Last week’s column was a joke! It was supposed to be ironic. I don’t really believe Gov. Rick Perry is courageous and a visionary. Coming out against a state income tax in Texas requires the same amount of courage (though less dexterity) as swatting a fly. That this stance was put forth as a gutsy stand just illustrates the poverty of leadership facing our state and country. Advocating new taxes is political suicide. Supporting tax cuts, even when economically dangerous and offering benefits only to a very few, finds broad-based taxpayer support even in those communities that will be most harmed by consequent service cuts.
Almost any taxpayer will say that the enormity of the tax burden has less to do with real costs than with extreme budgetary irresponsibility, special-interest pandering, unnecessary legislative pork spending, widespread corruption, and massive government inefficiencies in everything from spending and staffing to administration and purchasing. While acknowledging the need for some areas of government spending, most will complain that they are being forced to support programs that should be cut back or eliminated. Citizens in favor of social outreach cite the ridiculous amounts spent on the Pentagon and homeland security, while those who believe these are the only legitimate government activities feel that almost all social spending should be cut. Finally, almost all feel that they themselves are not fairly taxed, with some other group not paying enough. Some argue that the very richest citizens and the most profitable large businesses are not paying their fair share (“So why should I?”), others that the poorest take and take but don’t contribute.
Common to all taxpayers is the sense that most government spending is plagued by waste and fraud. The more money the government takes in, the more it wastes.
An ever more common argument, embraced by the sitting Republican government, is that drastically cutting taxes will force government to downsize until it fulfills only its most obvious and basic purposes. The resulting society will be more affluent and functional because minimal taxation will lead to accelerated growth in private enterprise (freed from unnecessary regulation), with most social concerns dealt with more economically and effectively by businesses, nonprofits, and/or social institutions (charities and organized religion).
Supporting government programs, arguing in favor of the social safety net, advocating public education, and defending taxation, by definition, means there is something very wrong with you. You are stupid or naive, hate the rich, are a knee-jerk liberal do-gooder completely ungrounded by reality, see the world through rose-colored glasses, or are blind to government inefficiencies, a communist traitor, unrealistic, a conscious Marxist bent on destroying America, well-meaning but impractical, and/or a thief. Add your own categories here; I’m not trying to set up straw men but indicate the range of opinions, almost all uncomplimentary.
I don’t accept the presumption that the federal government is only for defense, does best when it does least, is inherently unmanageable, or always fails far more than it succeeds.
I believe government is the way the community (i.e., all of us) works together to keep the society healthy and functioning.
I support the social safety net, accompanied by extensive education, a comprehensive health system, job training, family services, and outreach. At its core, government is about acting on the responsibility for the greater community that we all share simply by being members of it.
My commitment to government, my support of taxation is not misguided selflessness or insane idealism but comes from only the most selfish reasons. I want my son, my grandchildren, and all the generations that follow to grow up in the safest, sanest society possible. Paying the rock-bottom minimum for government while keeping as much of my wealth as possible means the greater social health and equilibrium is dependent on the market, charities, religious and charitable institutions, and the kindness of strangers. For my family, going far into the future, that is a gamble far too great to risk.
Instead of leaving my heirs personalized, family-grounded wealth and power, I want them to grow up in a morally conscious world that offers opportunity and possibility for the greatest number in pursuit of the commonly accepted goals of empowerment, health, education, and equality. This is not from some hypernaive belief in human goodness or flower-power worship but because I think such a world is where they will be most able to realize themselves, to feel safe, and to find happiness.
Regardless of upper-class wealth or middle-class comfort, one of the greatest dangers is a future where the lowest classes are so disenfranchised and lacking hope that they follow rules only when faced by ominous threats from ever-present policing forces. A world of too-pronounced economic, social, and educational differences is not a safe or sane place. Better to live in a world with taxes and earnest if inefficient social engineering than one of certain oligarchies in which wealth and power are centered in relatively few families. In such places, stratification is often so great that every trip, even to the store, is made in a bulletproof SUV driven by a bodyguard, more ambitious excursions undertaken in well-armed and protected caravans. In these societies kidnapping is common, revolution threatening, and living in economically segregated communities a necessity.
This may seem like an extreme vision, but the efforts of a responsible government with broad-based social commitments will lead to a much better world for future generations than those of a much smaller government with a too narrowly defined agenda.
For your consideration:
We are not willing to pay for the quality of government we expect. We take for granted the services offered, we ignore our own dependence, we overemphasize the amount of waste. People complain about bad roads, lousy schools, public safety, and general infrastructure with confidence the money to address those problems is already there, only misapplied. People bitch about inefficient public servants and too-complicated city, state, and federal bureaucracies that are agonizingly slow in providing services. Few consider that a major cause is an always-overburdened work force that has gone years with minimal or no raises while duties continually expand as jobs are cut.
Most taxpayers, even when they feel unfairly burdened, don’t actually pay as much in taxes to the government as the value of the benefits they derive.
Most government-funded social and human services have come into existence in response to real needs, usually because they weren’t being adequately addressed in any other way.
The government does more and works far better than it’s ever given credit for doing. The government is us – and the future of our families is dependent on what vision we have for it and how we go about achieving that vision.
This article appears in April 30 • 2004.