In my opinion, the main difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats actually believe in government. We believe that government can and does play a positive, essential role in improving the standard of living and quality of life for all Americans. Republicans… not so much.
For weeks, I’ve been working on and off on essay elaborating on this thesis. But this ain’t it. Today I’m going to put forth an alternative thesis, which quite simply states that Democrats tend to be more, well… democratic.
Take for example the political controversy brewing in Georgia, where Republicans have taken total control of the Legislature for the first time since Reconstruction. Not satisfied with the usual majority control of committees, the newly elected Republican Speaker has pushed through unprecedented rules that allow him to appoint “hawks” that may vote in any committee, at any time, on any piece of legislation… at the sole discretion of the Speaker.
You can learn more about it at: NoHawks.com (Thanks to Dan for pointing me towards this site.)
I guess this is what President Bush meant when he joked, “If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.” Or was he joking?
For that is essentially what the Georgia Chancellor Speaker has devised… a dictatorship in which he personally gets to choose which legislation gets out of which committee in what form… without even having to go through the messy process of convincing members of his own party.
As Dan noted in his email to me… I betcha dictator-wannabe Tom DeLay is jealous as hell that he didn’t think of this one.
In my opinion…Democrats actually believe in government… that government can and does play a positive, essential role in improving the standard of living and quality of life for all Americans. Republicans… not so much.
Well, at least you said “not so much,” instead of “not at all.” IMHO, the Dems believe that (more) government is the solution to the society’s ills, while the GOP is more willing to let people’s common sense + the free market decide what is best — with one notable, very unfortunate and troubling exception: when the Far Right wants to impose their values beyond the basic morality & values that most positive contributors to society hold.
Personally, I find many of the Dems views & proposed solutions extremely patronizing and offensive — even if I’m not part of the group of people that “benefit” from their “wisdom” and “generosity” and especially those views espoused by guilt-ridden, silver-spoon-fed, “Mayflower descendant” whites.
Nice catch. Now, if Dino Rossi THINKS he can pull something that stupid – I think the Godmother of the Pink Marummy Revolution will have a cow. And so will the Godfather – as in M-E!
Aren’t you stereotyping a tad bit, Mark? If you want to see the ultimate big-government guys, just look at the current administration, whose cabinet is filled with ex-CEOs who know little or nothing about competing in a free market but all of whose corporations were masters of the art of pigging out at the public trough.
Just to comment on the first paragraph, Conservatives believe that a government that can give you everything can also take it all away, and that is why they tend to scale back on programs that make people reliant on hand outs. Liberals from what I have seen tend to feel the opposite, they feel that people don’t know how to fully take care of themselves and believe that government should be surrogate parents. In the process of giving government more power, they also take away a persons right to choose, a right to choose wether or not they need what the goverment says they do.
The right to choose is what Americans bleed and die for, They die for a country FORMED as a Republic, now pushed toward Democracy, Hopefully not too soon a Socialist society (we are only 20 years behind Canada and catching up fast.) I don’t think Americans want to be Canadiaqns or they would just move there, so maybe we have more in common than previously stated.
“A slave is one who waits for someone else to free him.” – Rosellen Brown
Don @ 3
Yes, I would say that I’m stereotyping a bit. However, it is merely in contrast to Goldy’s overly-rosy stereotype of Dem motivations. And it isn’t like the Left is all made up of altruists.
As for the current administration, I am not pleased with the bigger-government tilt. Furthermore, I would be open to reading your specific allegations re: the “ex-CEO’s in the Cabinet.” A quick glance at the current and nominated members doesn’t show anything particularly out-of-line with past administrations. In fact, to Bush’s credit, it seems like there are more women and minorities in office than ever before (but I could be wrong).
Want a look at “bigger goernment tilt”?
Go no farther than OLYMPIA.
Mark writes, “Well, at least you said “not so much,†instead of “not at all.†IMHO, the Dems believe that (more) government is the solution to the society’s ills, while the GOP is more willing to let people’s common sense + the free market decide what is best”
It is called representative government. The people do decide via their votes for their representatives. Government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Republicans want to always paint the picture that the people in government don’t represent the people – but they do, they were elected to their positions, and if you don’t like them you can vote the bums out to be replaced by someone else who will represent you.
Or are you willing to attend every governmental meeting, along with millions of other people, to try and get anything done?
Adriel @ 4
Liberals looked around and didn’t like the results of conservatives’ social-Darwinist ideology. We saw poverty and human suffering, and tried to do something to make life better for its victims — especially the children, elderly, disabled, and helpless. Your problem is you can’t see the realities of the world beyond the ideology stuck to the end of your nose.
Adriel @ 4 (Part II)
Yes, we’re aware of the Patriot Act and the government harassment of anybody who criticizes this administration. We share your admiration of limited powers. That’s why we donate to the ACLU.
Mark @ 5
We liberals definitely could have a productive conversation with you (and like-minded true conservatives, as opposed to the ersatz kind who presently dominate the GOP) about how to make this country better for average citizens, starting with the corporatism that has taken over both political parties and real campaign finance reform, so let’s do that sometime soon. That’s what everyone was talking about just a few short years ago, remember? (Although that does seem like a long time ago.) It’s just that corporatism is so much worse in Dubya’s regime that everyone has completely forgotten that it’s a problem with the Democrats, too.
That is fine help those people but don’t penalize me for the way they were born, or because they choose to take advantage of the government run bread lines. There is a balance, that was my point we are far tipped to the left in this state.
Those who choose not to help themselves when fully able should not be rewarded, we should encourage a society that we fill sortcoming not encourage laziness, or discourage initiative to be self sufficient (which law makers in this state always try to help DSHS do.)
Liberals looked around and didn’t like the results of conservatives’ social-Darwinist ideology. We saw poverty and human suffering, and tried to do something to make life better for its victims – especially the children, elderly, disabled, and helpless. Your problem is you can’t see the realities of the world beyond the ideology stuck to the end of your nose. -Comment by Don— 2/2/05 @ 11:49 am
Except support welfare reform which has proven to be a way out of poverty.
Except support tax reductions and trust that people know the best use their own money.
Except support school choice/vouchers which has proven to be the way out of failing schools., which leads to a better education which leads the way out of poverty.
Except support some social security privatization which will help them own something.
Except condemn abortion which is the epitome of human children suffering.
In a piece on CNN NewsNight last night about child labor (over 240 million children, including in the US, are child laborers) they mentioned that it would only take $8 billion annually to provide universal primary education worldwide. The US spends that in Iraq in one month.
If you really want to attack the cause of terrorism you do so by attacking poverty and illiteracy.
These are the type of things you don’t just pass on to the free market and business to resolve, yet that’s how Republicans want to solve many of our social problems.
