Then as now, different Republicans believed different things, but they were united on this: They unanimously opposed the spread of slavery into new territories. Today‘s Republicans also seem united on another issue. Their motto is: No New Taxes.
No matter what.
As a corollary of this, they also believe that any politician who comes out in favor of any new taxes, for whatever reason, is committing political suicide. Republicans think the voters think the sane way they do, especially in economically devastated Michigan.
Remarkably, even some Democrats think they might be right about this. Of their three candidates for governor, only Alma Wheeler Smith says openly that she’d raise taxes on the richest of us.
The others say they wouldn’t cut essential services, but haven’t really said how they would pay for them. Well, guess what.
A highly respected new poll indicates the anti-tax tenet of Republican dogma is dead wrong. Despite thirty years of anti-tax propaganda, many people would be willing to pay higher taxes rather than sacrifice education in this state.
EPIC/MRA, the respected Lansing polling firm, surveyed six hundred likely Michigan voters a couple weeks ago. It found that by a two-to-one margin, voters would support a graduated income tax that would tax the rich more, the poor less.
What if a graduated tax isn’t possible, and the economy stays poor? Would Michigan voters agree to raise taxes to get more money for schools? Our lawmakers, especially Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, think the answer is no. But the poll found just the opposite.
Sixty-one percent of us would tax ourselves more highly to help the schools, and our kids; only twenty-nine percent say definitely no. The poll also asked a representative cross-section of voters this: Is it more important to preserve the programs we have now, or to control taxes? The voters opted to save the programs, by a margin of almost three to one. Now, they weren’t in favor of all taxes.
By a margin of 54 to 43, those surveyed were against Governor Granholm’s plan to extend the sales tax to services.
But by a slightly bigger margin, voters were in favor of extending the sales tax to things like movie tickets and parks and recreation fees. And another item suggests that the chamber of commerce’s lobbying campaign has been a failure with John Q. Public. By an overwhelming margin of more than three to one, those surveyed were in favor of eliminating some of the $3 billion dollars in tax breaks the state now gives businesses.
Now, this poll was done for the liberal group A Better Michigan Future, and some may argue that the questions were skewed. But EPIC/MRA is highly respected for its integrity.
What these results really suggest is that the average Michigan voter knows something the politicians don’t, which is that there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. You get what you pay for.
And if we opt to be a selfish state where those who are well off refuse to provide the next generation with the tools they need for the future, we won’t get very far.
Once again the false dichotomy of raising taxes, or Sacrificing The Children. Add to that the suggestion that you can make up for lost revenue in a shrinking economy by raising taxes forever, and you see why State employees like Jack have a different take on the economy than do people whose salaries are paid from tax receipts. Every state-funded job costs one or more jobs in the private sector, and while it's reasonable to trade off those private jobs for education and security, there comes a point at which state employees have to share in the sacrifices as well- instead of simply rationalizing away one more tax increase.
Posted by: Account Deleted | April 24, 2010 at 06:13 PM
There is an argument to be made that raising taxes on the rich is not taxing a shrinking economy, but instead is taxing the growing part of it. And there is much to be made that imposing user fees and consumption taxes is a burden on economic activity. Why in an economy which suffers lack of demand would we want to suppress demand by taxing it? Granted, in an inflationary economy where we wish to promote saving, taxing consumption is a strategy aimed at a desirable goal. But not where the problem is people not spending. As for public sector jobs costing private sector ones, I have lots of experience with public sector wage recipients (I don't call them workers), and am aware of why they are so unpopular (what business posts signs like those found in courthouses saying "your lack of planning is not my emergency?"). But public sector payrolls keep private business alive in times of trouble. Cops and clerks who eat in restaurants provide livings for cooks and waitresses, etc. If people want police, parks, schools, roads, streetlights, snow removal, senior citizen centers, medicaid, courts which enforce contracts and collect debts, and the like, they need to pay for them. If they want them to run well and not as sinecures for the politically connected, they need to be vigilant on election day.
Posted by: Jim Majkowski | April 25, 2010 at 01:45 PM
I want to add one thing. Not all public sector employees are mere "wage recipients." Some government employees work very hard and well and are valuable to society. But there are too many of the one and too few of the other.
Posted by: Jim Majkowski | April 25, 2010 at 01:54 PM