Center for American Progress - The Bush Tax Increase

[Natoma]

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=34039

This is what many economists and politicians (most notably Howard Dean) were stating throughout 2003 and early 2004. Most Americans, due to the decreases in federal aid to states, as well as unfunded mandates that states have to shoulder, have seen their taxes go up overall. Many really interesting talking points listed.

 

[pax]

Ya same thing is happening in Canada. The feds are pushing the tax load onto the provinces and in some cases vice versa... Both want to be seen cutting taxes and hope the other will pick up the tab.

 

[DemoCoder]

Yeah, but it only explains part of the problem. States also went on a sprending spree in the roaring 90s, and now they have to pay for it. The reduced state aid only hasted the problem, but local taxes were gonna go up anyway. (e.g. California's $40b deficit)

 

[Natoma]

Agreed. My point in bringing this topic up was to stress how Bush says "I cut your taxes!" when overall, taxes have actually increased. It's a disingenuous statement. But of course that's to be expected. He's a politician.

 

[Vince]

Agreed. My point in bringing this topic up was to stress how Bush says "I cut your taxes!" when overall, taxes have actually increased. It's a disingenuous statement. But of course that's to be expected. He's a politician.

But your point is incorrect and highly political. It's not the president making fallicious statements, but rather you are. The Federal Government did cut taxes, multiple times and in dramatic fashion. Bush has done his job in lowering individual and corperate taxes, ergo the economic condition we're seeing.

We live in a federal republic, as Democoder stated it's upto the states to maintain fiscal restraint which many clearly haven't. This is the type of government we live in (something the 2000 elections clearly showed many democrats have no clue as to), and it's what has allowed the people to see the problem on the state level and take action: witness the rise of Arnold.

People clearly see where the problem lies, outside of a select group of far-left liberals (not implying you per say) the people aren't blaming the Fedeal Government and Bush in particular, they've taken action to get rid of the problems where they exist, on the state level as in California which IMHO isn't a bads microcosm to see that the massive majority - even of the liberal predisposed of California - didn't turn to blame the president, but to blame the governor and his administration.

Also this doesn't take not of the macroeconomic benefits of supply-side cuts with the likely event they be made permenent.

Perhaps take note?

 

[Natoma]

Agreed. My point in bringing this topic up was to stress how Bush says "I cut your taxes!" when overall, taxes have actually increased. It's a disingenuous statement. But of course that's to be expected. He's a politician.

But your point is incorrect and highly political. It's not the president making fallicious statements, but rather you are. The Federal Government did cut taxes, multiple times and in dramatic fashion. Bush has done his job in lowering individual and corperate taxes, ergo the economic condition we're seeing.

Ahem.

when overall, taxes have actually increased

It is quite disingenuous to state that you've cut someone's taxes when your policies in effect have caused a shift of that tax burden to the states, in effect wiping out the tax cuts for millions of americans, at the same time increasing our federal deficit and debt at a time when we have serious structural worries coming due in oh, about 10 years. And what economic condition that we're seeing are you referring to? The one that has been great if you own lots of stock options, but not so great if you're looking for a job?

We live in a federal republic, as Democoder stated it's upto the states to maintain fiscal restraint which many clearly haven't. This is the type of government we live in (something the 2000 elections clearly showed many democrats have no clue as to), and it's what has allowed the people to see the problem on the state level and take action: witness the rise of Arnold.

While there were clear instances of state problems wrt fiscal restraint, those problems have been severely compounded by the unfunded mandates such as No Child Left Behind, Homeland Security, among others.

People clearly see where the problem lies, outside of a select group of far-left liberals (not implying you per say) the people aren't blaming the Fedeal Government and Bush in particular, they've taken action to get rid of the problems where they exist, on the state level as in California which IMHO isn't a bads microcosm to see that the massive majority - even of the liberal predisposed of California - didn't turn to blame the president, but to blame the governor and his administration.

Californians screwed themselves over. That has nothing to do with the President or the state and local leadership. When you have proposition after proposition where you hamstring the politicians from being able to appropriate funds for a particular project, and yet you demand pork barrel project after pork barrel project, of course you're going to have problems.

