Raise taxes (Archbishop Flynn)

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Paying taxes is not a necessary evil, it’s a patriotic duty (though the level of taxation is certainly something reasonable people can disagree with).

An equally patriotic duty is the careful and prudent management of the people’s money.

Taking a trillion dollars from Social Security in a mere seven years is not careful and prudent management. Building an artificial rainforest “for educational purposes” when many children leave school unable to read and write is not careful and prudent management.
Philip P:

What constitutes “crushing” taxation?

Taxation which alters economic decisions is crushing. When people break up holdings, fail to capitalize on returns, and seek to funnel money and effort into tax avoidance you have crushing taxation.

An example might be the excise tax on yachts over $100,000 during the Carter Administration. Hey, anyone who can afford $100,000 for a yacht OUGHT to pay more taxes, right?

What happened is the American yacht industry collapsed, and people who had been productive citizens working in that industry lost their jobs.
Philip P:

Let’s make an extreme example. Suppose person A makes $20,000 a year and is taxed at 10%, while person B makes $1,000,000 a year and is taxed at 90%. Person A pays $2000 in taxes, leaving him with $18,000 for the year. That may very well be crushing taxation. Person B is left with $100,000.00 for the year. Crushing taxation?

You bet it is – because Person B says, “The hell with it,” moves his business off-shore, and Person A, who works for him, loses his job.
Philip P:
Apples to oranges, Vern. America in the 17th, 18th, and early 19th century was a very different than after WWI. For one thing it was far more rural. Our military commitments were smaller, simpler, and less sustained. It was a different society.

The REAL apples to oranges is this, Philip – in the pre-WWI era, the United States became a creditor nation. Other nations owed us more than we owed them.

Now we are a debtor nation – we owe others more than they owe us.
Philip P:

I think a vibrant and growing middle class is key to our nation’s health (not that they’re directly correlated, but taxes have tended to be higher when the middle class was growing)…

We can’t tax ourselves into prosperity and it wasn’t taxes that created the middle class.

But it is taxes that move businesses offshore, cause other businesses to outsource, and create pockets of poverty throughout this nation.
Philip P:

Even today, I think a society like downstate NY (including the city, but also the suburbs) is preferable to most of, say, Alabama, where taxes are much lower.

And much of that is due to a historic tax break going to places like New York, at the expense of Alabama. In fact, one of the underlying causes of the Civil War was the high tariffs – which benefited the Northeast (making their manufactured goods easier to sell) and hurt states like Alabama, which had to pay the tariff or buy from the Northeast at higher pices.
Philip P:

I see democratic government as the expression of the people. If it has become more involved over the last century as society has changed, I see that as a positive.

I see democratic government as a system where politicians serve the people, manage the public funds with care and prudence, and work to help people maximize their potential, not stifle it with substandard schools, high taxes, and pork barrel projects.

 

[Philip_P]

Vern:

And much of that is due to a historic tax break going to places like

New York, at the expense of Alabama. In fact, one of the underlying causes of the Civil War was the high tariffs – which benefited the Northeast (making their manufactured goods easier to sell) and hurt states like Alabama, which had to pay the tariff or buy from the Northeast at higher prices. I sincerely doubt that a different tax structure would have prevented the civil war.

Vern:

I see democratic government as a system where politicians serve the people, manage the public funds with care and prudence, and work to help people maximize their potential, not stifle it with substandard schools, high taxes, and pork barrel projects.

Well then we’re mostly in agreement. I have no love of pork barrel projects or substandard schools either. Deciding on whether on not taxes are “too high,” though, seems like a backward way of approaching these issues. Let’s take a progressive proposal from a conservative president, the No Child Left Behind Act. I think setting nationwide standards is a great move toward improving education. However, as states as diverse and Utah and Connecticut have protested, implementing the changes required to meet these standards is expensive, and the funding is not completely there. It makes no sense to nickel and dime ourselves this way (and yes, I know education spending increased…the question is has it increased sufficiently to meet the new demands). Surely it makes more sense to figure out how to implement NCLB and then figure out the financing rather than arbitrarily set a funding level and then come up with a program?

Vern:

Taxation which alters economic decisions is crushing. When people break up holdings, fail to capitalize on returns, and seek to funnel money and effort into tax avoidance you have crushing taxation.

An example might be the excise tax on yachts over $100,000 during the Carter Administration. Hey, anyone who can afford $100,000 for a yacht OUGHT to pay more taxes, right?

What happened is the American yacht industry collapsed, and people who had been productive citizens working in that industry lost their jobs.

Of course economic factors influence decision making. This is exactly the point made by politically progressive pro-lifers, who argue that having and raising children should be more economically favorable than it currently is, in order to encourage having families. As for the flip side, that economic conditions can discourage activities and industries, well depending on the industry, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If SUVs were less affordable for instance, and the economic climate favored smaller, more fuel efficient cars, this wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. In fact, with the high gas prices we already see this happening. The market at work.

Vern:

You bet it is – because Person B says, “The hell with it,” moves his business off-shore, and Person A, who works for him, loses his job.

Now we’re talking about corporate taxes vs. personal taxes. Generally when people talk taxes, it’s personal taxes they’re talking about. Corporate taxes should generally be at the discretion of the local government, giving them leeway to incorporate tax policies into packages to attract businesses and industries.

Vern:

We can’t tax ourselves into prosperity and it wasn’t taxes that created the middle class.

No, but some policies and programs are better at creating and sustaining a middle class than other. Those programs cost money. If we have to raise taxes to fund the programs, we should. What we should not be doing is insisting on some rigid ideological attachment to cutting taxes at any price.

