Gov. Pawlenty announced his short-term budget cuts yesterday (MPR). Local impact? Nlfd News says: Northfield to lose $356,000
Figures released today by Gov. Tim Pawlenty show Northfield’s anticipated Dec. 26 aid payment will be $356,000 short of what city leaders expected… The governor’s decision reduces the amount Northfield will receive next week by a little more than 4 percent — from $1.56 million to $1.21 million. It’s unclear how the city will deal with the unallotment. The city is required by law to balance its annual budget.
Today’s editorial in the Nfld News: Gov. Pawlenty, give back our money
Taxpayers are not legally allowed to tell the state that they didn’t make enough money this year to pay their taxes, so why should the governor be allowed to use essentially the same argument? … And while they’re at it, perhaps legislators should consider ending the governor’s authority to unilaterally take money away from our communities through unallotment.
Sen. Kevin Dahle blogged about the impending LGA cuts earlier this week:
If the Governor is set on using LGA to fill that gap, I hope he makes proportional cuts that will allow cities and counties to still receive badly needed checks this December instead of a blindsided approach that leaves our local governments reeling.
Seems to me that Pawlenty handled it reasonably well, especially in his sparing small towns and small counties from the short-term LGA axe… as well as military, veterans, K-12 education, and public safety (press release). I saw Northfield resident and Minnesota Association of School Administrators (MASA) Executive Director (and blogger) Charlie Kyte at GBM this morning and he agreed.
Besides, we’re not in such bad shape here in Northfield. City Finance Director Kathleen McBride commented here on Locally Grown back in early Dec when I asked her about City’s vulnerability to further cuts:
We have already received notice of our 2009 state aid amounts. The dilemma is what the potential cuts could be and when they would be made. It is possible that the governor – and the legislature could “un-allot” 2009 aid in 2009. This would cause local governments to have to make mid-year budget reductions.
The City does have a $722,000 “revenue stabilization” reserve for this very purpose. This at least allows us some wiggle room should the cuts occur suddenly.
Rep. David Bly blogged about the State’s BIG budget problem earlier this month. He alerted me to it via email:
In my most recent post I talked a bit about the budget crunch we are facing at the State level, I encourage constituents to weigh in on suggestions for the resolving the budget problem. It occurred to me that Locally Grown might be a place to generate some discussion. I do genuinely want to hear ideas from those who are interested in offering them. The $5.2 billion short fall will not be made up by using one approach or by a simplistic solution and the more ideas we have to work with the better.
Sen. Dahle makes a similar plea in his Thursday blog post.
We’re planning to have both Rep. Bly and Sen. Dahle on our radio show/podcast in the next two weeks, so now’s a good time to start the discussion.
How would you balance the State’s short- and long term budget problem?
How does this suit you?
Worlds getting colder
Peter:
You wrote (about your utility bill):
My last bill went up by 30% despite of me using less energy then last year.
Interesting. I just looked at my Xcel bill, and found that my cost per therm of natural gas soared over the last year from $1.03 to $1.04. My electric bill increased from 10.34 cents per kWh to 10.89 cents per kWh.
How can I reconcile this with your figure of 30% increase despite lower use?
Jerry- That lost post never showed up, so I’ll try again. You really didn’t answer me directly in your first post, but the first link you gave did, if I understand it correctly. It appears that the correlation of the increase in CO2 has an exponential effect on the temperature rather than an incremental. If this is the case, then I can understand the urgency in the scientific community. I haven’t gotten the second link to work yet, either, but I will try again later.
I found this interesting link that I think you will agree with, also:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/
If the fossil record is being interpreted correctly, it would appear that the earth has been through drastic changes in climate. I remember climbing over the strip mine mounds on my uncle’s farm in southeast Iowa looking for sea shell fossils in the shale that was being scraped off the coal veins under his farm. This is evidence that the area was a sea bed at some time in history. It also supports some of the assertions made by Dr. Baez that there have been major changes over the history earth. It is interesting that species have changed and adapted to these changes as they came along. I’m wondering, given our technological advances over the last century, if we will be able to adapt to the changes coming as well as the prehistoric creatures did?
Here is another link I would like you to look at:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/global_warming.html
Don’t be scared off by the header. The article is put more in layman’s terms rather than scientific jargon so more people can read it and understand it. It would appear that not all Christian scientists are necessarily against the evidence being presented.
The other question I raised in the lost post was what is being done beyond conservation and alternative energy sources to address the socio-economic effects of global warming? In the little research I did, I did not find any significant proposals for the redistribution of available resources and populations as we enter into greater and greater change. If we do not get prepared for some of these things, I think we will see a debacle like the post Katrina event, except on a global scale.
