l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 By George Scaggs
Across the nation, as states struggle fiscally, Republican-led legislatures
are reining in spending to balance state budgets. What a refreshing sight
to behold: government actually spending less today than it did yesterday,
eliminating government programs, and reducing the number of public-sector
workers where necessary.
A complete contrast to the way in which government works at the federal
level, such measures are foreign to many Americans. We are conditioned to
the standard operating procedures of the runaway beast in Washington where
government never actually gets smaller, but instead instinctively raises
taxes, makes promises to reduce spending someday, or perhaps goes so far as
to reduce the rate of future spending growth and calls it a "spending cut."
As a result, just as we recently witnessed in Wisconsin, Republicans at the
state level are being excoriated by Democrats, the media, public-sector
unions, and liberal constituencies.
For those who spend their time demonizing the sensible belt-tightening
measures of Republican-led legislatures, such ire is misdirected. They
might consider taking out their frustrations elsewhere; how about Democrats
in Washington D.C.?
While there are a myriad of factors behind the budget woes of various states
, careful examination finds federal policy as a root cause over and over
again.
Here in Texas, for example, the state faces a $12-15 billion shortfall in
the upcoming two-year budget cycle. With a constitutional obligation to
balance its budget and large Republican majorities swept into power last
November on the promise not to increase taxes, state spending is being
dramatically reduced and the left is livid.
First, it should be noted that the current spending reductions being debated
in Texas have been inflated by the Obama "stimulus" package of 2009.
According to CNN Money, the state used $6.4 billion of federal stimulus
money to cover its shortfall in the 2010-2011 budget cycle.
Another way of looking at this would be that previous state budgets were
enlarged to spend money state governments typically do not have at their
disposal. Federal stimulus dollars served as an additional source of
revenue beyond what was available in state coffers -- when government gets
its hands on money you can count on it being spent.
The trouble is Washington didn't have the money to spend either. In essence
, the federal government borrowed money to provide temporary funding for
spending that states could not afford otherwise. If not for the existence
of these one-time borrowed dollars, surely, Texas lawmakers would have
produced a smaller budget than the $182 billion budget they eventually
passed in 2009.
Subsequently, state legislatures are now making necessary structural
adjustments, resulting in spending cuts that are stricter than they would
have been without the infusion of federal dollars.
Mind you, that temporary stimulus funding from the feds was all new debt,
every last penny of it. Since today's deficit spending inevitably results
in tomorrow's tax increases, in the end, that irresponsible federal spending
will likely result in higher taxes for all citizens. For leftist
protestors who think the solution to state budget deficits is paying higher
taxes, they can rest assured, we all will eventually.
An ever growing number of economists agree that the nation's dramatic growth
in deficit spending is hampering economic recovery. When Washington spends
borrowed money it takes capital from the private sector, dampening economic
activity in general. Consequently, state and local sales tax receipts have
suffered across the nation. In sum, federal policy is having a direct
negative impact on the revenue side of state budget equations.
While there is no doubt that spending in Washington has been out of control
for quite some time, under the one-party rule of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi,
deficit spending accelerated into hyper-drive. What the feds could not
borrow, they merely printed, consequently devaluing our currency and in turn
shrinking the buying power of all Americans.
As Washington's actions have shrunk the worth of the dollar they have driven
up the price of oil, a globally traded commodity, resulting in higher
gasoline prices. As consumers necessarily spend more on gasoline they have
that much less to spend on everything else, only further depressing sales
tax receipts.
Let's not forget, in their zeal to pass the onerous ObamaCare scheme, not to
mention threatening tax increases for a year and a half, Democrats in
Washington effectively froze investment and hiring throughout the country.
Though GOP victories last November stopped Democrat dreams of raising tax
rates, ObamaCare continues to be tied up in courts and its high costs
continue to be exposed, further preventing business owners from investing
and expanding.
But the federal government's negative impact on revenues in Texas and other
Gulf states doesn't stop there. The on-going "permatorium" on oil and gas
production in the Gulf of Mexico is another drag on Gulf states' economies.
As thousands of jobs have been affected, the resulting lack of economic
activity can only mean less revenue coming into state coffers.
Texas and other states carry a number of additional burdens as well. Most
notably, as revealed in a Tax Foundation 2006 study, for every dollar Texans
send to Washington, the state receives 94 cents in return. Effectively,
the central government has put the state in an inequitable situation,
disproportionately harming the prosperity of her citizens and straining its
ability to pay for services at the state level.
As destructive as Washington's actions are to the revenue side of some state
balance sheets, they have also had a tremendous negative impact on the
expenditure side.
Unfunded federal mandates, particularly Medicaid, are driving some states to
the brink of financial ruin. ObamaCare only upped the ante. The state of
California, for example, projects they will have to come up with an
additional $500 million a year in increased Medicaid payments due to the new
law.
Last month, Nevada State Senator James Settelmeyer summed up the frustration
of many state legislators stating, "Nevada can no longer afford the federal
mandates that are coming down...the national programs that are forced upon
our state's taxpayers that we have to bear, we just can't afford."
Due to the federal government's refusal to secure the border with Mexico and
genuinely deal with at least 12 million illegal squatters, state law
enforcement, public school, and healthcare service systems are being
severely strained. The burden is particularly heavy in border states, with
as many as one million undocumented aliens estimated residing in Texas alone.
According to an extensive report by the Center for Immigration Studies
released just last week, 70% of illegal immigrants in Texas receive some
sort of public assistance.
If Americans want to ensure that government can provide the basic services
that citizens feel they deserve, then the first order of business should be
to ensure that we are not paying for services for those who are in the
country illegally. Oddly enough, none of the groups you'll find protesting
budget cuts at state capitols are calling for this commonsense measure.
Ultimately, if Washington is going to insist that all immigration matters
are their exclusive domain then individual states should be sending the feds
the bill for dealing with the aftermath of their failure to effectively
control immigration.
George Scaggs is a writer, commentator, voice actor and audio-video producer
based in Austin, TX. More of his work can be found at TexasInsider.org,
Ramparts360.com, TheGraph.com, and Bargain Citizen Media. |
|
