Answering the $5-billion question
Owen Robinson, of Boots and Sabers blog, at home on a snow day with too much time on his hands, answers my question about what $5-billion he'd cut out of the state budget if Bride of TABOR had been in effect for the last 20 years.
(The conservatives have tried giving the bad idea a new name, TPA, but, as Scott Walker would say, that's applying lipstick to a pig. Most legislators are not ready to pucker up.)
Robinson doesn't prune or trim a budget. He uses an ax and a chain saw to lop of the $5-billion.
His cuts include $1-billion in health and family services (no compassionate conservative stuff here), $1.2-billion from Dept. of Public Instruction (public schools, in other words), and my favorite, all $1.8-billion in shared revenue.
At least he's not afraid to make tough decisions. But Robinson, of course, isn't running for office, unlike the last guy who tried to end shared revenue, somebody named McCallum.
Let's see if a legislator or candidate will take the challenge. Wanna bet? Here's Robinson's list and explanation.
posted by xoff @ 2:11 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Read Owen's answer to Xoff's question. I won't even try tackling the meat of this discussion. However, I did find Owen's response interesting in this regard:
First: Xoff's question is good.
Second: The question has flaws.
Third: The question is skewed.
Fourth: The question makes assumptions.
And lastly: The question is stupid.
Consistency, thy name is not Owen.
$ 1.2 billion in cuts to DPI means a $1.2 billion property tax increase or $1.2 billion in cuts at the local level. which cuts does he propose--fewer teachers, bigger class sizes, early childhood education, the voucher program, special education, testing?
Xoff,
I posted this on Fraley's blog yesterday. He must have been too busy shoveling snow and adding new posts to his blog because I've yet to receive a response:
Why don't we just eliminate all taxes completely? Would that make you guys happy? Do you have any sense of duty to fund public schools, the national defense, health care for the working poor (because business won't provide it), roads and bridge, and other things to benefit the common good? I'd like to see your analysis about what that appropriate level of funding is and how much taxation is required to provide the revenue. Will you at least admit that some level of taxation is necessary to fund public services? If so, then I want an answer about what that appropriate level is. Until you can provide that information, I think that an intiative like TABOR is premature and based on zero data or analysis. It's pure politics, thoughtlessly developed.
Fraley and people like Sykes are really Libertarians, but they can't admit it because Libertarianism is a little fringey. The only services they want funded would finance law and order (cops), movement of private vehicles (big highways), and the US military. They don't need all these traditional services - - schools, libraries, parks - - because they can afford their own private versions (private schools, home computers, back yard pools, private golf clubs, etc). Everyone else who is without - - well, too bad.
Post a Comment
<< Home