'It's Not A Gaffe If You Really Mean It'

[bigtree]

http://barackobama.tumblr.com/post/24899914733/think-progress-mitt-romney-said-we-need-fewer

(ThinkProgress) Romney Campaign Chair: ‘Taxpayers Really Do Want To Hear There Will Be Fewer Teachers’
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/11/497293/sununu-romney-public-sector/

Romney's Smackdown of Teachers, Firefighters, Police Is No Gaffe
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002789283

[TBMASE]

1. 2 questions

1) When did it become the job of the federal government to pay for local teachers, police and firemen?
2) What happens to those jobs when the stimulus runs out?

[bigtree]

2. the funding is a stopgap measure and a supplement to state spending

Not really sure what you're arguing here. There is a need out there and the federal government provided funds to states as both a stopgap and a stimulus. The CBO says they achieved both goals. Moreover . . .

ThinkProgress: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/11/497293/sununu-romney-public-sector/

Classrooms are busting at the seams because there are fewer teachers, and cities and towns across the country are closing entire public safety departments due to budget cuts . . .

Federal, state, and local governments have laid off more than 700,000 workers since Obama took office.

[TBMASE]

5. I'm not really arguing anything

I was just wondering what happens when the money runs out.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. ??

1.) There has always been that relationship (fed-state) that benefits intra-state and across state borders. U.S. states are not independent countries and so it benefits both to provide funding from the national level to help the concept and legal structure of e pluribus unum. I.e., people move to other states and certainly criminals don't always stay within the state where they committed the crime. So local police can become the eyes and ears for others outside of their jurisdictions given the resources and teachers impact the nation as a whole. Anyone pushing for dumbing down America is truly sad.

2.) If we taxed at the rates that we had in the past when we were booming, then this wouldn't even be an issue. I.e., the Constitution states that we are to provide for the common defense, (and) promote the general welfare and these types of positions help to do just that.

It's sad that so many wave copies of the Constitution around yet have no idea what the point of it is.

[TBMASE]

6. Then there's really no need for a stimulus to do this

a stimulus is a one time source of cash, it's not a continuing source of income to state and local governments to provide these services.

If the plan were to permanently fund these functions, then I wouldn't have the questions. But my understanding is that the Federal Government provides money to the states, which is doled out to the local governments in their yearly budget with the remainder funded by local property and sales tax revenues. If local governments are cutting teachers and protective services, a stimulus is merely a one time payment which means there is a limit to the money they get and how long it lasts.

[BumRushDaShow]

11. Do you recall the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act" from 1994?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act

It was passed under the Clinton administration and the whole process was quite controversial and went through multiple iterations before the final version became law.

This law was not passed to provide a "temporary" stimulus. It was designed to address one of the most vocally-expressed issues that the GOP hung their hat on - "Crime". And this law actually directly funded states/localities to hire more police. In fact, in many urban areas, like the one that I was born, raised, and currently live in, the funding established something that had been lost over the decades - "Community policing". I.e., the police forces had ceased using "beat cops" who walked the neighborhoods, stuck them in cars, and left them to drive around harassing residents who they didn't get to know or had any idea actually lived in the community. However the extra funding from this law was used to set up a group of officers here who now patrol neighborhoods on bicycle. This is something that brings them out of the sterile environment of the car and puts them closer to the people. By riding around, they would eventually get to know who lives in a neighborhood, could catch criminals running from a scene and darting in and out of alleys much easier than trying to do the same from a car, or ultimately on foot. They could cruise around and meet the neighborhood kids or retirees and find out the scoop on any issues that may be plaguing the neighborhood, and could begin the ditching of the stereotype of the fat cop parked at the local Dunkin' Donuts chowing down.

The problem today is because of the black man in office, the rethuglicans have forced themselves to give up almost EVERY single previous policy position - including emphasizing and coddling the law enforcement community - in order to "oppose" and ultimately remove this current President. And so with one fell swoop, Rmoney has thrown one of the last of their coveted talking-point groups, right under the bus. The fact that they have essentially eliminated the "permanent" funding from the original law that they so pushed for and that became a major part of Gingrich's "Contract with America" ("Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants Act of 1995" - which was part of that document's "The Taking Back Our Streets Act" proposal) and they won't even consider restoring some of that funding via a "stimulus", is proof that their only focus is to destroy the economy out of racist fury, with the hope that they will somehow "take back" what their defective brains can't seem to fathom would be a completely ruined nation thanks to their efforts.

These people are psychos and anyone supporting them is as well.

[bigtree]

12. good post, BRDS

thanks for fleshing it out.

[Bake]

8. Waving the Constitution is just like waving the Bible.

They haven't read either one.