And here’s where the suspicions, accusations, and misunderstandings occur. To people on my side of the political fence, carping about taxes sounds like, at best, simple whining, or at worse, a disingenuous attempt to “starve the beast” – kill government programs by withholding funding. Should some programs be cut? Of course. Pork takes needed funds away from necessary programs. But the discussion should be on which specific programs should be cut, which should be kept, which should be expanded, and which should be reformed. Pretending that this is all a simple question of the proper level of taxation is dishonest (whether intentional or not).

 

[vern_humphrey]

phillip P:

I sincerely doubt that a different tax structure would have prevented the civil war.

The issue is not that a different tax structure would have prevented the Civil War, but that differential treatment in taxes exacerbated the economic differences between areas of the country that persist to this day.
phillip P:

Deciding on whether on not taxes are “too high,” though, seems like a backward way of approaching these issues.

No, that is EXACTLY the way to approach the issue – when politicians regard the people as having infinitely deep pockets, they have no incentive to manage money wisely.
phillip P:

Let’s take a progressive proposal from a conservative president, the No Child Left Behind Act. I think setting nationwide standards is a great move toward improving education.

It makes no sense to nickel and dime ourselves this way (and yes, I know education spending increased…the question is has it increased sufficiently to meet the new demands).

Actually, the money IS there – although re-programming is needed. And NCLB gives states and schools authority to reprogram.
phillip P:

Surely it makes more sense to figure out how to implement NCLB and then figure out the financing rather than arbitrarily set a funding level and then come up with a program?

This is what NCLB does:

• Gives parents report cards on school performance
• Sends more dollars to the classroom, with fewer strings attached
• Reforms federal K-12 education programs, requiring accountability for results through annual testing to ensure all children are learning
• Provides extra help for schools identified as underachieving
• Shields teachers, principals and school board members from frivolous lawsuits
• Gives new options to parents with children in dangerous or chronically underachieving public schools

Where do you get an “arbitrary funding level” out of that?
phillip P:

No, but some policies and programs are better at creating and sustaining a middle class than other. .

The best such programs are those which allow people to keep most of what they make, and which encourage them to save and invest. Personal Retirement Accounts would be a wonderful thing for the up-coming generation, and allow them to be far more prosperous than the current generation of retirees.
phillip P:

Those programs cost money.

If we have to raise taxes to fund the programs, we should. What we should not be doing is insisting on some rigid ideological attachment to cutting taxes at any price. .

The problem is, this is a smokescreen. The taxes we pay are mostly squandered – if you’ve ever worked with the federal budget at any level, you’d see that.

Cut taxes and cut unnecessary spending. Transform the budget process from service-based to zero-based, requiring each item in the budget to be justified on its own merits.
phillip P:

To people on my side of the political fence, carping about taxes sounds like, at best, simple whining, or at worse, a disingenuous attempt to “starve the beast” – kill government programs by withholding funding. .

What’s wrong with that?

Cut taxes and require the government to justify its expenditures on their own merits. Kill wasteful or unneeded programs, and fund those worthy of funding.

Now, increased taxation has NOT accomplished that – more taxes, more programs, more waste. Let’s try the other tack.
phillip P:

But the discussion should be on which specific programs should be cut, which should be kept, which should be expanded, and which should be reformed. Pretending that this is all a simple question of the proper level of taxation is dishonest (whether intentional or not).

How do you propose to do that? We have seen how increased taxes correlates with increased waste.

As Bill Clinton himself said, “Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity by definition.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Phillip, let me give you a beautiful example of what excess tax money does. Consider Agricultural Price Supports. Here in Arkansas, large agricultural corporations receive hundreds of millions of dollars a year – money which does not percolate down to the poor people in any way.

Take a trip through Lee, Phillips, and Arkansas counties (some of the poorest counties in the country – in fact, Phillips County is THE poorest county of more than 3,000 counties, nation-wide.)

Most of the price supports are for rice. Talk to a rice producer about that and he will bristle “Do you know what it costs to grow an acre of rice!?!”

Translated into plain English, that means, “We produce so much that the fair market value is below the cost of production. Instead of producing other crops. we got the government to subsidize our over-production.”

A while back, you mentioned how maybe fuel conservation measures might be a good idea. I’ll give you another good idea – bio-diesel. You can burn vegetable oil in a diesel engine. You can mix 20% bio-diesel with geo-diesel with no modification to the engine at all, and you get better mileage, more power, and less engine wear.

We COULD launch a program to convert our entire over-the-road truck fleet to bio-diesel in the next 10 years. This would:

• Improve national security – since we’d be producing much of our own energy.
• Improve our balance of payments
• Improve the economy, through providing a renewable energy source, providing jobs in new refineries, and allowing continued growth.
• Improve the enviroment – bio-diesel is very environmentally friendly.

Of course, we’re locked into a program that pays agri-business to produce huge excesses of what we DON’T need, and leaves us short of the crops we DO need to achieve this.

 

[Philip_P]

vern:

…when politicians regard the people as having infinitely deep pockets, they have no incentive to manage money wisely.

It would help if politicians were straightforward regarding costs of their proposals, too. For instance, in addition to all the high rhetoric used to justify invading Iraq, the administration should have given us honest estimates of how much this whole venture would cost, rather than trying to pay through “emergency” funding after the fact. How about trusting the American people with the whole picture?

