Tag Archives: Waste

News

Why don’t governments cut spending during tough times?

16 Comments

Check out this article from USA Today.

Excerpt:

Many states and cities coping with hard times are asking residents to open their wallets for the latest fashion in taxation — the temporary tax.

Governments are raising taxes for a specific period of time and promising the hikes will go away when good times return.

Some big temporary taxes:

•Arizona voters decide today whether to approve a three-year sales-tax hike. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer pushed to raise the sales tax from 5.6% to 6.6%, dedicating two-thirds of the new money for schools.

•Kansas hikes its sales tax July 1 from 5.3% to 6.3% for three years. The tax is designed to prevent cuts in education and social programs.

• Mobile, Ala., boosts its sales tax by 1 cent for 16 months starting June 1. The combined state and local rate will be 10%. Goal: avoid laying off police and firefighters.

A half-dozen other states are eyeing temporary taxes. So are many cities and counties, including King County, Wash., which includes Seattle.

Temporary taxes are phenomena seen during recessions, says Curtis Dubay, a tax expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “You don’t hear about temporary taxes when money is flowing into the coffers.”

The problem is that these taxes rarely go away, he says. “Once politicians get their hands on revenue, they won’t give it up,” he adds.

I noticed that Stan, a resident of Arizona, wrote about an alternative to temporary tax hikes in this post.

Excerpt:

Let’s see what the official 2010 budget says. Hmm. Well, they’ll be paying back $50 million in Federal Stimulus money. Odd. There is a line item for an additional $40 million in “new private prison beds”. Right … so our criminals are more comfortable. Got it. Interesting. There is a “Department of Racing”. Apparently the Department of Racing regulates the Arizona parimutuel horse and greyhound racing industry. Oh, now this is funny. The Department of Economic Security has a budget of $546 million. Perhaps we ought to fire them, eh? While we’re at it, perhaps we ought to take a real hard look at the Governorʹs Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting and their $2 million. I’m thinking they’re not doing their job. Oh, I suppose there is no way around the $2 million we’re spending on the Board of Cosmetology. I mean, what could be more important to Arizonans than beauty treatments. Oh, yeah, we have to regulate that carefully. There’s another $4 million on a “Telecom for the Deaf Fund”. I know … that’s a good thing … but is it more important than public safety? Is that really the job of the government? And the fact that we’re spending more than $13 million on a “Department of Gaming” (with another $74 million to the Arizona State Lottery Commission) is troubling to me all on its own.

Allegedly something around 60% of our budget is already spent on schools and public safety and health care. Fine. But is anyone looking at what that money is going toward and how to cut waste? Trust me. There is lots of waste.

Overspending governments always market tax hikes as ways to say essential services or “compassionate” social programs. Why can’t they just cut some wasteful spending, instead? Is that so hard?

News

Veronique de Rugy shows that stimulus money was allocated for political gain

1 Comment
Veronique de Rugy

Story here on National Review. (H/T The Other McCain via ECM)

Excerpt:

As it turns out, when controlling for state capitals and a host of other potentially relevant variables, we find that the original findings still hold. We learn a few other things, too:

  • First, how and where the money is spent doesn’t seem to be related to unemployment or decline in employment in the district where it is spent.
  • Second, the district’s party affiliation matters in where the money is spent. (We still don’t know how much it matters compared to other factors.) The average Democratic district receives 81 percent more than the average Republican district. Even after taking out the money spent through state capitals, the average Democratic district receives at least 30 percent more than the average Republican district.
  • Third, whether a district has part of a state capital in it is an important factor in how stimulus money is spent. However, controlling for this factor, or even taking the money going to state capitals out altogether, doesn’t negate the finding that the district’s party affiliation matters in where the money is spent.
  • Finally, how long the district’s representative has been in office seems to have a small but significant impact on how the money is spent (this is a new finding, as well).

There is still much more to learn on the question “How are stimulus funds being spent and why?”

