A Change for the Worse
No, this isn't some right wing attempt at cleverness about hope and change.
As most who know me are aware, I spend a lot of time at dance related things with my daughter. Spring is competition season for her studio, so T Unit (as the team is called) has several weekends of naught but competition. The last one was this past weekend in Towson, which was a lot closer than the one two weeks prior in Huntingtown.
Anyway, dances run the gamut from classical to current pop in the accompanying music. Unfortunately, when the music is announced with the dance, all too often I get my hopes up that it's a song I like, only to be disappointed. Who knew there were so many covers of famous songs?
The most disappointing this weekend was Seven Nation Army. This White Stripes song, probably the band's best known song, is one of my favorites. But when the song started playing there was no driving drum beat by Meg White or Jack White's powerful vocals. Instead it was a slower, tamer version sung by some woman whose voice I didn't know.
That was even worse than all the lyrical dance numbers that take already slow songs and use cover versions that make them even slower and more depressing.
As most who know me are aware, I spend a lot of time at dance related things with my daughter. Spring is competition season for her studio, so T Unit (as the team is called) has several weekends of naught but competition. The last one was this past weekend in Towson, which was a lot closer than the one two weeks prior in Huntingtown.
Anyway, dances run the gamut from classical to current pop in the accompanying music. Unfortunately, when the music is announced with the dance, all too often I get my hopes up that it's a song I like, only to be disappointed. Who knew there were so many covers of famous songs?
The most disappointing this weekend was Seven Nation Army. This White Stripes song, probably the band's best known song, is one of my favorites. But when the song started playing there was no driving drum beat by Meg White or Jack White's powerful vocals. Instead it was a slower, tamer version sung by some woman whose voice I didn't know.
That was even worse than all the lyrical dance numbers that take already slow songs and use cover versions that make them even slower and more depressing.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Why I'm a Father
Or, I could call it Why I'm a Fater, taking a page from my son, whose Mother's Day card said "Happy Moter's Day". Made it himself, in case you couldn't tell. Maybe I'll get the same deleted "h" next month.
Anyway, continuing my theme of exploring my self descriptives, today's choice is why I'm a father. Of course there's the obvious that I got my wife pregnant, but since that was the goal, and we live a time and place where not getting pregnant is fairly routine, there's more to it than the biology.
I've probably put less thought into becoming a father than I did with the the other things on my descriptions. Only being a pain in the ass has engendered less thought. That just comes naturally.
For as long as I can remember I always presumed I'd be a father at some point. It was more a matter of when than whether. My father much preferred being around kids to being around adults, appropriate enough for someone in elementary education, but I never had such an affinity for kids. When I was one I certainly enjoyed it, though like most I wanted more autonomy.
It certainly hasn't been my experience of kids since I was an adult. Most kids are irritating to me. They're too often untrained. No adult has ever taught them any kind of self control. They run around in places they shouldn't. They scream and holler to get their way with weak will parents who bend and break. Or worse, they ignore what their parents say without consequence.
I suppose the biological imperative of passing on the genes is a good reason but wanting to have my own kids who don't behave like so many of those I've experienced is a good reason, too. I think I've been successful at that, too. Not that my kids are any paragons. They need frequent reminders of things they should remember on their own. They need reminding about behavior every now and then, too. But on the whole they behave in a way I'm happy to say is appropriate for their surroundings, whether informal or formal. When it's time to play, they're on that. When it's time to sit quietly, they're able to do that, too.
So there's one of my contributions to society. Two people who know how to behave appropriately and civilly in society. Yea me. Now if I can get them out of school and into jobs, we'll be all set.
Anyway, continuing my theme of exploring my self descriptives, today's choice is why I'm a father. Of course there's the obvious that I got my wife pregnant, but since that was the goal, and we live a time and place where not getting pregnant is fairly routine, there's more to it than the biology.
I've probably put less thought into becoming a father than I did with the the other things on my descriptions. Only being a pain in the ass has engendered less thought. That just comes naturally.
For as long as I can remember I always presumed I'd be a father at some point. It was more a matter of when than whether. My father much preferred being around kids to being around adults, appropriate enough for someone in elementary education, but I never had such an affinity for kids. When I was one I certainly enjoyed it, though like most I wanted more autonomy.