Daniel @ 7
I’m not sure how your point relates to my comment. I agree that we have representative government. The thread was about the differing Democratic and Republican views regarding the role of government. At the moment, the national government — elected by the people — leans toward the Republican side of the aisle. Does this mean that you will simply go along with the “will of the people?” I would hope not. I would, in fact, hope that you would participate in the continuing political discourse — the give-and-take of US politics.
My somewhat-stereotypical original point was that Republicans tend to believe that individuals should have more control (and responsibility) over their own lives and property. Democrats tend to believe that more governmental intervention and control is necessary.
As I see it (and correct me if I’m wrong), Democrats would rather just cut checks to poor people, while Republicans would rather have the government guarantee privately-funded micro-loans to help those same people become self-sufficient. “Teach a man to fish” and all that…
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” – Ronald Reagan
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” – Groucho Marx
“Except support tax reductions and trust that people know the best use their own money.”
If they know best why tax them at all then? Let’s just eliminate all taxes (I’m sure Tim Eyman can write an initiative for that) and let everyone fend for themselves. No public transportation services, no public social services, no public medical services, no government agencies, no government officials in public government facilities, no national military.
Of course that’s ridiculous, just as the mantra is.
Well lets see; Barney ‘Boy-Toy’ Franks,Ted ‘Killer’ Kennedy, Joe Biden, Hillary ‘Thats Rodham’ Clinton, Bob ‘KKK’ Byrd, Chris ‘Come here sweety’Dodd, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, John ‘Reporting for duty’ Kerry, ‘Bagdad’ Jim McDermott, Frank ‘not to late to vote’Lautenberg, Patty ‘IQ’ Murray, Chuck ‘???’ Schumer, Bill ‘Impeached’ Clinton, and Al ‘Internet’ Gore are just a part of the cast of charactors in the horesesass line up. Now thats real government! Yes there looking out for me!
Don @ 8 & 10
Yes, I agree that moderate and respectful people of differing opinions can have productive conversations (as happens whenever my S.O. and I have dinner).
I don’t think, however, that all Republicans buy into Laissez Faire Capitalism or your social-Darwinist allegations. Of course, we have a responsibility to those suffering and less-fortunate. However, we must also help those who can help themselves to do so to whatever extent they are able — if for no other reason than to maximize the resources available to the truly suffering and totally helpless.
The problem that needs fixing or replacing (not just money thrown at it) is ***education***, we need to allow competition to our broken worn out horse that needs to put out of it’s misery. A government that trains the way you think can take your freedoms without complaint from the same people, hence why the constitution is just breezed over and not taught, ask your kids they will tell you.
We all agree that uneducated (or mis-educated) people force us to have so many government agencies and lame-duck programs that help those who don’t need it, and deny those who could use it because the funds are all depleated by those who take advantage.
Daniel @ 16
IMHO (and again speaking in gross generalizations), Democrats want to tax the populace as much as it will bear and when the public screams, will — through their grand benevolence — cut those same taxes. Republicans would rather trust (gamble?) that starting with the fewest taxes possible will encourage a vibrant economy. The true answer is likely somewhere in the middle.
As I see it (and correct me if I’m wrong), Democrats would rather just cut checks to poor people, while Republicans would rather have the government guarantee privately-funded micro-loans to help those same people become self-sufficient. “Teach a man to fish†and all that…
First off I’m not sure how a government can guarantee something that is privately funded in a capitalist society.
Secondly, both sides should be able to agree on the “teach a man to fish” philosophy.
The issue is of the role of government, which in my mind has to include ensuring all citizens have access to health care (we have evolved from a society where the weak that get ill should die), and education. It is our moral obligation, and the moral principles most Democrats believe in, that we help those that are in need, and that type of assistance cannot be relied on to come from the Enron’s and Tyco’s of the world.
As for participating in the political discourse, I believe that is what I am doing. However, the downtrodden, poor, homeless, jobless, uninsured, don’t have the luxury of money and time to do so, they’re just doing all they can to survive day to day.
ok daniel we got the point but now get ours, We have loopholes available so that the system can and IS being abused. Therefore we are saying cut the fat, don’t swallow it with the steak just beacuase you might cut some of the meat off too.
Adriel @ 11
Oh please. The “self-sufficient” crowd is first in line when it comes to taxpayer handouts, starting with free use of publicly owned resources, endless demands for more tax-financed infrastructure (highways, ports, NASCAR tracks, etc.), and when did the “I-worked-for-it” types ever turn down a farm subsidy, below-market-value grazing fee, investment tax credit, or direct subsidy. Uncle Sam hands out five times as much welfare to corporations as to individuals.
WE NOT meaning conservatives, but meaning America.
Adriel – Please name some abuses, and how the fixes suggested by Tim Eyman and Republicans haven’t created other problems and shortfalls.
I see too many cases where the meat is being cut off under the guise of simply trimming fat.
Or cases, as Don points out, of tax cuts benefitting the least needy.
Daniel @ 21
I’m not advocating Laissez Faire Capitalism. Therefore, under the existing system, the government (or quasi-governmental agencies) can guarantee loans (as they do with SBA and student loans). The problem currently is that the SBA doesn’t really want to talk to you unless you want to borrow $100,000 (not the actual number, but you get the idea).
If you think that the private sector can’t/won’t help, I would encourage you to check out WashingtonCASH.org — a non-profit, private-sector program that should be a model for replacing many federal hand-out programs.
As for health care, I think the greater difference between the parties is over how to achieve it. Canada’s universal system doesn’t work. The current US system doesn’t cover everybody and does little or nothing to promote responsibility on the part of those covered. People have no incentive to stay healthy and act in a healthy manner — be it smoking, drinking, drugs, sex, eating habits, etc. Many want the freedom to live as they choose, but to have the consequences of their actions taken care of by others.
Don @ 23
The interstate highway system IS one of the responsibilities of federal government. As for ports, etc., it simply comes down to a business decision. It is up to the local & state governments to decide if they want that particular business in their territory. The private firms are merely saying, “we’re going to open a business somewhere and we’d like to consider your area from among others. Whichever area makes the most business sense for us will get the revenue, jobs, etc.” The state & local governments are free to say “no.”
As for farm subsidies, etc… I agree that we don’t need to be giving handouts to ADM, ConAgra, etc. BUT we should be prepared for the cost of food to go up. I’m all for cutting all kinds of subsidies. My fear is that if we cut the subsidies, the cost of goods will rise accordingly, but we’ll never see the tax savings because the government will find someplace else to spend the money.
Only a democrat would think that a tax cut is welfare, lets give a man back the money that he earned and not let the beaurocratic beast swallow it.
