My takes, daily.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Disclaimer
WisOpinion is hosting this blog but does not control or endorse its content.My Previous Takes
- Cheney is the Shooter! Cheney is the Shooter!
- A Look at the Loony Left
- Hackett Indeed Out
- New Product
- Investigation Escalating?
- Lame Ad
- Fair and Balanced
- Press Corp: Cheney was the shooter.
- Timing is Everything
- When are Big Companies Good? When are they Bad?
< ? Blog On Wisconsin! # >
4 Comments:
"Reschovsky's analysis found that the proposed revenue limits would hurt economic development by limiting government's ability to invest in education, health care and transportation infrastructure."
He had to do an analysis to come to the already widely distributed, regurgitated talking points of TABOR opponents?
Methinks this guy shouldn't be on the UW payroll if he has to over-think his talking points.
Very creative, Brian. I figured conservatives would paint Reschovsky as a typical leftist professor in the hopes of discrediting his analysis. You got a little more specific, though, writing him off as a "Doyle donor." Very slick.
You know what would make your criticism of Reschovsky carry a little more weight, though?
First, demonstrating that you actually read his analysis. Since you were so quick to attack Judy Robson for supposedly criticizing the revenue restrictions amendment before reading it, I imagine holding yourself to the same standard wouldn't be asking too much.
And second, finding an actual economist who could challenge Reschovsky's findings. Good luck with that one.
P.S. When a prominent economist who has spent his entire career studying public finance analyzes a major amendment that focuses on restricting public revenue in the state, a press release on the topic is more than warranted. You're probably happy to see that the JS completely ignored the analysis in today's paper. I wish I could say the same for the PR blitz by the special interest group WMC and the conservative organization Americans for Prosperity, whose opinion on the amendment apparently is deserving of not only multiple press releases, but also a story in the JS.
I don't challenge Reschovsky's findings that indeed Government would have had less of the taxpayers' money had the WPTA been enacted years ago.
That's the whole point!
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 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.
Post a Comment
<< Home