It certainly hasn't been my experience of kids since I was an adult. Most kids are irritating to me. They're too often untrained. No adult has ever taught them any kind of self control. They run around in places they shouldn't. They scream and holler to get their way with weak will parents who bend and break. Or worse, they ignore what their parents say without consequence.
I suppose the biological imperative of passing on the genes is a good reason but wanting to have my own kids who don't behave like so many of those I've experienced is a good reason, too. I think I've been successful at that, too. Not that my kids are any paragons. They need frequent reminders of things they should remember on their own. They need reminding about behavior every now and then, too. But on the whole they behave in a way I'm happy to say is appropriate for their surroundings, whether informal or formal. When it's time to play, they're on that. When it's time to sit quietly, they're able to do that, too.
So there's one of my contributions to society. Two people who know how to behave appropriately and civilly in society. Yea me. Now if I can get them out of school and into jobs, we'll be all set.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Weak Faith
What would I do without The Sun to provide fodder for this blog? Here's the latest: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-obama-marriage-20120516,0,1078517.story
There's so much to savor here, it's hard to know where to start. I guess I'll go with the obvious chortling with glee that Mike McManus displays in this column in which he opines that President Obama's statement that gay marriage ought to be recognized civilly is guaranteeing that he'll be a one term President. You'd never know it from the print version but the on-line version says this guy's a pastor. He's definitely not one of the forgiveness kind.
Then there's the name of his group - Marriage Savers. Being a single issue group, it's clear he and his believe that keeping gay people from marrying is necessary to save heterosexual marriage. For the life of me I can't see how that's going to happen. Gay people have never been able to legally marry until recently, yet the marriages of straight people have been failing for millenia. I don't mean failing in terms of divorce. The increase in that rate is about a half century or so of event. I mean that marriages throughout history have largely been a failure by the standard of a partnership. Most often it was a one way street in which the female was subservient to the male. That's not a successful marriage. That's just bondage.
What strikes me most about this column is how weak is the faith of opponents to gay marriage. The premise of their opposition is basd on a conflation of two different things. Their opposition is based on religious faith that says a marriage recognized by their religion is between one man and one woman. Ok, fine. That has nothing to do with civil marriage. A government recognition of marriage serves two purposes. One, it promotes stability in relationships, thus stability in home situations in raising children. (This is theory, not reality. Reality is that many marriages are unstable and promote dysfunctional children.) Two, civil marriage provides benefits to partners (and children). Tax benefits, legal status in home ownership, legal power to make decisions relating to one another, and inheritance and insurance benefits accrue from civil marriage. Civil marriage has nothing to do with religious faith.
As it stands, gay people can already get married in religious ceremonies. Unitarian Universalist churches, for one, will marry gay couples. No one from another faith is required to recognize those marriages. Similarly, civil marriages are not required to be recognized by churches. All churches have to do is provide equal benefits to their employees, but nothing requires that a church hire a gay employee in the first place. Churches, and Congress, are in the unique position of being protected in being as discriminatory in hiring as they want to be.
Further bolstering my view that opponents to gay marriage are weak on their own faith, McManus, writing about the successful killing of legalized gay marriage in California, quotes a TV add run during that election. The ad said "Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage." This was apparently the lynchpin in the success of the drive to kill gay marriage.
Ironically, it sums up what's wrong with the opposition and their blindness to the flaws in their position. Why would it be a bad thing to teach children that civil marriage is civil marriage, regardless of whether it's between a man and a woman or two people of the same gender? Without meaning to, McManus is saying he is in favor of segregation. Marriage is a good thing but we're only going to allow some people to get married. If you're gay, you are segregated from this institution. Get to the back of the bus and ride your civil union. Or no union at all.
It's all so pointless to me. Opponents of gay marriage can't keep gay people from having sex or living together (Bowers v Hardwick having been overturned). So what's the point in segregating gay people? They're still going to engage in the behavior you abhor. All you're doing is keeping them from enjoying legal rights that any other couple composed of opposite sexes can enjoy. Or not enjoy, as there are plenty of heterosexual couples who decide not to marry, voluntarily foregoing the legal benefits. But that's their choice. Why deny gays the same choice? Even more pointlessly, in the end, no matter how many of these efforts McManus and his allies overturn, in the long run gay marriage will be recognized. Younger people don't have the issues he has with gay marriage. In 20 years, as older voters overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage die off, there will be gay marriage throughout the land, no matter the losses now.