Jerry- I give up! Twice, now, I’ve tried to post back to you, and I keep getting thwarted. I only had two urls in mine, and so did you. Just give me a call sometime, and maybe I can just e-mail you the links I found. I thought they would be intersting to you.
I’ll see if I can get this one question to go- do you know what is being done beyond research for alternative energy sources and conservation that will address the socio-economic effects of global warming? My concern is that if we do not have a plan in place for the redistribution of resources and people as the changes come, we will experience a debacle similar to the post Katrina fiasco, except on a global scale.
David: I read the web site you referenced, which did not answer my questions of context for Prof. Chylek, nor did they explain why the minority scientists are immune to corruption and the majority scientists are subject to it, as you have repeatedly alleged.
Further down the page that you referenced, the author cautions against the data he’s using as representing any trend. Here, you capitalize on the data, but the author says not to.
Further down the page are many comments from scientists and non-scientists that again moderate anyone’s hasty conclusions about the data.
I have no problem admitting that a 0.5°C drop in one year is noteworthy, but if you look at the graphs, you will see that there are peaks and valleys in the data. The trend is warming. Does this mean that with every ascent you’ll cry “global warming” and with every descent you’ll cry “global cooling”, or will you take a step back and look at trends? As some people here have offered, the melting ice caps will add a lot of cool water to the oceans and atmosphere. There are reasons for ups and downs. Trends are key.
The site that you referenced also made reference to another scientist’s blog, who concludes:
http://climatesci.org/main-conclusions/
Again, why are your scientists immune from corruption? Why are your scientists immune from error? Why do you select one scientist over another?
David H.- The graphs you cite are for faily short periods of time relative to the overall changes over the last century or so. Take a look at this url:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/global_warming.html
Don’t let the header scare you. When we put these changes in perspective to the cyclical climate changes over the last several thousand years, unfortunately, the general trend we are in is up. Also, toward the bottom of the article are some links that explain many false claims that have been made concerning global warming.
Jerry & David H- I found the problem link I was trying to connect. Just Google this subject line:
Global Warming: will human induced climate change destroy the world?
Don’t be scared off by the header. This fellow takes a lot of scientific jargon and tries to put it in layman’s terms that even I can understand. I think you’ll be surprised at what he has to say, Jerry.
David- I mean no offense in this link, but I think it puts Jerry’s comments in perspective.
Mike: You asked,
First, for those who doubt the numbers, I urge they search for such simple terms as “cows global warming”, like this report I found from the U.N.: “Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns” http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=warming -- It starts, “Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation, and smarter production methods, including improved animal diets to reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions, are urgently needed, according to a new United Nations report released today.”
Second, you ask “why”.
Human civilization was built around “domesticating” nonhuman animals. Prof. Jared Diamond goes into great detail about how domestication, of which the cow plays a major role, provided Middle Eastern and European humans with labor, meat, and disease (disease gave Europeans a major advantage, for example, when they were immune to small pox and the Incas were not). Suffice to say, cattle have been part of human civilization about as long as there has been civilization. Some humans today come from many generations of farmers. Rearing cattle is pervasive in human culture.
Compared to combustion engines, automobiles showed up in the last 120 years. While our culture relies on cars, truck, and planes, I believe the emotional connection to the oil-based industries are not as deep as the meat-based industries.
There also remains a myth that eating meat is a necessary part of the human diet. A recently fired stock trader filed a lawsuit against his employer, claiming harassment because he was a vegetarian.
On average, I think people would sooner buy an electric car than stop eating cows. Because of this belief, news sources are more likely to report bad news on the combustion engine.
These two aspects, the lengthy relationship between humans and cattle, and the myth that eating cattle is important, give an emotional reason for many humans not to want to stop producing and consuming cattle.
I think that’s why.
There are more greenhouse factors than the methane that cows produce. On average, for every 100 pounds of grain, we can feed 10 pounds of cow and then 1 pound of human. Alternatively 10 pounds of grain can feed 1 pound of human. The difference to feed one human is 10:1 if the human eats animals. This means that it will take, on average, ten times more tractor gasoline, ten times more pesticides, ten times more water, etc., when we choose to eat cows rather than grains.
Jerry, Honestly, I don’t think much policy will be made over global warming as the logic is still much too out of focus -- even knowing there are die hard believers. The economic drop is also going to lower the carbon footprint and if no correlating blips can be show (not made up) this and cold weather will end that ecoparty. I think there will be some moves towards alternatives based on security but even this barring a new event is probably not going to be subsidized. I still say if you are a global warming believer focus on transportation because solving real tangible problems, like traffic jams and deaths will ultimately reduce the carbon footprint. An infrastructure change over is needed as tar is currently required for roads and this is a byproduct of gas production. So just a new fuel will up the price of fuel and roads surfaces (a hard sell with no tangible gains). What’s needed is to have an “auto-internet” of some type where at least urban traffic has information technology driving decisions.
