As if we need another bite out of our money

Have to rant a little here.

I live near Philly so my main source of news is the Philly papers and thus I get the Philly editorials that go with them. Now, the issue that triggered this rant is due to Philly problems and an op-ed concerning them but can be applied to any municipality anywhere.

As everyone knows we are in tough economic times and most people are hurting for money. Less money in people’s pockets means less money for civil constructs such as towns, cities, states, what have you since their main source of income is usually based on a percentage of their residents’ income. Less income for residents, less money for the city, etc. Now I know that is simplistic as hell but you get my drift. It works for my purpose here since, except for the rare occurrence such as Alaska getting oil money the largest part of any civic construct’s income is based on taxes on a percentage of some sum, be it income, sales whatever.

So, to get along with it, Philly is in trouble, money wise. They usually are since they have had a declining tax base for years but it’s even more acute now due to hard times. They seem to have a mayor willing to make some hard decisions of the type most people do in this situation, cutting spending. Lord knows they probably can do a lot of cutting since Philly is still providing services as if for a city of 2 million though they now only have about 1.5 million. Now here is the rub. Every time the mayor proposes cuts some group gets up and bitches, pisses and moans about it. Case in point, he is trying to close 11 library branches. Now that don’t sound like the greatest thing to do, close libraries, but even with those branches closed Philadelphia will still have more library branches per capita than any other major city in the country. Sounds like they can afford to trim a bit there. While some folks might be inconvenienced it’s not like they are being deprived of something. And so it goes. Groups are fighting these cuts every step of the way, in the case of the libraries going so far as to file suit to stop them. (Be patient, I’ll get there eventually. This is a rant you know)

So, now we have a city without enough money and a hamstrung mayor trying to make cuts and going nowhere which brings us to the next step leading up to this missive in which you probably have no interest and will never be read by people who need to read it. In the Philadelphia Inquirer the other day is an op-ed piece by a former city manager who basically outlines the problems and suggests that to solve this impasse it is perhaps time to take the hard step of, gasp, raise taxes. He goes on to say that it is a very unpopular idea and hard for the politicos to do but given the circumstances the necessary thing to do because of tough times. This is where I go ballistic.

It’s not because I am the typical cut taxes at all cost type person. I realize that government needs revenue to provide certain services that only they can and that we have to pay for those services somehow. Statements like this offend me for two main reasons.

First, times are tough and people already have less money yet this guy, and those like him, propose to take even more away from them. Does that sound even remotely sensible? People can’t automatically go to their boss, presuming they still have one, and say, “Times are tough, I need more money to provide for me and my family so henceforth I’m requiring you to give me more.” Wonder how far that would fly? No, people have to tighten the belt and make budget cuts and parents have to tell their kids that “no, you aren’t getting Madden 2009; you’ll just have to make do with 2008.” Of course the kid is going to kick and scream but the money ain’t there so they have to do without. So why can’t governments do the same? One problem is that governments have the power to vote themselves that increase. When parts of the electorate scream about service cuts the politicos, rather than make the tough decisions, decide that raising the revenue is a lot easier. To hell with belt tightening, people forget about tax increases after awhile. And so it goes.

The second, and more important, reason that I hate this line of reasoning is that no one seems to realize that raising taxes to increase revenues in hard times just perpetuates the problem, that it is part of a vicious cycle due to the nature of politicians. Just as revenues go down in a bad cycle so do they go up in a good one. What this means is that if taxes are raised to make up lost revenues in bad times then there comes a nice windfall once the economic cycle returns to good times. Now if taxes were then lowered back to previous levels it might not be so bad but you know that doesn’t happen. What does happen is this. Taxes are raised to cover shortfalls in bad economic times. The cycle starts to turn and the taxes start bringing even more money. Times get good and now the politicians are looking at much more money than they had during the last upturn. Now, while there might be a token tax cut it ain’t going nowhere near to what it was. Politicians figure they can fund even more pet projects with all those extra funds. Times turn bad again and now there are revenue shortfalls again even at higher tax levels because of all the increased funding during the good times. Politicos try to cut spending but each group starts yelling about their baby being cut. Politicians decide they need to raise taxes to increase revenues rather than telling their “kids” to shut up and live with it. Rinse and repeat with every turn of the economic cycle. So, to all politicians who feel they need to raise revenues by increasing taxes in hard times think about it. Of course most politicos can’t think further than the next election so I doubt they can even contemplate the next turn of an economic cycle. Ok, that’s today’s rant. Hope you can make some sense of it.

I was going to close this after my rant but something popped up today. It seems a coworker of mine has somehow stumbled across this blog. Now I cannot prove it is him unless I can trace the IP of the comments that were left. While I deleted them from the comment page they are still available to me to try and track. And given the timing of them they had to be sent from the work computer of which I know the IPs . He seems to suffer from small dick syndrome as he feels compelled to use the alias of Large Member, obviously envious of those more gifted than him. It’s an alias this coworker would feel compelled to use. Add in the fact that the comments posted were remarkably similar to those tossed off in the work environment, concentrating heavily on accusations of homosexuality tend to heighten my suspicions about the author’s identity and also his sexual identity. Isn’t making disparaging remarks about homosexuals and hurling those remarks as insults often considered a sign of latent homosexuality? Not to mention presenting the mentality of a 15 year old schoolboy. Fits this guy to a Tee. Well I mention this to explain why I had to switch to a moderated comment page to try and keep whatever loyal readers I have from being subjected to the filth that spews forth from the poster’s keyboard whether he is who I suspect he is or not. Yes, I know we are adults here, at least most of us and we don’t need to be protected but there is also the fact that I, and those I elect, are the only ones allowed to spew forth filth here and that filth does not include hate speech whether directed at myself or others. Switching to moderated also seems to have spoiled his fun since he was going down the line of old posts and commenting on each until he ran into the moderating message instead of the instant post. After that, no more comments.

So on that note I will leave this bit of boredom behind and be assured I’m not censoring comments in the general sense and Thank You for them and your visits