The federal government knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and then say, ‘If it weren’t for the government, you wouldn’t be able to walk.’ – Harry Brown
“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.” – Robert Heinlein
Mark @ 27
I have friends in Canada who would be very surprised to learn that the country’s health care system doesn’t work. It has some problems, but your statement is simplistic and not, in the main, true. I give you credit, though, for pointing out some of the many problems in the so-called system we (over)pay for here. This subject would make an interesting topic for a blog all its own. I know of some Democratic Party ideas on improving our health care system; I’d like to learn more about those of the Republicans and conservatives.
Mark writes, “As for health care, I think the greater difference between the parties is over how to achieve it. Canada’s universal system doesn’t work. The current US system doesn’t cover everybody and does little or nothing to promote responsibility on the part of those covered. People have no incentive to stay healthy and act in a healthy manner – be it smoking, drinking, drugs, sex, eating habits, etc. Many want the freedom to live as they choose, but to have the consequences of their actions taken care of by others.”
More generalizations I’m sure you’ll agree, but your point is taken. Can’t help but think that so many of those taking advantage of the system voted for Bush in November, and many of those with the incentive to stay healthy do so because they are uninsured or cannot afford to pay the premiums.
The Health Care problem is also an example of the problems of giving up too much control and power to corporations. Costs are rampant, drugs are on the market that shouldn’t be, companies not pursuing cures for diseases that are money making opportunities.
Adriel @ 29
Re your Heinlein quote, given this, I am tyrannized every day by the Bush administration. To cite only one thing, I do not want an aggressive and bloated military, even if someone on high claims it is good for me because it is defending my freedom. It’s not, and I resent paying for it.
companies not pursuing cures for diseases that are money making opportunities.
That should have been:
companies are not pursuing cures for diseases that are not money making opportunities.
Ass @ 12
We do support welfare reform, so what the hell are you talking about?
We don’t like taxes any more than you do, but only an idiot thinks you can run government without taxes. It just so happens the government you don’t want to pay taxes for (1) educates the workforce, (2) builds the infrastructure that makes commerce possible, (3) creates and protects the private property rights you value so highly, and more. The Democrats used to be the party of big spending and big deficits. Lately, the Republicans have stolen that thunder to such an extent that Democrats are now the real fiscal conservatives. You guys don’t want to pay taxes and you don’t want to cut spending, you’ve increased spending and put it on a credit card. That sucks. It leads to inflation, high interest rates, and unemployment. We don’t like your way of paying for government.
Universal free public education is one of the most important policies America ever adopted. It created this nation’s prosperity and strengthened its democracy. Our side recognizes that some public schools have serious problems, and like you, we’re seeking solutions. We aren’t convinced that school vouchers would produce net gains for society. To begin with, the research to date comparing academic performance does not show that voucher schools produce better results. Secondly, private schools tend to cherry pick the best students, and voucher programs tend to abandon struggling students and special needs students to public schools drained of resources diverted to private schools. Finally, until voucher proponents are willing to require private schools receiving public money to account to public authorities for what they teach and how they spend public money, there’s nothing to talk about. Their refusal to do so is a deal-killer.
We oppose privatization of Social Security for the reasons stated in the recent thread on this topic. The Republicans are lying when they claim the system is going broke and needs major surgery. But even if SocSec were as sick as they claim, their “cure” is worse than the disease.
I personally oppose abortion on religious and moral grounds, but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs by force of law. In addition, I see a bunch of practical problems, including:
1. Making abortion illegal won’t stop it, it’ll only kill hundreds of thousands of women from unsafe illegal abortions. History backs this up: Been there, done that. Prohibition doesn’t work. If you want to eliminate abortion, you have to change the culture so people don’t want abortions, and you have to do that within families and churches, one girl at a time.
2. If you make abortion illegal, what are you going to do with all the women who get illegal abortions? Throw them in jail? Better be prepared to pay higher taxes for more prisons, more courts, more prosecutors.
3. What are you going to do with all the unwanted children? Let’s face it, some people shouldn’t be parents. We already have neglected and abused kids coming out of our ears, a serious shortage of adequate foster homes, millions of people not paying child support, and we’ll have a lot more if you force people to give birth to children they don’t want, can’t raise, and won’t support.
My suggestion here is, worry about yourself first, if you’re against abortion then don’t get one, and let God decide what to do with those who do. Last time I checked, She didn’t appoint you to pass judgment on everyone else.
Daniel once again you are slanting facts to the left, fact is lawyers and malpractice are to blame for “Rampant costs.” Kill frivulant lawsuits, don’t institute socialized medicine where you have to wait in line behind joe blow broke his toe, and you have appendicitus.
Modern medicine is just a new term for witch doctor, “oh you have cancer, what to do?… cut, Burn, or poison?” truth is there are cures for some of the largest dilemas facing society but there is more money in research, and band-aids not cures, but your generalizations that big business is the devil? come on who can crush your lively hood faster overinflated government, or big business?
companies are not pursuing cures for diseases that are not money making opportunities. -Comment by Daniel K— 2/2/05 @ 1:12 pm
Oh really? Those horrible big bad selfish money grubbing pharamceutical companies!
Drug companies are “companies,” and the main impetus of a company is to make a profit for its shareholders. Without profits, no more new drugs.
Drug company profits aren’t a problem–they’re the solution.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=1134
http://www.reason.com/rb/rb010505.shtml
http://www.fightingdiseases.or....._FINAL.pdf
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=677
http://www.signonsandiego.com/.....tions.html
RDC @ 30
I, too, have Canadian friends — who, apparently, feel differently about their health system and the policy of rationing.
What I find interesting is the apparent symbiosis between two dysfunctional systems. Canadians come down to the US for specialists & the latest in cutting-edge medicine, while US citizens buy Canadian prescriptions and (at least used to?) go to BC for laser eye surgery.
I personally oppose abortion on religious and moral grounds, but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs by force of law. -Comment by Don— 2/2/05 @ 1:24 pm
“but”, “but”, “but”, “but”, … and your moral compass twirls round and round.
“Principle — particularly moral principle — can never be a
weathervane, spinning around this way and that with the shifting winds of expediency. Moral principle is a compass forever fixed and forever true.” –Edward Lyman
When you are the best in the ring you have to defend your title because others will try to test you. I agree that I don’t like us spreading ourselves thin across the map with large amounts of military, however we need enough to defend us here on the homefront. I don’t agree 100% with Bush on everything, I feel that we should have taken Bin Laden out before directing attention on Saddam. The undisputed fact is that Kerry voted (before he voted against it) to have us go into Iraq because even he knew Saddam was a threat, so blame the Dems too.
Mark @ 14
Where’s the “discourse” and “give and take” in the “Republican leaning” Congress and administration? We’d love to have some.