“if they get you asking the wrong questions then they do not have to worry about the answers.” ~Pynchon
Peter,
You say:
There is essentially no connection between the 2007 law requiring Minnesota electric utilities to provide 25% of their electricity from renewable resources by 2025 (the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007: see http://www.governor.state.mn.us/mediacenter/pressreleases/2007/PROD008146.html) and increases in your most recent Xcel bill(s).
The basic math outlined by Paul Z. is an accurate reflection of what has happened with Xcel’s prices in the past year or so for natural gas and electricity. The primary cause of any increase you would have seen was an interim electricity base rate increase, requested by Xcel Energy in a submittal to the Minnesota Public utilities on November 3, 2008, that went into effect on January 1, 2009. The rate increase is expected to raise costs for the average residential customer by 7.6% (see http://xcelenergy.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/docs/MNRateCase2008FAQ.pdf).
As Xcel points out in the document to which I have provided a link, this rate increase has NOTHING TO DO with the cost of “riders” that cover the cost of fuel used in power plants, capital investments in renewable energy, conservation, etc. It instead is a base rate increase for the following:
The noted hysterical environmentalist extremist, Governor Tim Pawlenty, had this to say about the Next Generation Energy Act (which also sets a state policy goal of 80% greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2050):
Finally, if a customer voluntarily chooses to purchase 100% of their electricity through Xcel’s Windsource Program (see http://www.xcelenergy.com/Residential/RenewableEnergy/Windsource_/Pages/WindSource.aspx), they would pay about 7% more for their electricity than the standard rate, on average.
Geez, Griff! What is going on? Am I just not doing something right? I thought I had lost 3 posts, but all of a sudden they show up, and not necessarily in order of submission. There are a couple that pretty much duplicate themselves, so feel free to delete any you think are just taking up space. Oh well, I don’t mind being humbled, unless it is by a computer program.
Jerry,
I found a link below that somewhat concurs with your meat consumption statements above.
http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/288247
After reading your statements above and this article made me wonder the questions about global warming and is the issue framed in the right context?
Is the real “root causes” of environmental degradation really a poor choice of human “lifestyle” and poor land use, or over use?
Shouldn’t the meat eaters pay a carbon tax as well as the fossil fuel users?
Or, does it really come down to the overpopulation of the planet?
Have we reached the “carrying capacity” of the planet?
Would there even be discussion about global warming if there was 700 million(SUV driving, 5 lbs of meat consumed/day) people instead of close to 7 billion?
If we cut back on fossil fuel usage without addressing population growth are we solving the CO2 problem?
John, apologies for the glitches. For some reason, comments with URL’s in them are being intercepted by the Askimet spam filter. I don’t get alerted to this and so I have to manually retrieve them. So until we get this fixed, let me know if your comments don’t show up immediately.
Paul,
I am very sorry, but I was having a “senior moment”. On the statement this years usage was in the first colum and last years in the second. I should have been more careful in reading it.
I still maintain that a switch from traditional energy to “green energy” will cost more then 7%.
If this raise wasn’t related to the government mandate, then based on current cost of natural gas the price should have stayed the same as last year.
The direct impact on the bill could very well 7%, but this does not account for the cost related of building the infrastructure.
These costs will be hidden and diluted in other taxes. I.e carbon tax and cap and trade.
If based on the current relatively small mandate our costs go up 7% (or whatever the number is) we can calculate easily what the cost will be once we switch all of it to “green energy”.
Peter,
Let’s stick to the facts. I never said “the switch from traditional energy to green energy” (in your words) will cost no more than 7%. I simply stated what it would cost a current Xcel Energy customer to purchase their electricity through Windsource at this point in time. (Fact, from the Xcel website, linked in my post above.)
The actual cost to Xcel of the power purchased from wind projects is quite competitive with the power from traditional power plants. For example, Xcel will be purchasing all the power produced by Carleton’s wind turbine (roughly 4.5 million kWh per year, enough to power about 500 average Northfield homes), for 3.3 cents per KWh from September 2004 through September 2024. Seems like a pretty good deal for Xcel customers to me. (Fact, based on my personal knowledge of the power purchase agreement entered into between Carleton and Xcel in 2004.)