And as a final note, not really germane to the main point, I'll point out that the religious premise of one man/one woman as the basis of traditional, biblical marriage is bunk, too. There was polygamy in the early days of the Bible's writings. What about that tradition?
There's so much to savor here, it's hard to know where to start. I guess I'll go with the obvious chortling with glee that Mike McManus displays in this column in which he opines that President Obama's statement that gay marriage ought to be recognized civilly is guaranteeing that he'll be a one term President. You'd never know it from the print version but the on-line version says this guy's a pastor. He's definitely not one of the forgiveness kind.
Then there's the name of his group - Marriage Savers. Being a single issue group, it's clear he and his believe that keeping gay people from marrying is necessary to save heterosexual marriage. For the life of me I can't see how that's going to happen. Gay people have never been able to legally marry until recently, yet the marriages of straight people have been failing for millenia. I don't mean failing in terms of divorce. The increase in that rate is about a half century or so of event. I mean that marriages throughout history have largely been a failure by the standard of a partnership. Most often it was a one way street in which the female was subservient to the male. That's not a successful marriage. That's just bondage.
What strikes me most about this column is how weak is the faith of opponents to gay marriage. The premise of their opposition is basd on a conflation of two different things. Their opposition is based on religious faith that says a marriage recognized by their religion is between one man and one woman. Ok, fine. That has nothing to do with civil marriage. A government recognition of marriage serves two purposes. One, it promotes stability in relationships, thus stability in home situations in raising children. (This is theory, not reality. Reality is that many marriages are unstable and promote dysfunctional children.) Two, civil marriage provides benefits to partners (and children). Tax benefits, legal status in home ownership, legal power to make decisions relating to one another, and inheritance and insurance benefits accrue from civil marriage. Civil marriage has nothing to do with religious faith.
As it stands, gay people can already get married in religious ceremonies. Unitarian Universalist churches, for one, will marry gay couples. No one from another faith is required to recognize those marriages. Similarly, civil marriages are not required to be recognized by churches. All churches have to do is provide equal benefits to their employees, but nothing requires that a church hire a gay employee in the first place. Churches, and Congress, are in the unique position of being protected in being as discriminatory in hiring as they want to be.
Further bolstering my view that opponents to gay marriage are weak on their own faith, McManus, writing about the successful killing of legalized gay marriage in California, quotes a TV add run during that election. The ad said "Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage." This was apparently the lynchpin in the success of the drive to kill gay marriage.
Ironically, it sums up what's wrong with the opposition and their blindness to the flaws in their position. Why would it be a bad thing to teach children that civil marriage is civil marriage, regardless of whether it's between a man and a woman or two people of the same gender? Without meaning to, McManus is saying he is in favor of segregation. Marriage is a good thing but we're only going to allow some people to get married. If you're gay, you are segregated from this institution. Get to the back of the bus and ride your civil union. Or no union at all.
It's all so pointless to me. Opponents of gay marriage can't keep gay people from having sex or living together (Bowers v Hardwick having been overturned). So what's the point in segregating gay people? They're still going to engage in the behavior you abhor. All you're doing is keeping them from enjoying legal rights that any other couple composed of opposite sexes can enjoy. Or not enjoy, as there are plenty of heterosexual couples who decide not to marry, voluntarily foregoing the legal benefits. But that's their choice. Why deny gays the same choice? Even more pointlessly, in the end, no matter how many of these efforts McManus and his allies overturn, in the long run gay marriage will be recognized. Younger people don't have the issues he has with gay marriage. In 20 years, as older voters overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage die off, there will be gay marriage throughout the land, no matter the losses now.
And as a final note, not really germane to the main point, I'll point out that the religious premise of one man/one woman as the basis of traditional, biblical marriage is bunk, too. There was polygamy in the early days of the Bible's writings. What about that tradition?
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Maryland Special Session
This almost falls into the category of Why I'm a Democrat, but not quite.