Bake

[ieoeja]

7. 1) Before 1981. 2) The stimulus won't go for those jobs, but rather for infrastructure rebuilding.

Reagan then halved income taxes and eliminated most of the federal funding. This forced state and local governments to raise taxes. Much of these taxes were in the form of sales taxes which hit the poor the hardest and property taxes which hit the middle class the hardest. We thus shifted the burden for paying for teachers, police and firemen from the wealthy to the poor and middle class.

But wait! There's more!

Prior to this, local and state taxes were so low that nobody gave them much thought. Increasing them made those taxes much more important in deciding things like, say, where a large corporation should locate. This put the states into competition with one another for those large corporations. The claimed theory is that competition would make the states more efficient. The real universal solution has been for states to grant tax exemptions to large corporations. So now at the state level we have shifted the tax burden from large corporations to small businesses and individuals.

Combined, the states lose the tax base of large corporations altogether. For example, Indiana gives United Airlines a tax exemption. UA moves to Indiana. Illinois loses UA taxes plus all the ancillary taxes (income of the people working there, etc). Indiana gains the ancillary taxes, but not the UA taxes. The two states combined have a net loss in the tax base. Likewise, Illinois gave Boeing a tax exemption. Washington loses Boeing and the ancillary taxes. Illinois gains the ancillary taxes, but not the Boeing taxes. Again, the two states combined have a net loss in the tax base.

If we returned to pre-Reagan taxation and re-instated federal grants to the states and local governments, we would see a better tax condition for 99.9999999999% of the country. Even the typical 1%er would be better off with lower sales and property taxes and a higher income tax. I have actually conversed with people who prefer sales and property taxes to income taxes, and it was very clear that neither of us could possibly understand the other.

I would prefer to pay taxes based on my ability to pay taxes. The more I make, the more I pay. The less I make, the less I pay. When I retire I will be making less money, yet my sales and property taxes will not decrease one cent. Income taxes would be less burdensome than sales and property. But there are people who see it just the opposite. And for the life of me, I can not understand their reasoning.

Actually, he didn't offer any reasoning. He just stated it as a fact. I can think of two reasons that both come down to the same cause: he can only envision what he sees in the here and now. Here and now, he sees a big chunk of his income go to income taxes. Reason #1 is that self-gratification demands he keep that money NOW. Reason #2 is that he sees that income taxes are much larger than sales and property taxes. So that is what concerns him. The fact that in retirement sales and property taxes will be a much larger of his household budget than it is today does not occur to him. And pointing it out doesn't work because ... Conservatives do not appear to be very good at math.

I used to joke with one Conservative businessman that if he paid as much as he claimed to pay in taxes then he needed a new tax lawyer. Then I ended up owning the exact same type of business and decided to use his tax lawyer. That first year I had to correct the lawyer three times on taxes that would have ended up with me paying much higher taxes than required. My joke turned out to not be a joke!

[ananda]

3. Code talk ...

... for we GOPers want all our rightwing corporatebot cronies
to suck up all the possible public commons we can give them.

[SoutherDem]

10. Yes, the GOP thinks everything should be privatized.

What I don't get is with private industry it is done for profit, no profit you stop doing it.

Couldn't the government doing it not for profit be cheaper than private doing it for profit?

I feel somethings should be private and not government, but there are somethings for the common good which should be done by the government because it would be cheaper.

Thought experiment;

We privatize firefighting. Someone puts up the money and buys the apparatus', build a firehouse and hires the firefighter, maybe Bain. Now you have to have revenue. So you have to have a fee for each service you give. Who pays the fee?
Insurance companies? Maybe but then they need to make profit. But then you have people who can't afford the insurance. What happens then? The house burns down if they can't pay the firefighter?
But, this is a perfect world and everyone has the money to pay the firefighters or insurance companies. But, lets say because everyone is extremely careful and there just not that many fires and profits are down because the investors want a return and the CEO wants their big salary you have to save some money. What do you do? You lay off firefighters, don't upgrade equipment. Now when those fires do occur you don't have the resources to do the job. People don't want to pay for a service which don't do what they are paid to do so revenue is down more so you file for bankruptcy. Now the investors have their profit, the insurance companies have their profit, the firefighters are out of work and we don't have fire protection.

Fire Departments should no more be private than the health care system. Oh wait that is and we see how well that is going.

[Woody Woodpecker]

9. Oh that's John Sununu?

I nearly mistaken him for Rmoney's favorite contributor:



Lee Raymond.

[Buns_of_Fire]

13. (Or, as I affectionately refer to him, "Jabba the CEO"...) nt