Electricity costs increased by an annual average of about 3.3% over the last 30 years in the United States, in the absence of any significant investment in renewable energy. (Fact, Energy Information Administration, US Dept. of Energy)
If we, as consumers, ratepayers and taxpayers, want to avoid the costs of building massive infrastructure (e.g. new electric transmission lines), we should do everything possible to
I’ve never advocated making the transition away from fossil fuels and nuclear power to a more sustainable energy system “overnight.” Nor is any other realist. I have consistently advocated making the transition as expeditiously as possible, beginning right now. The best available science indicates that unless we start aggressively now, and achieve something like a global 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by about 2050, we’re in deep trouble.
I agree with Mike Zenner that we have to look holistically at all of the interrelated issues (population, consumption, lifestyle, planetary carrying capacity, etc.) if we hope to develop a more sustainable global civilization.
Now for something completely different, here’s a comment about the ostensible subject of this thread: addressing the immediate budget problems in the state.
In a recent Strib editorial,
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/39233717.html?elr=KArksUUUU
Mitchell Pearlstein urges those who can afford to do so in difficult times to give more to charities, etc. Read it for yourself.
Here’s my reaction: I agree fully with Mr. Pearlstein that we who can afford to do so (the “well fed”, as Mr. P. puts it) should step up to the plate in hard times, whether that “plate” is at one’s church, synagogue, temple, coven, Druidic circle, or secular humanist salon.
Where I think Mr. Pearlstein wimps out is in relation to the state’s “collection plate”, which could also use some help. Mr. Pearlstein invites those who want to do so to make extra contributions to the state, and again that’s fine. But state government is fundamentally different from any voluntary association in all sorts of ways that don’t lend themselves to the charity model.
I’m glad to contribute more to the state, especially during tough times. But I’d like other relatively fortunate people to be accountable, legally if necessary, to do their part, too. Taxation is the only way I can think of to assure this.
Mr. P. takes Governor Pawlenty’s anti-tax position as a given, and perhaps even as a Good Thing. I disagree. The Governor’s views are what they are, but our state need not sacrifice its own interests at the altar of keeping an undistinguished politician politically palatable to the right wing of a struggling party.
I have no problem doing my own things to “go green.” I have no problem with trying to take care of the environment. Heck if I could afford it I would have solar panels on my house and a Tesla in the driveway. The problem I have is when liberals want to use the government to mandate. Mandate what light bulbs I can buy, mandate what temp I can keep my house at. Mandate what cars i can and can’t drive. I don’t see much freedom and liberty in that. So I will continue to do what I can, but will never support folks like Gore.
Mike: In alignment with your post, when members of any species dominate an ecosystem, the ecosystem changes. Human population has been growing dramatically since hygiene and health care have become normalized in human society. Adding more humans continues to make more changes in our ecosystem and the conversation on global warming is one way that our ecosystem has changed.
Last century, it was widely reported that more species are going extinct than the historical average, probably because of humans converting wild habitat to farmland. Humans changing the planet is not a new idea.
I need to add ‘weight’ to the measurement. Human population alone is not the issue. Humans in industrial nations cause tremendously more pollution (including greenhouse gasses) than in agrarian and other simpler nations. I add this so Americans don’t point the finger at the Chinese or Indians. Their population is great but the U.S. still creates dramatically more pollution.
In my view, we can have our cake and eat it too. We can enjoy the luxuries of our industrial society if we are smart about it. I would like to see smaller families and more adoptions, overall reducing our population. I would like to see more attention on “reduce, reuse, recycle”. So much attention is already on recycle, but reduction and reusing is even more important. And when we do buy things, we should buy “green”, meaning that we should choose products with the least environmental impact.
We still have a cultural prejudice, a psychology to overcome. Some Americans pride themselves on big cars and big steaks. It will take a long time before that pride gives way to social responsibility.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxBl9BXLom4
I am getting a bit tired of all this seriousness here, especially on a Monday morning.
Have fun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxBl9BXLom4
I am getting a bit tired of all this seriousness here, especially on a Monday morning.
Have fun.
Questions for Paul (and others)
What should be a “fair level” of taxation?
When do we think will the government have enough tax dollars to run the business of the country or state?
How much more taxes should we pay?
I don’t know if it is just timing, but in all of the current budgetary discussions NOT a single liberal has mad ANY suggestions on how to cut spending.
The DFL has done a lot of complaining about Pawlenty’s budget but has offered very little in terms alternatives, besides “How to raise more revenues”.
David Bly and Kevin Dahle’s (yes I read them) blogs are no different.
Am I to understand that raising taxes or fees are our only alternatives?