The more I dig into this, the more important the question seems.

George Mason University is a pretty moderate school, but they boast a fine conservative economics department. Jennifer Roback Morse used to teach there, and Walter Williams still does. It’s probably the best place for a conservative or libertarian student to do an economics degree.

Now seems like a good time to re-post Michele Bachmann’s denunciation of gangster government, too.

Michelle Malkin calls them Corruptocrats. It fits.

Related posts

Videos

MUST-SEE: Courageous Bret Baier takes on Obama in exclusive White House interview

Leave a comment

Video is here.

The transcript is here.

Excerpt:

BAIER: Mr. President, you said Monday that you praised the Congressional Budget Office numerous times. You also said this, this proposal makes Medicare stronger — and you just said it to me here —

OBAMA: Right.

BAIER: — it makes coverage better, it makes its finances more secure, and anyone who says otherwise is misinformed or is trying to misinform you.

OBAMA: Right.

BAIER: The CBO has said specifically that the $500 billion that you say that you’re going to save from Medicare is not being spent in Medicare. That this bill spends it elsewhere outside of Medicare. So you can’t have both.

OBAMA: Right.

BAIER: You either spend it on expenditures or you make Medicare more solvent. So which is it?

OBAMA: Here’s what it does. On the one hand what you’re doing is you’re eliminating insurance subsidies within Medicare that aren’t making anybody healthier but are fattening the profits of insurance companies. Everybody agrees that that is not a wise way to spend money. Now, most of those savings go right back into helping seniors, for example, closing the donut hole.

When the previous Congress passed the prescription drug bill, what they did was they left a situation which after seniors had spent a certain amount of money, suddenly they got no help and they were stuck with the bill. Now that’s a pretty expensive proposition fixing that. It wasn’t paid for at the time that that bill was passed. So that money goes back into Medicare, both to fix the donut hole, lower premiums.

All those things are important, but what’s also happening is each year we’re spending less on Medicare overall and as consequence, that lengthens the trust fund and it’s availability for seniors.

BAIER: Your chief actuary for Medicare said this, that cuts in Medicare: “cannot be simultaneously used to finance other federal outlays and extend the trust fund.” That’s your guy.

OBAMA: No — and what is absolutely true is that this will not solve our whole Medicare problem. We’re still going to have to fix Medicare over the long term.

BAIER: But it’s $38 trillion in the hole.

OBAMA: Absolutely, and that’s the reason that we’re going to have to — that’s the reason I put forward a fiscal commission based on Republicans and Democratic proposals, to make sure that we have a long-term fix for the system. The key is that this proposal doesn’t weaken Medicare, it makes it stronger for seniors currently who are receiving it. It doesn’t solve that big structural problem, Bret. Nobody’s claiming that this piece of legislation is going to solve every problem that’s been there for decades. What it does do is make sure that the trust fund is not going to be going bankrupt in seven years, according to their accounting rules —

BAIER: So you don’t buy —

OBAMA: — and in the meantime —

BAIER: — the CBO or the actuary that you can’t have it both ways?

OBAMA: No —

BAIER: That you can’t spend the money twice?

OBAMA: — no, what is absolutely true and what I do agree with is that you can’t say that you are saving on Medicare and then spend the money twice. What you can say is that we are going to take these savings, put them back to make sure that seniors are getting help on the prescription drug bill instead of that money going to, for example, insurance reform, and —

BAIER: And you call this deficit neutral, but you also set aside the doctor fix, more than $200 billion. People look at this and say, how can it be deficit neutral?

OBAMA: But the — as you well know, the doctors problem, as you mentioned, the “doctors fix,” is one that has been there four years now. That wasn’t of our making, and that has nothing to do with my health care bill. If I was not proposing a health care bill, right — let’s assume that I had never proposed health care.

BAIER: But you wanted to change Washington, Mr. President. And now you’re doing it the same way.

Talk about facing down the dragon in his own lair. Way to go Bret!