RE NCLB, arbitrary funding?
Extra testing and hiring extra help for underachieving students costs money. The arbitrary funding comes out of the fact that I’m supposed to believe we can launch major domestic program such as this, launch major overseas military campaigns such as Iraq, and still cut taxes. Cutting revenues while increasing expenses is the sort of thing that seems motivated by tax-cutting ideology rather than sound fiscal policy.

vern:

Personal Retirement Accounts would be a wonderful thing for the up-coming generation, and allow them to be far more prosperous than the current generation of retirees.

We have that, it’s called an IRA. Now, if you want to add on personal accounts to social security, this may be a possibility, though that would mean and ADDITIONAL tax to what we already have. I would suggest increasing only the employee side, not the employer.

vern:

The taxes we pay are mostly squandered

So let’s work on not squandering the money. Or are you suggesting that simply reducing the amount of money the government has will make public officials less likely to squander it? The answer isn’t changing the amount of money available, it’s making government more transparent and accountable.

vern:

Cut taxes and cut unnecessary spending. Transform the budget process from service-based to zero-based, requiring each item in the budget to be justified on its own merits.

Most budget expenses are in non-discretionary spending. Hence, appealing as “cutting unnecessary spending” sounds, this doesn’t touch the bulk of the budget.

Philip P: But the discussion should be on which specific programs should be cut, which should be kept, which should be expanded, and which should be reformed.

Vern:How do you propose to do that? You’ve just done it yourself, in your follow up post. Many of these agricultural subsidies make little sense. Proposing a cut on ag subsidies makes more sense than the ambiguous “taxes are too high” line. I would also support the bio-diesel conversion you mentioned. Of course, the conversion would have to be funded in some way. How, I don’t know, but the first we should commit to the bio-diesel conversion, then discuss possible funding mechanisms.

vern:

Take a trip through Lee, Phillips, and

Arkansas counties (some of the poorest counties in the country – in fact, PhillipsCounty is THE poorest county of more than 3,000 counties, nation-wide.) How would cutting taxes help these counties? If they are that poor, presumably they’re already paying little in taxes, thanks to our generally progressive income tax. What would help would be greater funding for programs such as the Pell grant and Perkins loans to help residents get college degrees, and better paying jobs. This doesn’t address the problem of the lack of jobs back in the towns these new college grads came from. This may be inevitable as we continue transitioning from a rural society. Places like Phillips county will shrink while places like Little Rock and its suburbs grow.

It may be possible to keep places like these counties viable (if at smaller population) by investing in wireless internet and other communications infrastructure, making it possible for individuals to do the same kind of work in Phillips county that they might otherwise have to move to Little Rock to do.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

in addition to all the high rhetoric used to justify invading Iraq, the administration should have given us honest estimates of how much this whole venture would cost.

So in your opinion, a war is like a government “program” and can be budgeted before it starts?
Philip P:

RE NCLB, arbitrary funding?

Extra testing and hiring extra help for underachieving students costs money.

And states can opt out of NCLB. The fact that none have chosen to do so indicates all states see a net plus in funding if they comply with NCLB.
Philip P:
We have that, it’s called an IRA. Now, if you want to add on personal accounts to social security, this may be a possibility, though that would mean and ADDITIONAL tax to what we already have…

How would it mean an additional tax? Why not do this?

1. Guarentee everyone their Social Security entitlements (we have to do that anyway – imagine what will happen when we try to CUT benefits.)
2. Return the Social Security surplus to the workers who paid FICA tax that year, in the form of contributions to their PRAs.
3. Require that the first dollars of the Social Security entitlement come from the PRA.

I constructed a computer model on this approach, and it shows that in about 33 years, most people would retire with 100% of their Social Security entitlement coming from their PRAs. By the 40th year, the average person would have a retirement income equal to his working wage.
Philip P:
So let’s work on not squandering the money. Or are you suggesting that simply reducing the amount of money the government has will make public officials less likely to squander it? …

In an era where the government did not have unlimited taxing power, government spending was limited. Once the tax power (and the tax rates) grew, spending grew.

Clearly, allowing the government to tax to its hearts content isn’t working!
Philip P:
Many of these agricultural subsidies make little sense. Proposing a cut on ag subsidies makes more sense than the ambiguous “taxes are too high” line…

How will you do that? As long as the money is lying around, it will be ripped off and squandered.
Philip P:

How would cutting taxes help these counties? If they are that poor, presumably they’re already paying little in taxes, thanks to our generally progressive income tax. …

Take a look at a roadmap. Locate Helena, Arkansas. There is a slackwater port there – built at the cost of billions of taxpayer dollars. It was supposed to make that area prosperous. Why didn’t it. (The hint is in the first sentence in this paragraph.)
Philip P:

What would help would be greater funding for programs such as the Pell grant and Perkins loans to help residents get college degrees, and better paying jobs. …

And who will create these jobs? High taxes are driving business out of Arkansas.
Philip P:

Places like Phillips county will shrink while places like

Little Rock and its suburbs grow…

Much of that is due to our tax and spend policy:

1. Our taxes make it difficult to attract and keep businesses.
2. We pour hundreds of millions of tax-payer dollars into agribusiness to subsidize something we’re already over producing, and totally neglect the average citizen of these counties.
3. We tolerate a major civil rights violation – forcing children in poor areas to go to substandard schools. And then gripe about an initiative to change this.

Philip P:

It may be possible to keep places like these counties viable (if at smaller population) by investing in wireless internet and other communications infrastructure, making it possible for individuals to do the same kind of work in Phillips county that they might otherwise have to move to Little Rock to do.

Both of those ideas (wireless intenet) and moving to Little Rock are great ideas – for a county with 43% adult illiteracy! <That’s sarcasm!>

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Philip P:

What would help would be greater funding for programs such as the Pell grant and Perkins loans to help residents get college degrees, and better paying jobs.