If so, see questions one and two.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aGq2B3XeGKok
This is scary……have we lost our collective minds?
This is a dangerous gamble we are undertaking. Let’s hope and pray that our leaders know what they are doing.
If not all the current discussions are pretty much academic.
The amount of debt we put on our children will put any other future venture in to jeopardy.
Peter is right on this issue….when is the DFL going to present a budget that they want to support? It is absolutely silly to think we should only work from the Governor’s budget,as they state they are going to do. If they really hold true to that I suspect we will be in for some looooooong and very difficult budget negotiations. Their statement that they want to ‘hold listening sessions’ to hear what people are thinking is very weak. If they don’t know what their constituents are thinking now, they won’t know any better in 2 more weeks.
Paul, I thought Mitch P’s article was sound. People do need to do all they can to support the organizations you list. (Well maybe not the coven, Druidic circle) I think one of the failures of government has been its effort to ‘take over’ the role of so many private non-profits. The small community non-profits do a far, far better job of delivering services to the needy than does a large bureacracy. Take a look at Northfield’s own CAC, Health Finders, etc and you will see wonders at work. This is where support needs to go.
I also support Mitch’s statement that people who are able should step up and give more in taxes to the state if they feel the state needs the funds. We’ve seen full page newspaper ads, stuff from the Growth and Justice folks, etc, etc. about raising taxes on the ‘wealthy’. Nothing is stopping the ‘wealthy’ from doing that on their own. (And apparently nothing other than an appointment from President Obama makes some of them pay either) And nothing seems to be stopping the ‘wealthy’ from leaving the state when they retire.
Minnesota presently has roughly 700,000 individuals receiving some sort of public assistance for health care. In the next biennium, without modifications, that is scheduled to increase by 100,000. Is that sustainable? I don’t think so.
I want to second Peter’s quesion…How much taxation is enough?
Link (MNPR)
David Bly has introduced the “peoples bailout bill”.
I can support part of it, especially in extending unemployment benefits.
However to extend welfare benefits for people past the five year deadline indefinitely escapes my feeble mind.
How will this part of the bill help the economy?
David Bly and the DFL has chosen to avoid the greater budget picture by trying to pass spending bills before the budget as a whole is discussed.
It’s pretty smart actually because it would be nearly impossible to reverse prior spending commitments.
To add injury to insult neither Mr. Bly nor his co sponsor have any idea on what the cost of the bill is. What???
Peter and Ray- I agree with you regarding taxation. Once we start down the road of entitlement, it is like starting a fire. It will continue to burn unless it runs out of fuel, or someone extenguishes it. The running out of fuel really concerns me. Will we eventually kill the goose (taxpayers) that continue to faithfully lay golden eggs (taxes)?
Ray- Just one point of perspective, here, and I really haven’t thoroughly researched it, but your comment, “…I think one of the failures of government has been its effort to ‘take over’ the role of so many private non-profits…”- has government “taken over” the role of many non-profits, specifically churches, or have the churches passively acquiessed their roll to the government? I think there is a trend toward this that started in the ’50′s, but I cannot find my research that I began on it. Just wondering your opinion on this.
There is a lot of talk about the fact that the policies of the last eight years have failed, and that the Republicans are offering just more of the same.
There is much better prove of how an economic system, that has too much government involvement, has collapsed.
How about all the Eastern Bloc countries?
Peter:
You ask:
“Fairness” and “level” are both important questions, but they’re different … let’s not conflate them.
I’m a bit lost in your syntax here, but I think you’re asking how much money a country or state should raise through taxes. Since this thread is about the state, let’s stick to that. Here’s my short answer is: There is no short answer. It depends on things like changing demographics (balancing costs of schools vs nursing homes), condition of the national economy (bad economic times can raise expenses for social services), maintenance schedules for roads and bridges (as you may recall, one fell down recently), etc.
So much said, it’s perfectly true — as you often remind us spendthrift liberals — that the tax well isn’t bottomless, so we can’t have everything anybody might want.
IMO the best way for me to deal with such uncertainty is to look at history over the last few decades. Around 1973 (if I have my history correct … I’m not a native …) Minnesota went from a relatively low tax, low service model to a relatively high tax, high service model of state government (where “low” and “high” are relative to other states, not necessarily to, say, Denmark). By every measure I’ve heard of the results over the last 35 years have been very, very good for Minnesota by comparison with other states. Minnesota has consistently ranked, and still ranks, well above average as regards health, economy, education, social indices, etc.
