Do we really want the Collectinator to collectinate?California's "tax donor" status — the
imbalance between the federal taxes our state pays and the amount it receives in
federal spending — has been getting increasing attention lately. So has
Governor Schwarzenegger's childishly worded promise to be the "Collectinator"
and get more of our money back.
It occurred to me this morning that maybe we don't want him to. Here's the story, in a nutshell:
California's taxpayers have gotten shortchanged by the federal government for the 18th consecutive year and by a growing margin. This is something a lot of proud Blue State residents already know: States that give more money to the federal government overwhelmingly broke for Kerry in 2004, whereas Red states (where, one imagine, the dangers of allowing a "free ride at taxpayer expense" are oft-repeated) are generally those which receive more money than they contribute. For support on this point from the non-partisan Tax Foundation, see here. One of the promises Schwarzenegger made during the campaign in which he was "elected" Governor was to recover more money from the Feds. This week in DC, he's attempting to make good on this promise (from the Merc): Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger headed to Capitol Hill on Thursday, where skeptical Democrats awaited his plans to get more federal funds for the state and skeptical Republicans wanted to hear more about his redistricting proposal.[...] On its face that would be a good thing, right? We'd get more money, after all, and that might help us balance the budget, right? Well, that's only true if the federal moneys directly substitute for moneys that our counties and cities and state would like to spend; furthermore, if we respond to federal grants by making budget cuts, that just makes our social programs even more dependent on federal largesse. That's one reason I oppose it. The other reason why I think "Collectinating" is a lousy idea is this: I'm proud of our tax donor status. I believe in income redistribution. Californians are younger, meaning, we get less Social Security) and richer (meaning, we ought to pay a larger share of taxes) than a lot of other states. And in an ideal world, I think a state meeting that description probably ought to be a tax donor. Granted that Arnold's likely failure to collect 20 more cents on our tax dollar will be a useful needling point that we can make during the election, I for one won't be sad if he fails to collectinate. I'm certainly not the first to make this point (from Salon.com): Some liberals warn against giving in to this kind of thinking. "We're talking about tax dollars going to the very people who are in need," says Peter Cannavo, an assistant professor of government at Hamilton College who specializes in environmental politics. "You're talking about withdrawing tax dollars from the red states and punishing people, punishing people who do not deserve to be the target of this wrath. It's just a way of collectively venting and taking on a gated community mentality. One has to strive for more than that." The worst thing that can happen in the status quo is that we Blues get to continue lording it over the Reds, to whom I address my closing sentence: You are rocking on our dime, you cheap-ass welfare mothers. The next time you complain about someone getting a free ride on an entitlement program, we'll just see how you do without yours. Posted: Thu - February 17, 2005 at 09:42 AM | Category: | | | |
|
Quick Links
Search
Related topics
Categories
Archives
Calendar
XML/RSS Feed
Blogroll
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category: Published On: Jul 23, 2006 02:49 PM |
||||||||||||||