Monday, September 29, 2008

Class Envy? or ...

... Franchot for Governor?

An editorial in this morning's Daily Times read more like your typical Democrat whining, until you get to the end.  To base an op-ed on a report issued by the "Progressive Maryland Education Fund" is suspect at best.  To dance around the edges of "tax the rich" is to be expected from the left.  To call for more state spending while refusing to acknowledge that spending is at the core of the state's fiscal crisis is to be expected.  To claim that:

Efforts by Comptroller Peter Franchot to more strictly enforce existing
tax collections, including an examination of vendors that win state or
federal contracts to make sure they do not owe additional taxes to
either government, can help bridge the revenue gap and thereby free up
funds to help enable more Marylanders to share in the benefits of
living in the nation's wealthiest state.

is ridiculous on its face.

Sure, I would love to see a primary fight between Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and his not so friendly Comptroller.  However, to argue that better tax enforcement is going to "bridge the revenue gap" in Maryland doesn't even qualify as a pipe dream.

Should Franchot continue strenuous tax enforcement?  Absolutely.  That's what he was elected to do.  That's the number one duty in his job description. 

Are Maryland's growing fiscal problems due to a "revenue gap".  Of course not.  The root of the problem is spending.  There will always be a "revenue gap" when there is no control on spending.

The so-called "structural deficit" is merely a politically correct term for "we want to spend more than we have".  If the O'Malley administration and his Dem pals in the legislature were serious about solving the problem, it wouldn't be through more tax increases.  They have already demonstrated to the rest of us that this won't work.  Perhaps they might realize it themselves one day.

However, the attitude in Annapolis (and the Lower Shore according to the Daily Times) is one of give me, give me, and then give me some more.  How much would be saved simply by making state employees drive their own vehicles and pay for their own gasoline during their commutes?  How much would be saved by reforming public education rather that simply assuming that the solution is always one of "more money".  How much would be saved by simply reducing the state's desire to act as some sort of supra county funding agent?

It is true that Wicomico County would be hard hit by a drastic reduction in state funding because of the revenue cap.  However, by pushing spending decisions to the lowest level of government and forcing citizens to make hard decisions we can eliminate many of these ills over the long term.

Of course, if the nanny state disappears what do liberals have to offer?

cross posted at Delmarva Dealings

20 comments:

His Humble Servant said...

why not tax the rich. surely you people do not expect the rich will stop pursuing wealth, or do you like to pretend they will all protest and become a burden on the State.

The rich are a small group and as such to tax them would serve the greater good--the good of the masses.

As a poor person (175K/year sole family earner) I embrace all tax relief and so should the rest of you.

It is time the wealthy pull their God given share of the load.

"For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

G. A. Harrison said...

It's not a question of "taxing the rich". First of all, there aren't enough "rich" to make a sizable dent - unless you want to go back to the days of confiscatory top marginal rates. Second - the "rich" simply park their money in municipals if you tax them too heavily.

I'm almost conviced that you were kidding when you said that you earned 175K and are "poor". To the feds that should put you well into the ATM - the tax return for the "rich".

There is also no question that placing a reasonable tax burden on all - including the "rich" yields higher tax revenue than high marginal rates.

His Humble Servant said...

yes my income is 175K and though I am may not be poor, given the cost of living I am probably middle class.

I am wiling to contribute more money to the society I live in ; whatever helps others will surely help me either directly or indirectly.

I believe that in order to live in a good world we all have to pitch in.

Mister D. said...

"As a poor person (175K/year sole family earner) I embrace all tax relief and so should the rest of you."


If you can't live off of $175k a year,then you need to learn how to budget your money better.



"I believe that in order to live in a good world we all have to pitch in."

Spoken like a true socialist.


"Oh, I know it's a penny here and a penny there, but look at me. I worked myself up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty."-Groucho Marx

Higgy said...

humble servant - there is no one stopping you from sending more money to the treasury. As far as taxing the "rich" more, don't forget that the top 5% of wage earners already provide over 90% of income tax. Also , be careful. Small businesses like sole proprietors and s-corps. could be affected wiping out needed jobs.

Bruce Godfrey said...

What makes you think that better enforcement won't raise revenue? Or do I misread you? I for one am glad to see the Comptroller focusing on his day job, i.e. full enforcement of existing tax laws.

anotherwatcher said...

"As a poor person (175K/year sole family earner)"

You are the rich to MOST. 3 x the median income. If you are hurting, so what! Your fault. If you can't live in your means at that income, your fault.

sczepp said...

One race I was hoping Janet Owens would of won so that the GOP candidate would have won the general election.

his humble servant said...

175K is not a lot of money-- I am hardly rich. I am able to live without worrying about gas prices, I can afford to make my home more effecient, but rich I am not..

I feel very bad for those of you that make less than I do and still have sympathy for corporations for having to pay their fair share of taxes.

What makes you believe you will ever make anywhere near what it takes to be considered rich? And when I do, and I will soon, I will gladly pay the increase taxes so I can help others.

I am a Christian, and I believe in the ten commandments.

anotherwatcher said...

his humble servant, happiness is wanting what you have, not having what you want.
For me, "rich" is a state of mind, not a social status.

G. A. Harrison said...

Bruce -

No, I didn't say that better enforcement wouldn't raise more money, it just won't do much to close the "revenue gap". Of course the comptroller should do his / her job.

My point is that raising tax rates doesn't help to raise the gross level of revenue as Democrats insist on believing.

Mister D. said...

"I am a Christian, and I believe in the ten commandments."


And what does that have to do with this thread?

His Humble Servant said...

What does christianity have to do with anything in Politics ? Why is God even in the pledge of allegiance ?

Mister D. said...

His Humble Servant,
You don't answer a question with a question. The question was pretty simple. What did your statement about being a christian and believing in the ten commandments have to do with this thread?

His Humble Servant said...

Are you an atheist, or a Muslim ?

Mister D. said...

"Are you an atheist, or a Muslim ?"


Once again,answering a question with a question.


"Now there's a man with an open mind. You can feel the breeze from here."-Groucho Marx

his humble servant said...

So you admit you are anti-Christian?

Mister D. said...

Still answering questions with questions,again.Why should I answer your question,when you haven't answered mine. You are absolutely pointless.

His humble servant said...

Are you suggesting that I am avoiding answering your questions ? Or are you afraid of answering mine ?

Mister D. said...

I'm not "suggesting" anything. I'm stating fact. I will answer your question when you answer mine. I'm not going to hold my breath on that,though.

ShareThis