Perhaps all this has something to do with Minnesota’s unique moral perfection, divine intervention, and other supernatural effects, but I doubt it. At the very least, I see no reason to impute from history the lesson that (relatively!) high taxation by US standards always leads to economic decline. On the contrary, I take the lesson that prudent investment in public resources can pay good dividends. Sure, some public investments are better than others, and some may be simply wasteful or hare-brained, but the big picture matters most, and the big historical picture seems pretty clear.
None of this means that more government spending is always better than less. Anything the government spends is not available for anyone else to spend (and vice versa, of course). And, one way or another, some taxing and spending figure must be set.
Hence, since you ask …
Taking a historical view suggests to me that Minnesota government should probably be spending something near the same percentage of state GDP in the near future that it has in the relatively recent past. What this percentage is depends on what figures are used for numerator and denominator, but from what I can tell from a few minutes’ research it appears that (i) state GDP is around $240 bn/year; (ii) the state budget now runs about $30 bn/year, or around 12 or 13 per cent of GDP; (iii) the ratio of state budget to GDP has generally fallen over recent decades. Given all this, and the fact that we’ve probably built up some backlog of deferred maintenance of state assets, and the fact that I’m inclined to Keynesianism, it seems to me that the state should probably spend modestly more in the near future than it has in the near past. I’m willing to do my part to address the backlog, and to help fellow Minnesotans in hard times. And I want the other relatively well-fed cats to do theirs. If raising some taxes on people at or above my level is required, so be it.
OK, there’s my prescription. What’s yours? Please include some numbers.
Ray:
You say:
I, too, admire organizations like these. In what sense has government “tried to take over” these good works?
Sure, it’s fine for those who can do so to step up. But the idea of government by noblesse oblige feels all wrong to me. Let’s decide together what we want government to do, account honestly for the costs, and then spread them out with a view to who can afford to pay.
Yes, Tom D is an embarrassment. But isn’t the lesson according to St Thomas that we need to make the rascals pay?
Paul Z.- I think Ton D’s indiscration is evidence that greed and corruption know no political boundaries.
Peter,
The “FAIR TAX” answer is pretty simple. Using the numbers for the federal expenditures for 2008 from the web site below (which appears to not be accounting for “off budget” expenses e.g. Iraq War Enron accounting, etc)
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104655.html
If we subtract the corporations input to the kitty (Assuming they ARE paying their FAIR share) then rough numbers:
2.1 trillion divided by 300 Million people = $7000/person. So a family of 4 “Federal FAIR TAX” for 2008 would be $28,000! (This includes of coarse SS, Medicare, gas taxes etc.)
For 2008 Minnesota (I am guessing here) would be 16 Billion divided 4 Million people would come to $4000/person. Family of 4 would be $16,000! (this of coarse includes property taxes, sales taxes, fees, etc.)
I tell you what Peter, If we did have this FAIR TAX system you would not have anyone arguing with you about cutting taxes, everyone will be joined in a tax revolt at the respective capital houses, including the 700,000 Ray say’s are on the dole in MN!
Jerry,
I don’t feel we can easily dismiss the rise of Asia and its growing population as it becomes more industrialized. The peasants are migrating to the big cities to get a taste of the good life (more meat, except for the Hindus, although they’ll keep more cows around for worship.) just like they have seen in the western movies!
I feel that for every percent of food and energy we conserve they will take up double or triple that amount!
I think if you dove in now your head would hit cement.
“Zero” is fair Peter. Large city states including roads, sewers, etc have been built without forced taxation. In the case of the current US system, if there were no taxation then even if many fewer dollars flowed to community building they would be spent so much more appropriately we would live in a comparative heaven.
I saw a number that the federal borrowing for this crisis could pay off every home mortgage in America.
Hey Peter,
Great news, the Senate Republicans were able to trim the stimulus bill to $838Bil.
Add this to the $700Bil TARP and last years 2.1 Trillion your 2009 Federal “FAIR TAX” bill will be 3.638Trillion divided by 303Million = $12,006/person or $48,024 for a family of 4!
Without their effort it would have been as high as $12,336/person or more, quite an increase from last year’s $7,000!
If Pawlenty can hold the line for next year at $16,000 for a family of 4 then the total 2009 tax bill will be $64K for a Minnesota family of 4 who’s median income is ~$78K.
Mike: I agree that the changes in Asia, popularizing the Western lifestyle, is concerning. Presently, the U.S. is so far ahead of India and China in consumption, waste and pollution that I don’t want them to distract us from our own shortcomings. Further, I can change my habits, my family’s habits, and my community’s habits much easier than the citizens of another country. And if I am successful at thinking globally and acting locally, perhaps the citizens of other countries will see the changing U.S. attitude as a reason to change their own.