I never understood how anyone can say "Please, I want some more! Gimme gimme gimme!" and not expect some way to pay for it. Fiscal irresponsibility gone wild is what caused the problems in California, and it was sanctioned through direct democracy, nothing more nothing less.

Also this doesn't take not of the macroeconomic benefits of supply-side cuts with the likely event they be made permenent.

Perhaps take note?

It's funny that you are a supporter of supply-side economics. Many staunch supporters of supply-side economics have long come out stating that the long held belief that you can "grow yourself out of deficits" through deep tax cuts is completely wrong. Why? Because in both instances of supply-side economic implementation, you had MASSIVE bursts in spending. There is simply no way you can implement deep tax cuts while increasing spending. It will fail every time. Unfortunately, Reagan and Bush II didn't seem to get those memos.

 

[Natoma]

Oh, and I could have sworn you made a statement regarding the majority of Americans owning stock options Vince, and how they're affected by the tax cuts and whatnot. Maybe you edited it out while I was responding, or maybe I was remembering a statement from a prior thread, dunno.

Anyway, my reply to that oft-heard statement, i.e., "The Investor Class," is to ask, who exactly is "The Investor Class?" They're people who have stocks in their 401K, Mutual Funds, and IRA accounts, but cannot touch their wealth until they retire, without massive penalties. I highly doubt the median person making $35K-$45K with a $50K nest egg really considers themselves part of the "Investor Class" when policies implemented today will have absolutely no effect on them for 3-4 decades. So, where is all that wealth going to if it's not going to the 100 million or so americans who are supposedly part of the "Investor Class?"

 

[Joe DeFuria]

It is quite disingenuous to state that you've cut someone's taxes when your policies in effect have caused a shift of that tax burden to the states, in effect wiping out the tax cuts for millions of americans,

Wrong.

It is quite disingenuous to state that the Federal Government is responsible for the State's budget.

Any "Tax Burden of the State" is just that: the burden of the state. In MY county, we just voted down a substantial property tax increase.

 

[Vince]

Agreed. My point in bringing this topic up was to stress how Bush says "I cut your taxes!" when overall, taxes have actually increased. It's a disingenuous statement. But of course that's to be expected. He's a politician.

But your point is incorrect and highly political. It's not the president making fallicious statements, but rather you are. The Federal Government did cut taxes, multiple times and in dramatic fashion. Bush has done his job in lowering individual and corperate taxes, ergo the economic condition we're seeing.

Ahem.

when overall, taxes have actually increased

It is quite disingenuous to state that you've cut someone's taxes when your policies in effect have caused a shift of that tax burden to the states, in effect wiping out the tax cuts for millions of americans, at the same time increasing our federal deficit and debt at a time when we have serious structural worries coming due in oh, about 10 years. And what economic condition that we're seeing are you referring to? The one that has been great if you own lots of stock options, but not so great if you're looking for a job?

Wow, where'd you get this load of shit? Which of your lefistist news sources provided these talking points? Overall Taxes? Like the kinda which the administration can't control?

Lets make this argument simple since you've seen fit to inject so much politic into it:

• The Federal Goverment has control over what taxations?
• The Bush Administration cut Federal Taxes, Yes/No.
• The Federal Government doesn't control State budgeting, Yes/No.
• Your bias borders stupidity at times, Yes/No.

So, how did the President directly rise taxes? You do realize that under the current federalist system, there are states which are responcible and haven't raised taxes. How do you explain that?

Your posited theory is complete BS, it's neither consistent across the entire country (which alone makes it irrelevant), nor does it address the fact that the Federal Goverment did everything within it's power, nor do you touch upon the macroeconomic advantages to cutting federal rates even if there are state-increases, nor do you even make mention of the existing economic growth as a result of the fed cuts. Can't imagine why though...


EDIT: This issue is seperate from the main thread, lets keep that in mind.

]It's funny that you are a supporter of supply-side economics. Many staunch supporters of supply-side economics have long come out stating that the long held belief that you can "grow yourself out of deficits" through deep tax cuts is completely wrong. Why? Because in both instances of supply-side economic implementation, you had MASSIVE bursts in spending. There is simply no way you can implement deep tax cuts while increasing spending. It will fail every time. Unfortunately, Reagan and Bush II didn't seem to get those memos.