As for poor people, I’ve had plenty of contact with welfare programs and welfare recipients. A good many — way too many — were women whose husbands beat the crap out of them, or abandoned them, or both, and didn’t pay a penny of child support until the government wrung it out of them. Most of these women had major barriers to employment such as no child care, no transportation, no skills, etc. Although the vast majority of welfare recipients were kids who did nothing to deserve poverty or society’s scorn, there also is a category of dependent adults who, frankly, are basket cases. They aren’t ever going to “fish,” and no amount of ideological claptrap can turn them into responsible or productive citizens. All you can do is warehouse them and shove food through the bars. Or kill them, or let them starve, but don’t pretend to be a Christian if that’s what you want to do with them.
There is a significant problem in the area of medical research and prescriptions. On one hand, the system should be set up in such a way that the potential reward offsets the potential investment risk. If a company spends millions and millions of dollars on drug research, they have the right to recoup that money and also receive a healthy return on said investment. On the other hand, there is a moral issue to making sure that the best, most effective drugs are available to everyone who needs them. There currently are drug patents, but there is also a push to roll out generics more quickly and to cut the price of drugs.
Drug marketing is also an issue. On one hand, the companies do so in order to maximize revenue before the patent expires. However, this also results in marketing expense and pressure on doctors to prescribe the promoted drugs. There is a side benefit of a better-informed public (that doesn’t see doctors as gods), but the double-edged sword of patients pressuring doctors to prescribe an advertised drug.
Don @ 38
So, you’re saying I should dump my Soylent stock? ;)
Adriel @ 15
Reagan lied about a lot of other things, too. Yes, yes, it’s a homily we all love, and love to repeat. It has a nice ring, makes us feel good, and vindicates our hatred of taxes and regulations. But it isn’t true. The fact is, government DOES help a lot of people. Remember that the next time you call the police or fire department, send your kids to a public university, drive on a freeway, go fishing at a public lake after launching your boat at a public boat launch, take your kids to a public park, check a book out of a public library, or put your parents in a nursing home on the Medicaid problem so you can inherit their estate. Having worked in state government as a lawyer, I saw my share of respectable, upper middle class, very Republican suburbanites pull the latter stunt. It’s legal, too, if you have the right lawyer.
Adriel @ 15 (Part 2)
A very apt description of the current national administration. Marx (Groucho, not Karl) was a smart guy. He nailed it. But this generalization, like all generalizatons, is subject to the limitations of generalizations generally. There are some politicians who actually do some good.
Liberty @ 17
As long as we’re dissing politicians, this is for your further edification:
“The Republican Wife Cheating Hall of Fame”
http://www.americaheldhostile.com/cheating.html
Don @ 38
No, seriously. I am not saying that the present administration is my favorite. I’m sure you fear that they’ll run roughshod over your best interests just like the WA State government will run over mine.
I absolutely agree with you re: kids and those who are totally unable to help themselves. I think that you’ll find that a good portion (majority) of Republicans will agree with you on that. The problem arises with the able-bodied adults who are supposed to care for the kids & unable (but take their money for themselves instead).
While I haven’t worked directly with those on welfare, I have worked indirectly with organizations that do. And it seems that many faith-based organizations are able to help more people for less money than agencies run by government.
And, as for those unskilled women who need childcare, etc… I personally think that almost ALL able-bodied adults have SOMETHING that they’re good at. They just need a helping hand here and there. As I mentioned before, check out WashingtonCASH.org.
Mark @ 18
I know that and you know that, now let’s work together (reasonable Democrats and reasonable Republicans) for reasonable policies. I have lots of friends who are Republicans and (real) conservatives. I’m just wondering why the hell they allowed this (Dubyaism) to happen to their party.
blah, blah, blah, you read but do you pay attention? I said Trim the fat, meaning obsolete or neglegent sectors of government.
I defrag my computer and virus scan it every week, all I want is a thorough Virus scan of DC and Olympia once a decade, or century for that matter. Goverment has become a gluttonous tyrant that tells you when to do everything but eat and breath, and all for the sake of the underprivleged and underedicated.
I have no dilema with taxes for streets, education (when it’s properly managed and not squandered), and I don’t even have a problem with taxation to help people get back on their feet after tragedy, or even providing for those who can’t provide for themselves as long as it’s LEGITIMATE (there should be no loop holes).
Adriel @ 19
Translation: Evolution is a crock.
mark @ 20
IMHO (and also speaking in gross generalizations) Republicans want to borrow as much as Japan and China will lend to them.
DON-
…and yet schools teach it (Secular Humanism) but don’t teach God.
Adriel @ 22
Give us a reasonable definition of “fat” and we’ll agree with you. BTW, our state government is a lot leaner and more efficient than it was a few years ago, thanks to the Democrats who have been running it. How about giving some credit where credit is due.
Mark @ 27
I don’t know the answer to health care. I know America has the world’s most expensive health care system and ranks pretty far down the scale in quality of care not to mention the vast numbers of citizens with no care. We have lots of smart people in this country, so I know we can do better. Somebody think of something. Soon.
Mark @ 28
This sounds like an argument that markets are less efficient than a system of government subsidies.
I personally oppose abortion on religious and moral grounds, but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs by force of law. -Comment by Don— 2/2/05 @ 1:24 pm
I personally oppose drug abuse but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs, so if your kid wants to be high as a kite 24/7 – whatever dude.
I personally oppose drunk drivers but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs, so if you want to slug back that 12 pack of Bud and head across town – whatever dude.
I personally oppose rape rooms and putting my political opponents through shredders but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs, so if Udai and Qusay want to carry on – whatever dude.
I personally oppose cheating but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs, so if your kid finds it necessary to get into college – whatever dude.
I personally oppose the mutilation of women but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs, so if that’s the way they do things in the Sudan – whatever dude.
I personally oppose cutting off the hands of thieves but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs, so if that’s what the Quran teaches – whatever dude.
I personally oppose slavery but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs, but who am I to tell Indonesia, Thailand, Somalia, etc. they are wrong – whatever dude.
Thank God public schools aren’t allowed to teach my kids about God – my wife and I and our church can handle that task quite nicely ourselves, in our own way, thank you. Because I have a feeling that our vision of God just might be different from yours.
Adriel @ 29
The problem is not tax cuts, the problem is borrowing instead of taxing to pay for things you refuse to do without. This doesn’t work worth shit in a family budget, and it doesn’t work worth shit in a public budget, either. If you want to cut taxes, cut the spending first, and if you don’t know what spending to cut I’ll suggest some — optional wars, for example. And missle interceptors that don’t intercept anything. Or how about $540 billion annual giveaways to HMOs and drug companies that do little or nothing for senior citizens or taxpayers.
Don, well lets start with all the money we throw at Un-sound transit, the fact remains some people will never ride a bus, remedy the problem quit handing out band-aids. Widen roads, enforce the standing traffic laws in refrence to express lanes, I see 60% single occupant drivers in those lanes.