I want to comment on this.

Throwing money at problems does not work, as Vern has so clearly stated. What is missing is a lack of ownership.

In my experience from returning to school, those who had a free ride though grants did not take ownership of their education.

Our college programs are a mess. Most of the world only requires 3 years of college for a bachelors degree. Most of the classes taken are in the degree field. Here in the USA most of the classes take are outside of the degree filed and we have 4 years to get the degree. Tell me why I must take a black history class and a woman’s study class to get a degree in Computers.

Our colleges are a sink hole and those who come out, while getting a higher paycheck (in some cases), are next to useless in the field until they are trained. Now call me crazy but I find it rediculous that someone who comes out of college with a bachelors degree needs six months to a year of training in the field before they can be productive.

Our college system is over priced and too long.

 

[Philip_P]

Vern:

So in your opinion, a war is like a government “program” and can be budgeted before it starts?

They better be budgeting for them! Wars don’t just happen like the weather or some other natural phenomenon, they’re choices (this is especially true of our most recent wars). In weighing the best way to achieve a certain objective, we most definitely should weigh all the potential costs, including financial, against the potential benefits. After all, we probably could invade China, overthrown the communist government, and unite it with Taiwan under a democratic government…if we drafted everyone and put all our money into the venture. Obviously, this would not be the best use of our resources.

Vern:

And states can opt out of NCLB. The fact that none have chosen to do so indicates all states see a net plus in funding if they comply with NCLB.

And if it comes out that the next phase of compliance needs more money, will you be willing to raise funding? I’ve already said I agree that NCLB is essentially a good idea, what I object to is the delusion that it’s free.

Vern:

How would it mean an additional tax? Why not do this?

1. Guarentee everyone their Social Security entitlements (we have to do that anyway – imagine what will happen when we try to CUT benefits.)
2. Return the Social Security surplus to the workers who paid FICA tax that year, in the form of contributions to their PRAs.
3. Require that the first dollars of the Social Security entitlement come from the PRA.

I constructed a computer model on this approach, and it shows that in about 33 years, most people would retire with 100% of their Social Security entitlement coming from their PRAs. By the 40th year, the average person would have a retirement income equal to his working wage.

My problem with privatizing social security is, oddly enough, somewhat conservative. I don’t want the government that closely involved in the private markets. For privatized accounts to be acceptable, the government will have to be able to guarantee a certain minimum level. Overall, the market performs well, but there are times when it doesn’t. If someone has the bad luck to retire during one of those down times, will the government then step in, essentially guaranteeing a minimum value on investments? Do we really want the government taking an FDIC-like role in the market?

Vern:

In an era where the government did not have unlimited taxing power, government spending was limited. Once the tax power (and the tax rates) grew, spending grew.

And we’re just assuming that when the government spent less, it spent that money wisely? If I recall, the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant was plagued by all sorts of scandals involving misuse of public funds, and this is back in the pre-1916 “golden era.”

Vern:

How will you do that? As long as the money is lying around, it will be ripped off and squandered.

When it makes good economic sense to do so, tax cuts are certainly justified. Far be it for me to rail against tax-cut ideologues and then be just as inflexibly pro-tax. However, tax cuts are currently unnecessary and a bad idea.

Vern:

Take a look at a roadmap. Locate Helena, Arkansas. There is a slackwater port there – built at the cost of billions of taxpayer dollars. It was supposed to make that area prosperous. Why didn’t it. (The hint is in the first sentence in this paragraph.)

I’m not sure what your point is. I’ve stated several times that I’m for greater government transparency and accountability and against poor spending. You seem to think, though, that this translates into some hard and fast rule regarding appropriate taxation levels. I disagree.

Vern:

And who will create these jobs? High taxes are driving business out of Arkansas.

Again, you’ re mixing corporate vs personal tax policy. As I said before, corporate tax policy is best left primarily to the local level. Why reward the CEOs who shipped those jobs overseas with a cut on their income tax?

Vern:

Much of that is due to our tax and spend policy:

Not at all. Much of it due simply to our continuing evolution away from an agriculturally-based society.

Vern:

Both of those ideas (wireless intenet) and moving to Little Rock are great ideas – for a county with 43% adult illiteracy! <That’s sarcasm!>

So your solution is to cut funding for education and literacy programs?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

They better be budgeting for them! Wars don’t just happen like the weather or some other natural phenomenon,

So how much did Roosevelt include in the FY '41 Federal Budget to replace the ships sunk at Pearl Harbor?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Philip P:

I’ve already said I agree that NCLB is essentially a good idea, what I object to is the delusion that it’s free.

Where did you get the idea anyone thinks it’s “free?” The money is in the system, right though the out-years, although some re-programming is needed. NCLB gives authority to do that re-programming.
Philip P:

My problem with privatizing social security is, oddly enough, somewhat conservative. I don’t want the government that closely involved in the private markets.

That’s why I said “return the money to those who paid it in.” Let them manage their own PRAs, and keep the government out of it.
Philip P:

For privatized accounts to be acceptable, the government will have to be able to guarantee a certain minimum level.

In the proposal I gave you, I said everyone would be guarenteed their Social Security entitlement, with the first dollars coming from the PRA. Within about 33 years, most people would be fully funded from their PRAs., and within 40 years, most people would have a retirement income equal to their working wages.
Philip P:

And we’re just assuming that when the government spent less, it spent that money wisely? If I recall, the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant was plagued by all sorts of scandals involving misuse of public funds, and this is back in the pre-1916 “golden era.”