Actually it has yet to fail, both times within the last twenty years when Supply-Side cuts were implimened we've seen immediate GDP growth follow on the order of 5-10% with the 20year average over 3% IIRC. If I'm not mistaken, Greenspan's just predicted nearly 5 percent economic growth with inflation just above 1 percent for the next year.

Or you can look at Russia who implimeted a 13% flat tax two years ago and have since experienced 6% growth and a stable currency even under Putin's insane rule.

Or you can look at the Chinese's recent move (on Reagan's Birthday no less) to impliment supply-side policy, kinda ironic for one of the worlds up-and-comming economic powerhouses. To quote Deputy Finance Minister Lou Jiwei:

It's a lot like Reaganonics.... We feel that only through simplifying things and lowering tax rates will revenue collection become more efficient.

The economics work and they do it consistently when implimented properly; the history is proof. Perhaps you should pay attention to the underlying dynamics and less propoganda.. er.. politic, kinda like the Chinese and Russian economists. And no rant by you which is unable to differentiate between massive strategic spending towards emergent world threats and the economics underlying growth is going to change that. The fundimantals show that in conjunction with nearly static spending or reductionist goverment policies you will experience growth, unfortunatly shit happens when you're a superpower. Nobody wanted a cold-war, nobody wanted two 727's to slam into the Towers - but each event happened and tankfully there were policies in place which were growth & investment orientated that did lead to the economic growth later experienced.

 

[Vince]

Wrong.

It is quite disingenuous to state that the Federal Government is responsible for the State's budget.

Any "Tax Burden of the State" is just that: the burden of the state. In MY county, we just voted down a substantial property tax increase.

Exactly. You're the man Joe. hah.

 

[Natoma]

It is quite disingenuous to state that you've cut someone's taxes when your policies in effect have caused a shift of that tax burden to the states, in effect wiping out the tax cuts for millions of americans,

Wrong.

It is quite disingenuous to state that the Federal Government is responsible for the State's budget.

Any "Tax Burden of the State" is just that: the burden of the state. In MY county, we just voted down a substantial property tax increase.

I suppose you're not around when Bush cut funding for pell grants and other student financial institutions, causing states to raise their local taxes in order to fund their state colleges. I also suppose you're not in any state or city where raising the "terror alert" color each time costs the local taxpayers tens of millions in overtime fees for fire, police, and hospital workers, again, causing tax increases and/or spending hikes (NY comes to mind in this department especially).

Unlike the federal budget, the states cannot run a deficit from year to year. That hole has to get filled somehow. Either in services cut, or in higher taxes.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I suppose you're not around when Bush cut funding for pell grants and other student financial institutions, causing states to raise their local taxes in order to fund their state colleges.

I suppose that the federal government should not BE funding state shcools in the first place.

I also suppose you're not in any state or city where raising the "terror alert" color each time costs the local taxpayers tens of millions in overtime fees for fire, police, and hospital workers, again, causing tax increases and/or spending hikes (NY comes to mind in this department especially).

Oh...and terrorisim is Bush's fault? And don't tell me that NYC and other metro areas aren't getting the lion's share of federal assistance wrt terrorism.

Unlike the federal budget, the states cannot run a deficit from year to year. That hole has to get filled somehow. Either in services cut, or in higher taxes.

No shit.

Perhaps you just underscored the danger of coming to rely on the federal government to help fund LOCAL budgets? Talk about "trickle down" effects. What the hell is wrong with taking care of your own?

I honestly don't want ANY federal spending going toward ANYTHING that is of local responsibility. I get steamed every time I hear my state or local representative talk about "needing to get more state or federal assistance." Heck...I don't even want NJ State tax dollars going to local (county or township) school systems. It's bad enough that we have people being dependent on government....it's an order or magnitude worse when GOVERNMENT starts being dependent on government.

This is so typical....you bitch and moan about people "not paying enough taxes"...and at the same time you bitch and moan that "you have to pay too much".

 

[Natoma]

Agreed. My point in bringing this topic up was to stress how Bush says "I cut your taxes!" when overall, taxes have actually increased. It's a disingenuous statement. But of course that's to be expected. He's a politician.