Second the Via-duct an underground solution, the most expensive solution, below water level in a city where we expect earthquakes to get more prominent? that is not smart by the Democrat controlled Legislature. Supposedly they chose this solution because it’s less of an eye sore, That is not a responsable action.
Show me facts and I might side with you, no generalizations as you said.
Daniel @ 31
Scene in drug company lab (supervisor to scientist): “Here, invent a disease for this cure.”
Don @ 44
I think that the Far Right (Religious Right, etc.) has taken control of the GOP, just like the Far Left (MoveOn.org, etc.) runs the core of the Dems. Both just sit in their trenches and lob nasty words at each other, while the Moderate Majority(?) is stuck in the crossfire.
For Republicans, we have people like Christie Todd Whitman (MyPartyToo.com), Rudy, McCain (OK, not totally moderate, but…), Arnold (for better or worse), etc.
I was encouraged by the tone of Obama’s speech in November. I can only hope it wasn’t all PR BS.
Is there a website or an organization for moderate Democrats?
Don I agree Government should keep it’s beak out of HMOs, they are a private business not a non-profit organization.
so we agree there is alot the government should keep their nose out of.
Ariel @ 35
“lawyers and malpractice are to blame for rampant costs”
Bullshit. Legal costs and judgments amount to less than 1/2 of 1% of health care costs. There’s too much overhead in the system, and too many middlemen (e.g. insurance companies) taking profits off the top.
Don @ 51
How do you figure that?
I’m saying that while the market would even things out after the withdrawal of ag subsidies, government can’t be trusted to return the savings to the people, but would find somewhere new to spend it instead.
Ass @ 36
Just what the world needs, another Crusader.
so you are saying $250,000 to $500,000 in malpractice insurance a year is just .5% of their income, damn they make more than I thought. Don please read fact not indoctrination, if you want to know about rocket science don’t ask the butcher.
Mark @ 39
What’s the p/e, debt-equity ratio, and cash flow per share? I’m cash-heavy right now, looking for a buying opportunity, doesn’t need to be very socially responsible as I’m in it for the money.
Mark @ 43
What are you afraid WA state gov’t will do to you? I truly want to know. Our state gov’t should serve its citizens, not oppress them. Permit processes should be user friendly. Bureaucrats should be courteous, knowledgeable, and helpful. Business formation and job creation should be encouraged. Gregoire wants to do a good job, and I want her to do a good job too, so the people will re-elect her. I don’t want BIAW’s land use policies.
Don @ 58
As someone who has worked with doctors and has some as friends, some of the biggest problems I am told are:
1.) Patients who don’t pay for at least a part of their health care tend to see the doctor more often for marginal things because “Hey, I’ve got insurance, so why not?”
2.) Patients would much rather take fancy, expensive (and insurance-paid) drugs than alter their lifestyle for better health.
3.) Paperwork and overhead for running a medical office are significant and expensive.
4.) Insurance companies do not reward efficient medical care. They’d rather have you go to an urgent care PA for mediocre care on two visits ($200 total bill) than one good doctor for a single visit ($150).
5.) Malpractice insurance can drive a doctor broke — especially in areas like OB/GYN.
Adriel @ 45
Please provide a list. Specificity, please.
Adriel wrote, “fact is lawyers and malpractice are to blame for “Rampant costs.—
Oh, really? The same drugs, from the same companies are cheaper in Canada, and so the reason we pay more is all because of those nasty lawyers? (You know, the same ones Republicans rely on to steal elections or try to overturn them – but I digress).
I will agree with you that we are a litigious society. We have become a “me first” society. Too many people believe others are to blame for all their problems and we make it too easy for people to sue, but this isn’t only a health care problem, this is a social problem, because at the end of the day each individual has to choose to “sue the hell out of someone” or not.
Adriel @ 48
Yeah, that’s so a guy with a badge and gun can’t ram HIS religion down your kid’s throat. If you don’t want your kid exposed to evolution, send him to a private religious school, but I feel sorry for him. Evolution is just as real as tectonic plates and continental drift.
Just what the world needs, another Crusader. -Comment by Don— 2/2/05 @ 2:24 pm@60
I personally oppose abortion on religious and moral grounds, but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs by force of law. -Comment by Don— 2/2/05 @ 1:24 pm @ 34
I personally oppose drug abuse on religious and moral grounds, but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs by force of law so if your kid wants to be high 24/7 – whatever dude.
I personally oppose drunk driving on religious and moral grounds, but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs by force of law so if you want to slug back that 12 pack of Bud and cruise around town – whatever dude.
I personally oppose cheating on religious and moral grounds, but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs by force of law so if your kid needs to snealka little peak to get into college – whatever dude.
I personally oppose oral sex in the oval office on religious and moral grounds, but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs by force of law so if you if you think that’s appropriate behavior for a sitting president – whatever dude.
I personally oppose polygamy on religious and moral grounds, but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs by force of law so if that guy in Utah wants 3 wives – whatever dude.
I personally oppose cutting off the hands of a thief on religious and moral grounds, but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs by force of law so if that’s what the Quran dictates – whatever dude.
I personally oppose putting my political opponents through a shredder on religious and moral grounds, but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs by force of law so if that’s the way Saddam wants to run his country- whatever dude.
I personally oppose slavery on religious and moral grounds, but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs by force of law so if that’s what they want to do in Thailand, Indonesia, Somalia, etc. – whatever dude.
I personally oppose the mutilation of women on religious and moral grounds, but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs by force of law so if that’s the custom in Sudan – whatever dude.
Adriel @ 54
For once we agree on something, except why do you say the tunnel is the Democrat-controlled legislature is behind it? They told Greg Nickels if he wants a tunnel, go find the money for it somewhere else, because the state won’t pay for it.
Mark @ 56
Moderate Democrats are making headway in getting their party back. Lots of improvement compared to 20 years ago. I think a word search is your best bet for finding “moderate” web sites — there’s gotta be a ton of ’em — but for policy analysis the Brookings Institution is one of the top ones.
Mark @ 59
You said “my fear is if we cut the subsidies, the cost of goods will rise accordingly”
Just what the world needs, another Crusader. -Comment by Don— 2/2/05 @ 2:24 pm@60
I personally oppose abortion on religious and moral grounds, but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs by force of law. -Comment by Don— 2/2/05 @ 1:24 pm @ 34
I personally oppose drug abuse on religious and moral grounds, but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs by force of law so if your kid wants to be high 24/7 – whatever dude.
I personally oppose drunk driving on religious and moral grounds, but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs by force of law so if you want to slug back that 12 pack of Bud and cruise around town – whatever dude.
I personally oppose cheating on religious and moral grounds, but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs by force of law so if your kid needs to sneak a little peak to get into college – whatever dude.