While there was corruption in the 19th Century, it was nothing on the scale of today – when Congressmen and Senators vote for bills (like the Agriculture Bill) that puts millions in their own pockets.

We know when the government has unlimited taxing power, it spends un-wisely. When the money is left in the pockets of the people who earned it, they generally spend it more wisely.

The common sense approach is therefore to strictly limit government taxing and spending.
Philip P:

When it makes good economic sense to do so, tax cuts are certainly justified. Far be it for me to rail against tax-cut ideologues and then be just as inflexibly pro-tax. However, tax cuts are currently unnecessary and a bad idea.

Unnecessary, how? Does everyone have a fully-funded IRA, 401K or PRA? How do we justify the waste in government which is paid for out of the pockets of the working people?
Philip P:

I’m not sure what your point is. I’ve stated several times that I’m for greater government transparency and accountability and against poor spending. .

Tell me how this will be accomplished.
Philip P:

Again, you’ re mixing corporate vs personal tax policy. As I said before, corporate tax policy is best left primarily to the local level. .

Yet we have a corporate tax at both the federal and state level. To say the income tax and the corporate tax are different is to misunderstand economics.

The worker pays the corporate tax, through lower wages, higher prices, and ultimately through losing his job when his company moves.
Philip P:

Why reward the CEOs who shipped those jobs overseas with a cut on their income tax? .

Now THAT is cant.

Businesses move because of tax policies. CEOs can’t make the government lower taxes. Anyone who thinks a command economy can work need only look at the former Soviet Union.
Philip P:

Not at all. Much of it due simply to our continuing evolution away from an agriculturally-based society. So your solution is to cut funding for education and literacy programs?

Cant again – pretending that there is a correlation between taxes, funding for education, and quality of education.

My solution would be to recognize that we can’t put children in the freezer and thaw them out on that great day when our education system actually improves. We would allow parents to choose the school, any school, and pay the per-pupil share of the education budget to that school. Let good schools prosper, and let bad ones fail.

And there’s plenty of money in the system to do that.

 

[Philip_P]

Vern:

In the proposal I gave you, I said everyone would be guaranteed their Social Security entitlement, with the first dollars coming from the PRA. Within about 33 years, most people would be fully funded from their PRAs, and within 40 years, most people would have a retirement income equal to their working wages.

It’s the whole “guarantee” thing that’s the catch. How can government guarantee returns on private investment? The current system can offer guarantees because it’s an insurance program, not an investment program.

Philip: I’m not sure what your point is. I’ve stated several times that I’m for greater government transparency and accountability and against poor spending.

Vern: Tell me how this will be accomplished

Well for one thing, less secrecy. Vice President Cheney’s energy task force is a prime example of the way government should NOT operate.

Vern:

Anyone who thinks a command economy can work need only look at the former Soviet Union.

And anyone who thinks ideology should determine public policy should look to the same.

Vern:

Where did you get the idea anyone thinks it’s “free?” The money is in the system, right though the out-years, although some re-programming is needed. NCLB gives authority to do that re-programming.

You apparently believe that a massive and unprecedented overhaul of the education system will require no additional funding.

So here’s a question for you. You seem to think that NCLB needs no additional funding now, and that it will not need any in the future either. I’m neither an expert on education nor a soothsayer, so cannot predict the future or claim special knowledge on education matters. However, should it turn out that additional funding is, in fact, needed for NCLB, would you be willing to make sure that funding is there? Or are you so wedded to an anti-government ideology that you would rather see NCLB fail than even consider raising taxes?

And while we’re discussing the pros and cons, of government, it’s only fair to point out that there are many government programs that do a lot of good. I could not have paid for college without programs such as the federal perkins loans and pell grants. I went to a private (Catholic) university, but if I had gone to a state school, I would have the land grant acts of the last century to thank. And actually, seeing as how I’m originally from the Midwest, I probably owe a lot the homestead acts as well. The relative peace and economic prosperity of the last half century has been nice, too, so I’d better make sure to give thanks for things like the GI bill which allowed the generations prior to mine build a strong economic foundation for me to grow up in. Currently, I live in NYC and laugh at gas prices – thank Uncle Sam for the subway and buses he’s made possible. The other day I walked past City College, part of the City University of New York system. Colin Powell is one of the few people I admire from the last presidential term – good thing places like CUNY exist to make the success of people like Colin possible. Amazing, all the good an inherently evil institution such as the government has accomplished.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

It’s the whole “guarantee” thing that’s the catch. How can government guarantee returns on private investment? The current system can offer guarantees because it’s an insurance program, not an investment program.

First of all, the current system ISN’T an insurance program. An insurance program INVESTS premiums, has a contingency fund, and usually reinsures against catestrophic claims. Social Security does none of these – it’s a pyramid scheme, pure and simple.

Secondly, the guarentee is political – when the government announces your entitlement is being cut by 50%, the people in power will be out of power after the next election. Grass may grow in the streets, the infant mortality rate may triple, but Social Security checks will not be cut!

Third, because the guarentee I propose includes taking the first dollars from the PRA, it will ALWAYS be better than the current pyramid system. If you only had enough in your PRA to pay your one cent per month, that would be one cent LESS the government would have to pay.
Philip P:
You apparently believe that a massive and unprecedented overhaul of the education system will require no additional funding.

Show us your budget. Then we can see.
Philip P:

So here’s a question for you. You seem to think that NCLB needs no additional funding now, and that it will not need any in the future either. I’m neither an expert on education nor a soothsayer, so cannot predict the future or claim special knowledge on education matters. However, should it turn out that additional funding is, in fact, needed for NCLB, would you be willing to make sure that funding is there?