But your point is incorrect and highly political. It's not the president making fallicious statements, but rather you are. The Federal Government did cut taxes, multiple times and in dramatic fashion. Bush has done his job in lowering individual and corperate taxes, ergo the economic condition we're seeing.

Ahem.

when overall, taxes have actually increased

It is quite disingenuous to state that you've cut someone's taxes when your policies in effect have caused a shift of that tax burden to the states, in effect wiping out the tax cuts for millions of americans, at the same time increasing our federal deficit and debt at a time when we have serious structural worries coming due in oh, about 10 years. And what economic condition that we're seeing are you referring to? The one that has been great if you own lots of stock options, but not so great if you're looking for a job?

Wow, where'd you get this load of shit? Which of your lefistist news sources provided these talking points? Overall Taxes? Like the kinda which the administration can't control?

Lets make this argument simple since you've seen fit to inject so much politic into it:

• The Federal Goverment has control over what taxations?
• The Bush Administration cut Federal Taxes, Yes/No.
• The Federal Government doesn't control State budgeting, Yes/No.
• Your bias borders stupidity at times, Yes/No.

So, how did the President directly rise taxes? You do realize that under the current federalist system, there are states which are responcible and haven't raised taxes. How do you explain that?

Your posited theory is complete BS, it's neither consistent across the entire country (which alone makes it irrelevant), nor does it address the fact that the Federal Goverment did everything within it's power, nor do you touch upon the macroeconomic advantages to cutting federal rates even if there are state-increases, nor do you even make mention of the existing economic growth as a result of the fed cuts. Can't imagine why though...


EDIT: This issue is seperate from the main thread, lets keep that in mind.

Maybe you should read originating article Vince. This is precisely what the thread is about.

It's funny that you are a supporter of supply-side economics. Many staunch supporters of supply-side economics have long come out stating that the long held belief that you can "grow yourself out of deficits" through deep tax cuts is completely wrong. Why? Because in both instances of supply-side economic implementation, you had MASSIVE bursts in spending. There is simply no way you can implement deep tax cuts while increasing spending. It will fail every time. Unfortunately, Reagan and Bush II didn't seem to get those memos.

Actually it has yet to fail, both times within the last twenty years when Supply-Side cuts were implimened we've seen immediate GDP growth follow on the order of 5-10% with the 20year average over 3% IIRC. If I'm not mistaken, Greenspan's just predicted nearly 5 percent economic growth with inflation just above 1 percent for the next year.

At what cost to the economy? The national debt increased 400% under Reagan and Bush from just under $1 Trillion to a little bit over $4 Trillion. Under Bush II, the national debt has risen 27% from $5.5 Trillion to $7 Trillion. Between 2009 and 2011, when the Bush tax cuts will see their full effect, the economy will fall another $1-$2 Trillion in debt according to the CBO. Running an average deficit of $300 Million a year until 2009 will leave us with a national debt of $9.8 Trillion, and if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent, that will increase to $10.8-$11.8 Trillion.

At 5% growth a year, barring all spending increases (which is impossible), in a $10 Trillion economy, you're looking at compounding growth adding $500 Million a year. Now, you tell me how the numbers add up to reverse that debt. Where does trickle down economics work hmm?

Or you can look at Russia who implimeted a 13% flat tax two years ago and have since experienced 6% growth and a stable currency even under Putin's insane rule.

And how much debt is Russia saddled with hmm? Longterm growth with spiraling deficits and debt is not a sound fiscal policy. That's what took down the Soviet Union if you recall.

Or you can look at the Chinese's recent move (on Reagan's Birthday no less) to impliment supply-side policy, kinda ironic for one of the worlds up-and-comming economic powerhouses. To quote Deputy Finance Minister Lou Jiwei:

It's a lot like Reaganonics.... We feel that only through simplifying things and lowering tax rates will revenue collection become more efficient.