Link Bloomberg.com
Buried deep in the stimulus bill is this nugget:
Paul,
In general I agree with the notion that government spending should be proporionate to GDP. Your assesment is about right.
The more important discussion is “What do we want government to do”.
My guidelines on this would be the constitution. There our founding fathers clearly define the role of government.
It’s an amazing piece of document, which has made us the greatest country on earth.
I think most of us agree that our tax system is broke. We actually could gain some efficencies by simplifying it, juast ask Daschle and Geithner.
Follow the money. This expalins some of the “urgency” of having to pass TARP.
here is a partial list of where the stimulus package spends the money.(source National Review)
This list will let you know where our money is. I let you decide which one of these actual qualify for stimulus…
$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
$380 million in the Senate bill for the Women, Infants and Children program
$300 million for grants to combat violence against women
$2 billion for federal child-care block grants
$6 billion for university building projects
$15 billion for boosting Pell Grant college scholarships
$4 billion for job-training programs, including $1.2 billion for “youths” up to the age of 24
$1 billion for community-development block grants
$4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities”
$650 million for digital-TV coupons; $90 million to educate “vulnerable populations”
$15 billion for business-loss carry-backs
$145 billion for “Making Work Pay” tax credits
$83 billion for the earned income credit
$150 million for the Smithsonian
$34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters
$500 million for improvement projects for National Institutes of Health facilities
$44 million for repairs to Department of Agriculture headquarters
$350 million for Agriculture Department computers
$88 million to help move the Public Health Service into a new building
$448 million for constructing a new Homeland Security Department headquarters
$600 million to convert the federal auto fleet to hybrids
$450 million for NASA (carve-out for “climate-research missions”)
$600 million for NOAA (carve-out for “climate modeling”)
$1 billion for the Census Bureau
$89 billion for Medicaid
$30 billion for COBRA insurance extension
$36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
$20 billion for food stamps
$4.5 billion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
$850 million for Amtrak
$87 million for a polar icebreaking ship
$1.7 billion for the National Park System
$55 million for Historic Preservation Fund
$7.6 billion for “rural community advancement programs”
$150 million for agricultural-commodity purchases
$150 million for “producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm-raised fish”
$2 billion for renewable-energy research ($400 million for global-warming research)
$2 billion for a “clean coal” power plant in Illinois
$6.2 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program
$3.5 billion for energy-efficiency and conservation block grants
$3.4 billion for the State Energy Program
$200 million for state and local electric-transport projects
$300 million for energy-efficient-appliance rebate programs
$400 million for hybrid cars for state and local governments
$1 billion for the manufacturing of advanced batteries
$1.5 billion for green-technology loan guarantees
$8 billion for innovative-technology loan-guarantee program
$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects
$4.5 billion for electricity grid
$79 billion for State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
To fix the economy and pay for it, we need to look at the increasing income gap between the richest and poorest in the US. The fact that CEO pay in the US is hundreds of times more than the lowest paid worker in those organizations, and a far greater gap than in Europe, is not due (Ray), to the idea that these CEO’s are working far harder than the lowest paid, or that their work output and efficiency have increased more than the lowest paid, and more than CEO’s in Europe.
Ray, you say that the richest pay 70% of the taxes, but 20% of the richest in this country own 85% of the wealth. The top 1% of income earners earn 20% of the nation’s wealth.
So to be fair, when it comes to that slice of the population with more disposable income, the percent of revenue their taxes contribute to the pot should always be larger than their percent of overall income, or their percent of wealth.
So for example, if the richest 20% of the country owns 85% of the wealth, this group should not be contributing a mere 70% to overall tax revenue, but should be conributing more than 85%.
And when Republicans debate taxes, we should be quoting what Eisenhower said about taxes in an age when it was assumed that the wealthy would pay a far larger share than they currently do. In Ike’s day, a reduction for the rich from a 92% rate to a 91% rate was workable.
Right now, for the wealthy, greed is treason. If 80% of the population owns only 15% of the wealth, most of us have little power to turn the economy around except by pressuring our elected officials to tax the rich and spend it wisely. Twenty percent of the population owns 85% of the wealth, so they have most of the economic power to make a difference. If people are still losing their jobs and the economy getting worse, then the richest 20% are not doing their part.
This is where taxation with representation is a good thing.
On a global scale, governments in Europe and Asia are fearing mass protests and unrest. Eventually, this would also happen in the US as well. You can gather a bunch of police in St. Paul at the RNC to control a focused crowd of protest, but you can’t do this if the protests are breaking out in every major city, and in smaller ones as well. If we bail out Wall Street but the taxpayer doesn’t get any stock in the rescued banks, the police may be more in sympathy with the protest than with the necessity to end it.
