|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nofnway
That's not a talking point?....oh how many times have I heard this. It is truly irksome. The pure arrogance of it.
|
What you mistake for "pure arrogance" is my reaction to what I conclude to be
irrational behavior. I don't know about you, but I notice that the following
report, excerpted below, was publicly available for 10 weeks before last November's national election. The majority of voters in two of the sixth states
that were the most adversely recently impacted in actual dollar terms by federal tax and budget policies, Florida and Texas, apparently reacted by voting for more of the same.
Here is an excerpt from the linked quote box below:
Quote:
The 11 states in which federal policies have imposed the greatest net costs, averaging at least 10 percent of their general fund budgets over the course of the fiscal crisis, are Florida, Nevada, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Colorado, South Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.
* The states bearing the greatest relative cost of federal policies tend to be among the least affluent states in the country, as measured by per capita income and poverty rate. Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Carolina are among the ten states with the lowest average per capita incomes and highest poverty rates in the country. They also are among the states most harmed by federal policies.
|
Note the named states. I see only states where a majority voted for continuation, and I have to assume, validation, of Bush administration and
federal Republican Legislative intiatives and policies that cost the constituents of those states signifigant amounts of money because the recently formulated and implemented federal policies shift the tax burden from those who formerly paid more, onto them. These voters respond to this by voting for more of it. That strikes me as voting against their best financial interests. I see the house and senate representatives from these same states voting overwhelmingly to make bankruptcy more financially burdensome for the constituents of these same states, <br>all of which have higher than average per capita household chapter 7 bankruptcy filing rates.
If my reaction to people voting in large numbers for policies that sell them out
financially to special interests, while burderning them at the same time with unprecedented state and federal budget deficits, both in size and in projected duration, by describing their voting as being against their own best interests,
strikes you as "pure arrogance", how do you react to and describe the voting behavior of the majorities in the above mentioned states?
Quote:
<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/5-12-04sfp.htm">PASSING DOWN THE DEFICIT: FEDERAL POLICIES CONTRIBUTE TO THE SEVERITY OF THE STATE FISCAL CRISIS</a> The source is the non-partisan <b>Center on Budget and Policy Priorities</b>
........... Federal policies, which have reduced state revenues and imposed additional costs on states, have played a significant role in enlarging these deficits and are impeding states fiscal recovery. These federal policies have contributed significantly to the need for states and localities to make expenditure cuts and enact tax increases to bring their budgets into balance.
* Federal policies have cost states and localities more than $175 billion over the four-year course of the state fiscal crisis, from state fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2005.
* These costs have averaged 8.4 percent of total state general fund budgets during that time, a large amount.
* The federal government provided $20 billion in federal fiscal relief to the states in 2003. This $20 billion helped states avoid some budget cuts and tax increases, but it pales in comparison to the magnitude of the state fiscal crisis and to the more than $175 billion in state costs and forgone revenues over the 2002-2005 period that are attributable to federal policies. (See Figure 1.)
In seven states, the net cost of these federal policies the total cost less the offsetting fiscal relief exceeds $5 billion over the course of the fiscal crisis. The states with the largest net losses from federal policies are California ($23 billion), New York ($13 billion), Texas ($12 billion), Florida ($11 billion), Illinois ($6 billion), Michigan ($6 billion), and Pennsylvania ($5 billion).
The net loss relative to the size of state budgets varies substantially by state, from a low of 1.4 percent of the general fund budget in Alaska to a high of 13.3 percent in Florida. The 11 states in which federal policies have imposed the greatest net costs, averaging at least 10 percent of their general fund budgets over the course of the fiscal crisis, are Florida, Nevada, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Colorado, South Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.
* The states bearing the greatest relative cost of federal policies tend to be among the least affluent states in the country, as measured by per capita income and poverty rate. Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Carolina are among the ten states with the lowest average per capita incomes and highest poverty rates in the country. They also are among the states most harmed by federal policies.
* Eight of the 10 poorest states Arkansas, Mississippi, West Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Arizona are among the 20 states with the most severe losses resulting from federal policies.
* States that have a relatively heavy reliance on federal funding for their budgets also are among those that have been hardest hit. Of the 11 states with the greatest losses as a share of their budgets, six Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, and South Dakota are among the 20 states that derive the highest proportion of their revenues from federal funds.
* States that are most reliant on raising revenues through a sales tax are another group that is bearing a high cost of federal policies. Among the 11 states with the greatest loss from federal policies relative to their budgets, Florida, Nevada, Mississippi, Texas, and South Dakota are also among the 10 states with the greatest reliance on sales taxes for revenues. As described below, federal policies that bar states from levying or effectively collecting sales taxes on certain items or transactions are among the most costly of the federal provisions affecting states.
* Finally, five of the 11 states with the greatest relative loss from federal policies have lost a significant amount of revenue as a result of the federal tax changes of the past three years. Florida, Missouri, Louisiana, Colorado, and Oklahoma all fall into this category due to their failure to decouple their tax codes from these federal changes.
At least five areas of federal policies have contributed to these monetary losses and to the fiscal distress of the states: federal tax policy, federal preemption of state and local taxing authority, the failure of Congress to address Supreme Court rulings that prevent states and localities from collecting taxes owed to them, mandates that require states to spend funds for particular purposes, and federal Medicare and Medicaid policies that have become expensive for states....................
|
|