Sure. But it’s not the massive amounts you seem to think.
Philip P:
And while we’re discussing the pros and cons, of government, it’s only fair to point out that there are many government programs that do a lot of good. I could not have paid for college without programs such as the federal perkins loans and pell grants.

Is it not equally fair to point out that there are massive boondoggles? The slack water port at Helena, Arkansas in one example. Have you figured out why it didn’t improve the economy yet?

 

[Philip_P]

RE social security: If it’s simply a matter of getting a better return, and the markets are that much better, why is no one proposing investing the social security funds in the market rather than in t-bills? I’m not absolutely opposed to changes in social security, but none of the proposal currently on the table look like a good idea. Also, given the current dominance of libertarian-types in the Republican party, can you blame me and other non-Republicans if we suspect the president and congress of not offering these in good faith, but rather as an opening to an eventual rollback of any sort of social security system? I suspect the boys at Cato and Heritage won’t be satisfied until the FICA tax is completely eliminated.

Vern:

Show us your budget. Then we can see.

I don’t know what NCLB will cost; I don’t work in educational policy. Neither, however, do most of the anti-tax folks. I think it makes more sense to listen to the people who actually know what they’re talking about rather than ideologues who think tax cuts are a self-justifying policy goal. If someone with expertise tells me that more funding is required to meet the goals we specified, I think we should get the funding.

Vern:

Is it not equally fair to point out that there are massive boondoggles?

Of course. Why do you insist on setting up a strawman, as if anyone is arguing for corrupt, inefficient government? Your contention, however, is that all government programs are inherently corrupt, inefficient, and beyond reform, and therefore we should kill them. I’m sorry, but that’s a bit like saying that you should junk your car because the power steering’s out. There’s a big difference between reforming government and killing it. True reformers, such as Theodore Roosevelt, understood this. Ideological hacks, such as Grover Norquist and his buddies, don’t.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

RE social security: If it’s simply a matter of getting a better return, and the markets are that much better, why is no one proposing investing the social security funds in the market rather than in t-bills? .

For two reasons – the first is, Congress regards the Social Security surplus as a windfall. They rip it off and squander it every year (scroll back up and you’ll see how from '98 to '04 they ripped off and squandered a little more than a trillion dollars.) If they actually invested the money, they couldn’t spend it, now could they?

Secondly there is the issue of WHO should invest. If the Government invests, the government becomes a stockowner and can vote the stock. Having bureaucrats make decisions in matters hugely affecting the economy is not a good idea.
Philip P:
can you blame me and other non-Republicans if we suspect the president and congress of not offering these in good faith, but rather as an opening to an eventual rollback of any sort of social security system? .

Given the train wreck that will occurr in a dozen years or so, when Social Security stops running surpluses and starts running deficits, I think those who oppose current proposals are morally bound to offer counter-proposals.
Philip P:
I don’t know what NCLB will cost; I don’t work in educational policy. Neither, however, do most of the anti-tax folks. I think it makes more sense to listen to the people who actually know what they’re talking about rather than ideologues who think tax cuts are a self-justifying policy goal…

I worked as a Program Manager for years in the commercial training and education industry – if you like, I can give you some cost data.
Philip P:
If someone with expertise tells me that more funding is required to meet the goals we specified, I think we should get the funding…

And when you talk to a man with many years experience in training and education – in a profit-making business, you reject his advise?

I asked before – show us a budget. Tell us where the money is needed, how much is needed, and what it will buy.
Philip P:
Of course. Why do you insist on setting up a strawman, as if anyone is arguing for corrupt, inefficient government? Your contention, however, is that all government programs are inherently corrupt, inefficient, and beyond reform, and therefore we should kill them.

Why do** you** insist on setting up a strawman, as if anyone who points out where government is corrupt and inefficient is somehow attacking the Holy Grail?

At this point, you have not given us any numbers at all – I at least have posted data on how much Social Security has been ripped off. I can also post data on education costs.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Here are the conclusions from the best, unbiased study on NCLB:

Exploring the Costs of Accountability
by JAMES PEYSER & ROBERT COSTRELL

How much will the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) cost? Critics argue that NCLB’s requirement that states bring all students up to academic proficiency by the year 2014 represents a massive unfunded mandate. William J. Mathis, for example, claims in a recent Phi Delta Kappan article that public K–12 spending needs to rise by at least 20 to 35 percent to meet the goals of NCLB—an increase of $85 to $150 billion a year. These critics reason that unless the feds put a lot more money on the table, financially strapped state and local governments will be forced to raise taxes sharply. Otherwise, the entire reform effort could collapse of its own weight.

The funding issue has three components. First is the cost of designing and implementing a statewide testing system. Second is the cost of establishing a state-level system for evaluating schools and districts and for intervening in those schools that continuously underperform. Third, and most controversial, is the cost of ensuring that schools have enough resources to provide the high-quality educational opportunities that students need to meet the academic standards required by NCLB.

We have examined these three components in light of our own experiences in Massachusetts. Since Massachusetts embarked on a path similar to that mandated by NCLB well before the law’s adoption and has proceeded further than most other states, its experience may be useful in evaluating what is required nationally.

Our analysis suggests that many critics greatly exaggerate the shortfall of federal resources. Specifically,

• Federal spending to develop and administer mandated assessments is adequate for now, but will need to increase over time. The needed dollar amounts are relatively small and could be met easily by reallocating funds from lower-priority programs.