Continuing to press for failed Republican policies of tax cuts will only result in far greater problems.
Paul,
Is there any room for spending cuts in your opinion.
Or is it just raise taxes on whomever?
Speaking of rich President Obama makes $ 400000 is he considered rich?
Paul -- don’t you see any relationship between the growth in government and the growth in income disparity? I assume you agree that both have occurred over the same time period but do you think there is no causal relationship? I wish pro big government liberals would answer this question as it seems critical.
People can talk ‘class warfare’ all they want, but the bottom line is still out there—-how much money does Minnesota need to operate properly? That is the question that truly needs to be answered now since we are truly in a deep, deep recession. I do not think you can find one viable economist that will advocate for increasing taxes in a situtation like we are presently in. President Obama has ‘seen the light’ since his election promises of raising taxes. I can only assume he has been talked to by econmists louder than he has by his campaign workers.
Paul F’s comments on high earner income ends up being much like a ponzi scheme. If you raise the tax on high earners up to 91%, what is your plan when government finds out that they don’t generate enough revenue? Remember the child’s verse about the goose and the golden egg.
I think the price of government is what really needs to be examined. I believe we are now at about 16.6% or so. The legislature actually has to acknowledge the POG in formal action every two years. Historically, I believe the highest percentage we have been at was 17.4% in the late 1990′s. You may remember that was the time Minnesota was generating billions of dollars in surplus funds and we were sending it back to taxpayers as Jesse checks. We are up from about 15.6% of a few years ago.
I think we also need to look at Minnesota’s spending as compared to our neighboring states. I don’t have exact figures, but I believe we spend about $1,200 more per capital than Wisconsin does. Why? We spend about $2,000 more per capita than Iowa..why? If the answer is that we want to operate XXX programs, then I can be OK with that. But if the answer is that Minnesota’s work rules and basic adminsitration are simply dinosaurs, then we need to take this opportunity and reexamine how the state is spending its money.
David H:
You wrote:
Two things:
One standard measure of income disparity in a country is the Gini coefficient, a number between 0 and 100. (High numbers mean high disparity; low numbers mean relative equality.) Gini coefficients are used by everyone from academic economist to the CIA, and it’s easily seen that, among rich countries, those with the lowest Gini coefficients are the Scandinavian countries, which have big governments by any standard.
So … I’m confused. Do I understand your question correctly?
Paul Z, if bees put honey in 100s of hives all over the forest verses putting all the honey in one big hive which scenario would lead to a few big fat bears and lots of very skinny bears?
Maybe I just lack the sophisticated understanding of academics and the CIA.
David H:
I like the bears-and-bees fable. Clever!
But apparently it doesn’t describe reality, since income equality seems lower, not higher, in the democratic socialist states, like Denmark. So what gives?
Interesting that the conservatives are Peter and liberals are Paul ??
Sweden and Denmark are kind of little honey pots if you ask me. I guess the question will be if the EU (assuming it has any taxing authority) brings about greater wage equality.
Sweden is also a odd socialist example (but often used) as they have been running a thiefdom for centuries … having I think the 3rd largest gold reserves and crown jewels from half the European countries. What is the population? Instead of building an empire they just pillaged and then squirreled it all away. Kinda easy to be generous when it’s not your money to begin with. (disclosure: I’m half Scandinavian)
David H:
You wrote:
Good point. Is it any surprise that, as a liberal, I’m in favor of robbing Peter to pay Paul?
Hmm …
I don’t know about the jewels part, but Sweden is nowhere near the top of the heap re gold reserves. According to Wikipedia it’s around #23, just below Algeria and Libya, and above Saudi Arabia and the Philippines. (Portugal, for some unaccountable reason, has huge gold reserves … go figure.)
You disclosed:
This explains a lot. (I’m only 1/8 Scandinavian.)
I don’t understand the American love affair with socialism, it is a flawed theory.
History clearly speaks in favor of the US system of capitalism.
There is no other country in the world that offers the same opportunities and freedom.
Very strange indeed.
That’s exactly what I was saying when I applied for a job at Enron.
Enron is not a free market company. People are not forced to purchase Ipods or Cell Phones. Enron contracted almost exclusively with governments and utilities … these entities made foolish decisions with money that was not their money … just like Northfield invested in a CD scheme that lost millions …. Enron does not represent a “free” market because the losses resulted from “tax” based transactions. Most of investment came from institutional investments (like 401Ks) again favored by tax policy with the errors coming from ‘planners’ handling other peoples money.
Enron found the big honey pot and jumped right in.