I personally oppose sex in the oval office on religious and moral grounds, but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs by force of law so if you if you think that’s appropriate behavior for a sitting president – whatever dude.
I personally oppose polygamy on religious and moral grounds, but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs by force of law so if that guy in Utah wants 3 wives – whatever dude.
I personally oppose cutting off the hands of a thief on religious and moral grounds, but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs by force of law so if that’s what the Quran dictates – whatever dude.
I personally oppose putting my political opponents through a shredder on religious and moral grounds, but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs by force of law so if that’s the way Saddam wants to run his country- whatever dude.
I personally oppose slavery on religious and moral grounds, but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs by force of law so if that’s what they want to do in Thailand, Indonesia, Somalia, etc. – whatever dude.
I personally oppose female mutilation on religious and moral grounds, but I am unwilling to impose my personal beliefs on others who may not share my beliefs by force of law so if that’s the custom in Sudan – whatever dude.
Don @ 63
As a small business owner, I am concerned about some of the new (or expanded) business taxes being proposed. That isn’t to say that they’ll all pass, but I believe that their Dem proponents are emboldened by control of 2 branches (yes, just like the GOP in DC). A vibrant (but civil and respectful) “opposition” voice is vital to democracy.
I think that while the Dems may not like Shark’s vitriol, they should welcome his research. I would love to hear a Dem say, “Hey, dig all you want. We have nothing to hide. You find something, bring it on! If you’re right, let’s fix it.”
I also want to go on record as saying that there are some smart, friendly, reasonable and helpful state employees and agencies. They are doing much better. OTOH, I’ve had a greater number of experiences with state employees that “work to rule,” know less than the minimum about their duties and feel that their job is their birthright. And, from what I understand, you pretty much have to have a documented pattern of punching out a taxpayers in order to be fired.
Don @ 70
What I fully said was, “My fear is that if we cut the subsidies, the cost of goods will rise accordingly, but we’ll never see the tax savings because the government will find someplace else to spend the money.“
I was encouraged by the tone of Obama’s speech in November. I can only hope it wasn’t all PR BS.
Obama’s speech spoke to a lot of Democrats. I don’t believe it should be viewed as PR BS.
ACK! I apologize for double post!
ME @ 78
Because of the posting delay, it should have read “DON @ 75.”
Don why should we not teach both sides of the issue, I have no problem with addressing both sides and letting the kid decide, but to force feed kids only Secular Humanism (a religion as defined by US Supreme Court) and not show other religions that is the Travesty.
To give you a link to prooof on malpractice insurance here, not quite as high as previously stated but still outrageous.
http://www.wsma.org/Tort_reform.pdf#search=‘malpractice%20insurance%20costs%20washington%20state’
“My fear is if we cut the subsidies, the cost of goods will rise accordingly”
It’s quite possible that the cost of goods from US producers will rise, but it’s not a fait accompli that consumers will feel that pinch.
In some cases, we’d be eliminating tarrifs that ward off cheaper foreign (esp. third-world) competition. It might be good to create more capitalists by supporting the import of goods (esp. things like food, teaching them to “fish” and all that) from poor third-world nations. Net effect on consumers? More choices, fair market prices. Same thing that happened with the auto industry.
We als have food subsidies that create over-production and depress prices (like with corn). But eliminating the corn subsidy might help our obesity problem, because movie theaters and 7-elevens would be forced to raise the price of the mega-super-jumbo big gulp/popcorn (cheap corn syrup = cheap sugary/fattening stuff)
Capitalism is supposed to wring the price ineffeciencies out of the market, but tarriffs and subsidies distort and delay that process. In some cases they only delay the inevitable big lay-off “cliff” that’s coming as dying industries are propped up (steel).
However, I’m not immune to the notion that tarrifs and subsidies can be wielded to positive effect. If we can force other countries to level the playing field by enforcing human rights & good working conditions, I’m all for it. If we can prevent a sudden, massive, dust-bowl style unemployment of our own farmers, I’m for it. But let’s not keep people propped up forever, as conservatives love to say when complaining about welfare, it keeps them from “standing on their own two feet”.
Adriel @ 61
You are confusing yourself, Adriel. Yes, doctors have to pay a significant amount of their income for malpractice insurance (too much) — but it’s not because of frivolous lawsuits.
Frivolous lawsuits lose. Yet Republicans’ favorite “solution” for the boogeyman of frivolous lawsuits is to cap damage awards . . . which would only affect non-frivolous lawsuits: the ones that win, because of actual malpractice. Victims won’t get fully compensated for being harmed, and bad doctors/hospitals/etc. will be encouraged because they won’t have to worry about paying too much for committing malpractice.
As it is now, court costs and legal awards to victims of malpractice do in fact comprise only a tiny percentage of health care costs; limiting them won’t solve our health care cost problems. Malpractice insurance costs have soared not because of any spike in lawsuits, but because the insurance companies are making up for underperforming investments (high correlation with malpractice premiums) and raking in profits. I suggest you focus your attention there.
Adriel wrote, “Don why should we not teach both sides of the issue, I have no problem with addressing both sides and letting the kid decide, but to force feed kids only Secular Humanism (a religion as defined by US Supreme Court) and not show other religions that is the Travesty.”
The Theory of Evolution is not Secular Humanism and Secular Humanism is not all about The Theory of Evolution.
Religious and non-religious people alike agree with the science behind evolutionary theories.
Students learn about a scientific discipline when they study evolution, or biology, or chemistry, anthropology, or archaeology, or physics, or math. To say that in doing so they are being force fed Secular Humanism, and therefore should be taught religious doctrine (and which religious doctrine should it be?) is a gross distortion.
Blind optimism is king, just sit back let the Dems do what they will if they are doing it then it must be right… NO THANKS.
Sorry guys I was born a pesimist, and therefore I can’t agree with much you have to say unless it is backed with fact. I’m done in here, it hurts after you incessantly try to get you point across but just seem to be bouncing your head off of a room full of brick walls. thanks it’s been real…..
“A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.” – Unknown
“Democrats] can’t get elected unless things get worse—and things won’t get worse unless they get elected.” – Jeane J Kirkpatrick, US Ambassador to UN, Time 17 Jun 85
Adriel – Sayonara. We’ll miss all those other people’s quotes. I guess they helped fill some kind of personal void for you. As for Ambassador Kirkpatrick, she obviously wasn’t much of a soothsayer: we had to wait until G.W. came to D.C. for things to truly get worse, and they continue to.
People like Adriel amaze me when they make statement like, “Blind optimism is king, just sit back let the Dems do what they will if they are doing it then it must be right… NO THANKS.” That’s not what could be concluded if you just read the statements made by people in this very thread. I don’t discern any blind optimism here, or mindless support. Seemed to me that people like Don and Mark have been mostly engaging in a thoughtful discussion.