• Federal support of school evaluation and technical assistance, required under NCLB, is underfunded. This gap is likely to grow significantly as more schools are found to be “in need of improvement.” Much of the gap can be filled, however, by allowing states to allocate more of their federal dollars to supporting turnaround efforts in low-performing districts.

• No one—neither critics nor supporters of NCLB—really has any idea what it would cost to bring all students to proficiency by 2014 (or even 95 percent of all students, given the exceptions already built into the law), or if it can be done at all. The only question we can reasonably answer is whether there is enough money in the system to allow well-run schools to meet their goals for improvement.

From this perspective, school spending may, in some states or districts, be below what is required to steadily improve student achievement in line with federal requirements for “adequate yearly progress.” However, the extent of the shortfall appears to be a small fraction of the figures put forth by NCLB’s critics. Our calculations using a school improvement approach based on data from Massachusetts suggest a national gap of perhaps $8 billion a year, concentrated in a few states. This is only 5 to 10 percent of the critics’ estimates, which are based on far more speculative and problematic models.

 

[Philip_P]

From the Connecticute department of education:

state.ct.us/sde/NCLB_Study_2_28_05.pdf

Also, let’s not lose track of the bigger picture here. Regarding NCLB, we’re mostly on the same side, that it’s a good idea. I’m not bringing up criticism of the program as an argument against it. However, in contrast to your anti-tax stance, I maintain it makes no sense to foreclose the possibility that the program may cost more than advertised simply for the sake of maintaining an ideological devotion to low taxes. If my taxes have to go up to make education reform work, I’m willing to pay, and you should be too.

 

[jlw]

Philip P:

However, in contrast to your anti-tax stance, I maintain it makes no sense to foreclose the possibility that the program may cost more than advertised simply for the sake of maintaining an ideological devotion to low taxes. If my taxes have to go up to make education reform work, I’m willing to pay, and you should be too.

Sorry to jump in here, I may commenting without knowing the full context of the argument, but here goes:

I maintain my anti-tax stance because the program SHOULDN’T “cost” as much as it “does”. The problem with cost has more to do with the WAY things are done, rather than the amount of money a school district has. No doubt, the NCLB has created more bureaucracy, and therefore, it ALWAYS costs more than “expected” (every gov’t program is like this. Who pushes gov’t programs??? Democrats more than Republicans. Just the truth, ruth. The party of government excess??..democrat).

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

From the Connecticute department of education:

state.ct.us/sde/NCLB_Study_2_28_05.pdf

Also, let’s not lose track of the bigger picture here. Regarding NCLB, we’re mostly on the same side, that it’s a good idea. I’m not bringing up criticism of the program as an argument against it. However, in contrast to your anti-tax stance, I maintain it makes no sense to foreclose the possibility that the program may cost more than advertised simply for the sake of maintaining an ideological devotion to low taxes. If my taxes have to go up to make education reform work, I’m willing to pay, and you should be too.

First of all, where do you get the idea that I have foreclosed anything?

I stand on three points:

1. There is a lot of inefficiency, pork and genuine corruption in government. To ask the people to finance this in perpetuity is wrong.
2. The nation is most prosperous when people are allowed to keep as much of their money as possible.
3. With high tax rates, you have very little wiggle room. With low tax rates and efficient government, emergencies are more readily dealt with.

Therefore we have a right to call upon public officials to take as little money as possible, and to manage it as efficiently as possible.

As for costs of education:

"Consider, for example, data from the school finance case currently being litigated in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs point out that high-performing districts often spend considerably in excess of the foundation budget, the state’s measure of what is necessary to provide an adequate education. But the association between performance on state tests and spending as a percentage of the foundation budget—the plaintiffs’ preferred measure of spending—vanishes after applying even the most rudimentary demographic controls (see Figure 1).

Figure 1, (which I can’t seem to get to paste in here) shows a classic “no correlation” scattergram between funding and performance.

Now, if you’d like to talk about how we can improve schools with little or no increase in spending, I’ll be happy to discuss it.

 

[Philip_P]

The starter of this thread opened with expressing anger that the archbishop of Minnesota thought taxes should be raised. For that poster, at least, raising taxes was in itself inherently wrong, and that’s where I take issue.

Neither you nor I live in Minnesota, so both our analysis is necessarily second-hand. However, what appears to be the situation is that, faced with a budget crisis, the state was cutting social services. The bishop urged that, rather than further cuts, the state raise taxes to make up for the budget deficits.

When faced with a deficit, there are basically two options – raise funding or cut spending. In reality, often, both are needed. To hew to a rigid anti-tax stance – that is, to refuse to even consider raising taxes – does indeed foreclose certain options and hamstring the ability to respond responsibly to the problem. In the Minnesota case, it looks like pretty severe service cuts already were in place (we faced a similar situation in NYC recently. Service was cut, but taxes still had to be raised. Painful, but necessary for fiscal health). Such vehement opposition to raising taxes, in such a situation is unrealistic, and, frankly, irresponsible.

You’ve stated several times that government has a responsibility to spend money wisely, and you’re absolutely right. However, this should not translate to automatic opposition to a tax increase. Unfortunately, this seems to be exactly what’s happening among the current group of conservatives in government. On social security, it wasn’t until relatively recently that Pres. Bush would even consider raising the FICA tax, and when some Republicans floated this, many conservatives attacked them. Bush’s anti-tax stance may have worked in his first year in office, but after 9/11, when we faced a dramatically less certain, more dangerous, and more expensive world (wars aren’t cheap), maintaining his rigid anti-tax policy was simply pig-headed.