My disorderly party, frequently know for fights among its own members, showed again why it is often its own worst enemy when the Democrat controlled Senate and House of Delegates in Maryland failed to pass a budget by the end of the regular 90 day session. It's one of the reasons I'm amused when the Maryland GOP decries the control Democrats have over the legislature and executive in Maryland, bemoaning one party rule. There's no unanimity among Democrats, so there's never any danger of one party hegemony. Of course, the other amusing aspect of the Maryland GOP's lament is that they don't have a similar concern about one party rule in, say, Alabama, Mississippi or Texas.
Anyway, here's The Sun article on the results of the sesssion. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-special-session-day3-20120516,0,2008676.story
I couldn't find the article from the previous day that broke out by Maryland county where the tax increase would effect people. This tax in crease is only on the top 14% of incomes in the state, so 86% of Maryland residents are facing no tax increase at all. Of the 14%, the increase will range from 1/4% to 3/4% over the current taxes. So, for all the GOP cries of economic collapse from this increase, we're talking miniscule sums to these particular high income earners. On average it'll be a few hundred dollars for each of these households.
This is a far more fair tax than the 1% increase in sales tax that was the last effort to balance the budget. That's a regressive tax that disproportionately falls on the lower income earners. As a percentage of income, it's a far larger hit to the poor than these few hundred dollars is to the high earners.
Now, the item that's something of a point of pride for me as a Democrat is who voted for this. Aside from a few dissenters in Montgomery County, the Democrats who passed this are passing this as a hit on themselves and their constituents. Of the 14% of all Marylanders looking at a tax increase, 75% of them live in Montgomery, Howard, Anne Arundel, and Baltimore Counties. They and Prince George's County are the core of the Democratic voting block that conrols the legislature. Almost all of the Republican controlled counties, where opposition lies strongest to this tax increase, each have less than 2% of the population that will face this tax increase.
Democrats should be standing up and saying, look, we did what had to be done to balance the budget and retain the spending priorities important to Maryland voters. We did it and we paid for it with a tax increase on our own, not the voters who dissent from responsible governance. Democrats need to sell responsible governance as a give and take. Responsible governance is compromise. This is a prime example.
They should be embarrassed that they had to call a special session to do it, but when they met in that session they did it right and did it promptly.
My disorderly party, frequently know for fights among its own members, showed again why it is often its own worst enemy when the Democrat controlled Senate and House of Delegates in Maryland failed to pass a budget by the end of the regular 90 day session. It's one of the reasons I'm amused when the Maryland GOP decries the control Democrats have over the legislature and executive in Maryland, bemoaning one party rule. There's no unanimity among Democrats, so there's never any danger of one party hegemony. Of course, the other amusing aspect of the Maryland GOP's lament is that they don't have a similar concern about one party rule in, say, Alabama, Mississippi or Texas.
Anyway, here's The Sun article on the results of the sesssion. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-special-session-day3-20120516,0,2008676.story
I couldn't find the article from the previous day that broke out by Maryland county where the tax increase would effect people. This tax in crease is only on the top 14% of incomes in the state, so 86% of Maryland residents are facing no tax increase at all. Of the 14%, the increase will range from 1/4% to 3/4% over the current taxes. So, for all the GOP cries of economic collapse from this increase, we're talking miniscule sums to these particular high income earners. On average it'll be a few hundred dollars for each of these households.
This is a far more fair tax than the 1% increase in sales tax that was the last effort to balance the budget. That's a regressive tax that disproportionately falls on the lower income earners. As a percentage of income, it's a far larger hit to the poor than these few hundred dollars is to the high earners.
Now, the item that's something of a point of pride for me as a Democrat is who voted for this. Aside from a few dissenters in Montgomery County, the Democrats who passed this are passing this as a hit on themselves and their constituents. Of the 14% of all Marylanders looking at a tax increase, 75% of them live in Montgomery, Howard, Anne Arundel, and Baltimore Counties. They and Prince George's County are the core of the Democratic voting block that conrols the legislature. Almost all of the Republican controlled counties, where opposition lies strongest to this tax increase, each have less than 2% of the population that will face this tax increase.
Democrats should be standing up and saying, look, we did what had to be done to balance the budget and retain the spending priorities important to Maryland voters. We did it and we paid for it with a tax increase on our own, not the voters who dissent from responsible governance. Democrats need to sell responsible governance as a give and take. Responsible governance is compromise. This is a prime example.
They should be embarrassed that they had to call a special session to do it, but when they met in that session they did it right and did it promptly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)