Daniel @ 85
I think we’re running into a semantic battle here. There are those who believe in both Creation and Evolution. One example is the idea of Theistic Evolution (i.e. God created the world and evolution is a process he oversees). Since it is a fact that people today look different than those of 2,000 years ago, some type of evolution is fact. The question is, “did we ‘evolve’ from single cells in sludge?” That definition of evolution is strictly a theory — and should be presented as such.
I would bet that the greater issues for reasonable conservatives are that:
A.) “From sludge” evolution is taught as fact instead of theory — even if passively so.
B.) Absolutely no mention of any sort of theistic alternative theory is even allowed. Even a simple “disclaimer” that “various world religions believe that evolution is not the source of mankind — check it out for yourself on your own time” would probably suffice for many.
Me @ 88
Eek! That’s what I get for not proofing before posting.
1. Sentence 3 should read, “He oversees.” No offense intended.
2. Itals should have been turned off after the first mention of “sludge.”
3. Point B was not intended to mean that all religious beliefs are only theories. I recognize that many view them as “faith-based facts.” Again, no offense intended.
Wow — 86 comments so far, and no one has talked about the topic of Goldy’s original posting. The Georgia House of Representatives story was interesting. The Republicans have gone a little bit far in exercising their majority control of the state House done there. They have 99 Republicans, 80 Democrats and 1 independent. GOP members each got four committee assignments, while Democrats only got three each. The GOP has a huge 26 to 8 majority on the Rules Committee, which determines what legislation gets voted on by the full House. This “Hawk” concept is allowed only for Republicans appointed by the Speaker. However, it must be said that it is not uncommon for parties to abuse their majority position in legislatures in this fashion. The Democrats did the same sort of thing when they were in the majority in Georgia.
One interesting thing about Georgia is that 57 of the 99 GOP members of the state House were elected without Democratic opposition whatsover.
Blog observation:
Heating up the rhetoric sure brings traffic and postings. I think a good rant every other day is required to keep the interest up.
Then some rational discourse can be snuck in, if you are lucky, on odd numbered posts before everyone gets bored.
If there are some elected officials who have had family members pass away, that’s ripe material. Attack them to increase posts and traffic.
Erik @ 91
Yeah… isn’t that funny? I post an outrageous entry, admitting in it that name-calling adds nothing to the debate… as expected, I get attacked for adding nothing to the debate… and then sit back and watch as my comment threads get flooded with great debate.
GOLDY,
Since you’re reading this far down the thread…
Sorry for the OT post, but is there any way to set it up so that:
A.) Delayed (moderated?) comments are posted “when posted” instead of “when written?” The “Bob @ 72” system works great, but gets messed up when delayed posts are inserted “back in time.”
B.) Related to above, is there any way to have a quick notice pop up when a post is being delayed, so that the poster doesn’t click “Say It” a dozen times? No offense, ProudASS.
Mark @ 77
Let’s adopt a state income tax, slash the sales tax, and get rid of the B & O tax.
Nearly everyone in DSHS works extremely hard. The caseworkers have crushing caseloads, which is why some cases fall through the cracks. It’s tough for them to maintain their equanimity at all times given that number of citizens who think being a public servant constitutes consent to be abused. Yes, there’s some bad apples. Show me a private company of any size that doesn’t have them. People are the same everywhere, ya know?
Mark @ 78
I hear ya. Since we’re not borrowing and spending enough yet, let’s attack Iran and, for good measure, spend $150 billion on a mission to Mars. You shouldn’t trust this president any farther than you can spit. Not enough that far.
Related to above, is there any way to have a quick notice pop up when a post is being delayed, so that the poster doesn’t click “Say It” a dozen times? No offense, ProudASS. -Comment by Mark— 2/2/05 @ 3:59 pm
None taken Mark.
Patience may be a virtue, but it doesn’t seem to be one of mine here, although if you check the positing times, I DID wait 10 min!! ;-)
Hmmm… I’m confused by the talk of delays or moderation. It always seems like my comments are posted immediately. Perhaps Goldy has some artificial intelligence comment processor that simply chokes on the less cogent comments submitted. ;)
If I may dare to respond to Goldy’s original topic — I realize this is gtetting off topic, my apologies — I just think if GOPers insist on practicing thug politics, so should Democrats. The whole validity of MAD (mutually assured destruction) depends on pushing the button if the other guy does. No more Mr. Nice Guy, just screw ’em in Georgia and everywhere else.
Don @ 94
The only way that I’d agree to a state income tax would be if we somehow wiped out both state and local income taxes AND the B&O tax… AND if I could be assured that they would not be reinstated or replaced with some other package of new taxes. Having read some of DoR’s proposals, it is clear that they seriously consider a hybrid of reduced sales taxes + new taxes. I just don’t trust them not to jack up the sales tax right back to previous levels after they get the income tax.
The “bad apples” I’ve run into were not with DSHS. The difference between public and private sector is that WA is an “employment at will” state and people can be fired. As I mentioned before, it is my understanding that you can’t be fired for anything shy of multiple, documented screw-ups.
Daniel K: Goldy’s blog software holds posts that contain a lot of links, or certain keywords, for his review — it prevents blog spammers from cluttering up the place.
Goldy: Mark asked if you can adjust the software to insert and number held posts when they’re approved instead of when they’re submitted; but that would take posts out of their logical order. I have a better idea. When a post is held for approval, can the software just increment the post count by one, even though the post doesn’t show up? That way, references by number to previous posts won’t get thrown out of whack when an earlier post gets approved. And if you reject a blog spam post, the occasional skipped number won’t hurt anything.
Don @ 98
Without having read an unbiased report of the “hawks” issue, I can’t say for sure, but it strikes me as being a wrong thing to do.
Now, that said, can I get your agreement than BOTH parties have had their share of hinky dealings over the years?
One of my favorite (botched) manipulations is Wyoming’s decision to grant women the vote. The majority Dem Legislature assumed that women would vote Dem with their husbands and would counter the GOP black vote. They were wrong. The Dem Legislature then tried to take back the right, but the GOP governor vetoed it. So, the first big step in US women’s suffrage was merely a failed Dem play to manipulate the vote.
Mark @ 99
I don’t think tax reform can be implemented on an “I’ll agree to an income tax if you never raise taxes” basis.
According to the Gates Commission, the business community bears 41% of state and local taxes compared to 30% in other western states, and low income households pay 15% of their income in s/l taxes compared to 4% for affluent households. It’s obvious that business is overpaying and affluent households are underpaying, so it’s natural for tax reformer to focus on shifting some of the tax burden from businesses to affluent households. This approach doesn’t reduce the overall tax burden but simply redistributes it.