With NCLB, this is a very new program. We can’t know yet how much it will really cost (the Peyser and Costrell article you posted admits as much). However, should costs be greater than advertised, I do not believe we should put education reform in jeopardy for the sake of maintaining some arbitrary principle of “low taxes.” No politician can, or should, promise not to raise taxes. One hopes that it won’t be necessary, but if it is, will our leaders be courageous enough to do that right thing and raise the rates? Or will they duck responsibility with the easy, sure to be popular “no taxes” line?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

The starter of this thread opened with expressing anger that the archbishop of Minnesota thought taxes should be raised. For that poster, at least, raising taxes was in itself inherently wrong, and that’s where I take issue.

Neither you nor I live in Minnesota, so both our analysis is necessarily second-hand. However, what appears to be the situation is that, faced with a budget crisis, the state was cutting social services. The bishop urged that, rather than further cuts, the state raise taxes to make up for the budget deficits.

When faced with a deficit, there are basically two options – raise funding or cut spending. In reality, often, both are needed. To hew to a rigid anti-tax stance – that is, to refuse to even consider raising taxes – does indeed foreclose certain options and hamstring the ability to respond responsibly to the problem. In the Minnesota case, it looks like pretty severe service cuts already were in place (we faced a similar situation in NYC recently. Service was cut, but taxes still had to be raised. Painful, but necessary for fiscal health). Such vehement opposition to raising taxes, in such a situation is unrealistic, and, frankly, irresponsible.?

Would you take issue with someone who demanded oil companies justify the recent increases in the price of gasoline?

Would you suggest that any producer can raise prices at will, without attempting to increase efficiency first?

Would you consider it “unrealistic” and irresponsible to suggest that producers should pursue cost-cutting measures before raising prices?

How is it we hold private businesses – who never took an oath to us – to a higher standard of performance than we hold government officials?
Philip P:
You’ve stated several times that government has a responsibility to spend money wisely, and you’re absolutely right. However, this should not translate to automatic opposition to a tax increase.

I look at taxes like I look at self-defense. You have a right to defend yourself, but when you pull that trigger, you better be bloody well prepared to justify your actions!
Philip P:
Unfortunately, this seems to be exactly what’s happening among the current group of conservatives in government. On social security, it wasn’t until relatively recently that Pres. Bush would even consider raising the FICA tax, and when some Republicans floated this, many conservatives attacked them. .

Because that’s a mug’s game. Raising taxes won’t FIX Social Security.

If Social Security had been FIXED – by creating a provately managed, self-financed system at the end of WWII, as FDR wanted, elderly people who now live in poverty would be millionaires!

Look at the demographics – there were more than 30 emploed workers supporting each retiree in the '30s. Now there are less than three workers to each retiree – and the trend is toward even fewer workers supporting each retiree.

Raising taxes is NOT the solution!!
Philip P:

With NCLB, this is a very new program. We can’t know yet how much it will really cost (the Peyser and Costrell article you posted admits as much). However, should costs be greater than advertised, I do not believe we should put education reform in jeopardy for the sake of maintaining some arbitrary principle of “low taxes.” ?

Who said we would?

But any time you want, I can show you how we can improve education dramatically with the money we already have budgeted.

 

[Philip_P]

Vern:

Would you take issue with someone who demanded oil companies justify the recent increases in the price of gasoline?

Would you suggest that any producer can raise prices at will, without attempting to increase efficiency first?

Would you consider it “unrealistic” and irresponsible to suggest that producers should pursue cost-cutting measures before raising prices?

How is it we hold private businesses – who never took an oath to us – to a higher standard of performance than we hold government officials?

Again, we are apparently on the same side here. In fact, progressive government requires, if anything, MORE vigilance and MORE demands for accountability than limited, weak-government models. I am very much in favor of measures to make government more transparent and keep it more accountable, as indeed most progressives are. Hence calls for electoral reform (no, I don’t believe Ohio was “stolen,” but the fact that thousands of votes are regularly unverifiable in elections should trouble anyone who cares about good government). Hence also calls for less secrecy in government. Hence also calls for non-partisan redistricting to make elections more competitive and candidates more representative (both parties are more ideologically extreme than the population at large, thanks in large part to safe districts).

As for cost-cutting measures, of course that is part of the solution, but once costs have been cut and there is STILL a deficit (as appears to have been the case in Minnesota, as was the case in NYC a couple years back, as has been the case in many states recently), raising taxes often also must be part of the solution. There’s only so much that we can afford to cut, just as there is a limit to how high taxes can be raised. The criteria is, as I pointed out before, not a certain “level,” but rather a question of what kind of society we are seeking to build. Is a society with no libraries and reduced fire and police protection acceptable? Is a budget that significantly cuts section 8 housing acceptable? These are the sorts of questions that must be asked, rather than blindly insisting on NO tax increase. If we can make government leaner, more efficient, and still receive the services we expect, by all means we should do so, but if government has already been trimmed and there is still a deficit, it is irresponsible to oppose a tax hike.

Vern:

I look at taxes like I look at self-defense. You have a right to defend yourself, but when you pull that trigger, you better be bloody well prepared to justify your actions!

I can work with that analogy. If you’re going to put me in the trenches and you take away my gun, you better have a reason. “We took it away to avoid raising taxes” ain’t gonna fly. (or maybe more to the point, “we couldn’t get armor for your humvee…”)

Vern:

But any time you want, I can show you how we can improve education dramatically with the money we already have budgeted.

Free lunches, perpetual motion machines, and other things that sound too good to be true, usually are. But go ahead and post a link to your plan and I’ll take a look at it.