The only way you can lower the overall tax burden is by cutting spending. I won’t say it’s impossible, but understand there are only three things in the state budget you can cut enough to make a dent, because these three items take over three fourths of the state budget and everything else is chicken feed. They are education, transportation, and social services. The big-ticket item in social services is Medicaid, the biggest chunk of which pays for nursing home care for the elderly.
Our state differs from most other states in that we provide funding for K-12 education from state revenues instead of local revenues. However, the state money merely passes through state government to local school districts. In this sense, it’s not “spent” by state government, but rather state gov’t merely acts as cashier and accounting clerk for the school districts. If you treat the pass-through school money as local money and subtract it from the budget, you get a more realistic comparison with other state budgets. You also get a much smaller state budget. The fact is, our state government’s spending is in line with other states, so if you want to cut taxes instead of shifting them, you have to be prepared to accept a lower level of state services than is the norm in other states.
The reason the Legislature has to continually raise taxes is because the existing tax structure grows revenue slower than population and inflation grow spending. If a state income tax, as expected, eliminates this disparity then there will be no need for “catch up” tax increases, as under the present system. Yes, I understand the argument that politicians will be tempted to raise the B & O tax and sales tax back to their previous level. Well, if that results in the state collecting X amount of dollars, what’s to keep the Legislature from raising existing taxes to collect X dollars? The voters, that’s what. And why won’t voter resistance work just as well to keep pols from collecting X from an income tax as it does to keep them from collecting X from the B & O and sales taxes?
Some people argue this state does need to spend more in some areas, notably transportation and education. That’s a separate issue from tax reform. What’s probably going to happen is the Viaduct and other critical projects will get built with toll-financed bonds. How are road and bridge tolls not a tax increase? This stuff isn’t free, we’re going to pay for it one way or another. When you talk about a state income tax, the issue is not spending more money, but shifting existing tax burdens from a group that’s overpaying to a group that’s underpaying. When you talk about increasing spending for things that just can’t be postponed anymore, such as bridge replacement or increased highway capacity, then the issue is who’s going to pay and by what mechanism. Take your choice — tolls or sales taxes or gas taxes or whatever taxes.
Mark @ 01
Sure. Let’s work together to keep ’em all non-hinky. But that’s why you have MAD in the first place: To give both sides an incentive not to go hinky.
Just to keep things in perspective, Washington’s gross domestic product (GDP) is about $220 billion annually, personal income is about $200 billion annually, and the state budget is about $28 billion annually. About one-fourth of the state budget is federal money, so you have about $21 billion of state money there (including timber sales from state lands, liquor store profits, lottery profits, and other non-tax sources of revenue). I’m not sure what local government spending is, I think around $10 billion or so. State and local TAXES amount to about 14% or 15% of personal income.
Don, you have some pretty good analyses on the state tax issues. One of the biggest issues with a state income tax would be fear that it would simply lead to massive hikes in the overall amount of tax revenue, as opposed to merely redistributing the tax burden in a more equitable fashion. That suspicion is increased when a mere reduction, rather than elimination, of the sales tax is proposed.
Elimination of the B & O tax would also raise public opposition. Great sound bite — stop taxing business revenues and start taxing individual income. There are a number of unfairnesses and inequities in the B & O tax — especially pyramiding, and the lower tax burden faced by larger companies who get their services in house. I think some sort of B & O reform — make it more like a value added tax — would be much more palatable.
Don @ 104
Where did you get the GDP number for WA? According to DoR tables online, the total 2003 Gross Business Income of WA was $414 billion, from which $7.5 billion in (B&O + sales) taxes was due. I also have some numbers requested by me from the DoR that say that the GBI in 2004 was $313 billion for in-state businesses and $203 billion for out-of-state located businesses, for a total of $516 billion.
Anyway… The reason I believe that they could get increases past the voters is because incremental increases in a number of revenue streams would “feel” smaller than one big increase. (e.g. “Oh, we’re spreading the load across all sorts of groups. We’ll just enhance the sales tax by a quarter of a penny per dollar and the income & B&O taxes will just go up a fraction of a percent to adjust for economic realities.”)
A state income tax was defeated 3 times by the voters in the 70s & 80s. Basically because of distrust. I think the GDP figure came from the US Dept of Commerce. GBI doesn’t measure the same thing.
I must be missing something here: Washington is one of the few states to not have an income tax, but all but about 5 states have sales taxes. So what makes this state so special, or its residents that they would not accept a sales tax if there was an income tax?
Daniel @ 108
We’re also one of the few states with such a punishing thing as a B&O tax on gross receipts.
Mark @ 109
But isn’t that counterbalanced somewhat that we are also one of the only states not to have a corporate income tax?
Daniel @ 110
You clearly have never run a business. The B&O Tax is on every dollar of gross revenue, while a corporate income tax would only be on profits. In other words, WA State wants to condemn start-up companies (which may have great initial sales, but may not post profits) to a crib death. I’ve looked at a number of reports/studies and find that our B&O tax would be comparable to an 11% corporate income tax, making WA one of the worst offenders in the country. Michigan, the worst, has an effective 14+% rate because of their VAT tax system (which, by the way, WA State is considering).
This is one very sad blog site, Good luck with it…
Mark @ 111
While I agree that the B&O tax induces a certain type of burden, a state’s business climate is based on the combination of many factors. The Tax Foundation’s State Business Tax Climate Index ranks all states on multiple factors and Washington state comes in ranked 9th, despite being last in the gross receipts tax category.
Daniel @ 113
I’m familiar with that one index. HOWEVER, the overall #9 ranking is misleading. For one, even if Washington had a 99.9% B&O tax, it would still rank #50. Also, the various components of the index are weighted evenly, even though they typically impact businesses to differing degrees.
Simple question: Do you currently or have you ever owned and run a business in WA State?
Mark @ 14
So if Washington were to reduce or eliminate the B & O tax, what would you replace it with? If Washington were to shift tax burden from small business, who would you shift it to?
Don @ 115
It would be more than fair to replace the B&O tax with a proper business income tax. The only downside is that it creates a paperwork and loophole nightmare. But I think that income tax would be federally deductible for sole proprietors.
My main point was that Daniel lacked a complete understanding of the business tax issue.
risings rips Geigy Helmut inducer abhorred caresser
preallocated.Belshazzar benediction civilians collegian Thomson?preconception guesswork
antiresonance absorptions factor:bareness caking recursions icons leaguer!
recites handiest totalling curriculums!harsh contributors?chestnut:hell!
lasts sustains chord justifies overuse neigh flogging coldest.estimation
Hermite,Hume depreciated Caracas splashes excellences Koenig tightening practicable
humidifier stampeding?electroencephalograph suck?appellant Taft cultivations …