The economics work and they do it consistently when implimented properly; the history is proof. Perhaps you should pay attention to the underlying dynamics and less propoganda.. er.. politic, kinda like the Chinese and Russian economists. And no rant by you which is unable to differentiate between massive strategic spending towards emergent world threats and the economics underlying growth is going to change that. The fundimantals show that in conjunction with nearly static spending or reductionist goverment policies you will experience growth, unfortunatly shit happens when you're a superpower. Nobody wanted a cold-war, nobody wanted two 727's to slam into the Towers - but each event happened and tankfully there were policies in place which were growth & investment orientated that did lead to the economic growth later experienced.

Yea, communism works when you take all real world scenarios out of the picture as well Vince. I don't see you being a big supporter of that.

 

[Natoma]

I suppose you're not around when Bush cut funding for pell grants and other student financial institutions, causing states to raise their local taxes in order to fund their state colleges.

I suppose that the federal government should not BE funding state shcools in the first place.

Whether or not you agree with federal student funding through pell grants, stafford loans, perkins loans, etc, is irrelevant Joe. The fact of the matter is, Bush has cut funding to each student financial loan system, causing a net tax increase on families sending their kids to their state colleges. In effect, a tax increase.

I also suppose you're not in any state or city where raising the "terror alert" color each time costs the local taxpayers tens of millions in overtime fees for fire, police, and hospital workers, again, causing tax increases and/or spending hikes (NY comes to mind in this department especially).

Oh...and terrorisim is Bush's fault? And don't tell me that NYC and other metro areas aren't getting the lion's share of federal assistance wrt terrorism.

Actually, we're owed money by the federal government. We still haven't received the appropriation funds from 9/11 in full, let alone the funds for homeland security. NY is mandated to have a balanced budget. So how have we coped in the last 3 years? Double digit increases in property taxes, among others.

Oh and btw, terrorism isn't Bush's fault, but I'll quote from the article that began this thread in the first place:

"Two years after tripling the co-payment that veterans pay for prescription drugs the Department of Veterans Affairs wants to raise it again." Specifically, President Bush's 2005 budget would increase prescription "drug co-pays from $7 to $15 for many veterans." In 2002, the co-pay went from $2 to $7." Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) said the proposal raises questions about the impact on "near-poor" veterans whose incomes are just high enough to require that they pay the new premium. Meanwhile, the American Legion called it "utterly ridiculous." [Sources: Cleveland Plain Dealer, 2/7/04; WP, 2/19/03]

The Administration has left a $9 billion hole in funding its own education bill. That unfunded mandate, along with "cuts in federal taxes and programs have shoved some of the tax burden down to states and municipalities" forcing them to "hike property taxes to pay for schools and other services." As one expert noted "county and city governments have been raising taxes" with "property tax collections rising more than 10%" last year alone. [Source: Christian Sci. Monitor, 2/2/04; PPI, 2003]

You can read the rest yourself.

Unlike the federal budget, the states cannot run a deficit from year to year. That hole has to get filled somehow. Either in services cut, or in higher taxes.

No shit.

Perhaps you just underscored the danger of coming to rely on the federal government to help fund LOCAL budgets? Talk about "trickle down" effects. What the hell is wrong with taking care of your own?

I honestly don't want ANY federal spending going toward ANYTHING that is of local responsibility. I get steamed every time I hear my state or local representative talk about "needing to get more state or federal assistance." Heck...I don't even want NJ State tax dollars going to local (county or township) school systems. It's bad enough that we have people being dependent on government....it's an order or magnitude worse when GOVERNMENT starts being dependent on government.

This is so typical....you bitch and moan about people "not paying enough taxes"...and at the same time you bitch and moan that "you have to pay too much".

So No Child Left Behind, a federal mandate, is the fault of the states relying on the federal government? I could have sworn it was new legislature calling for new spending at a time when the states were already feeling a budget crunch. Homeland Security, a federal mandate, is the fault of the states relying on the federal government? I could have sworn, yet again, it was new legislature calling for new spending at a time when the states were already feeling a budget crunch.

You bitch and moan about how much you don't want any money going to the states from the federal government. Well guess what, you're talking about a scenario that is far from reality. Welcome to the real world Joe. In the real world, Bush's policies have caused a net tax increase on the "average" american. Again, you're quite welcome to stop the baseless ranting and actually read the originating article on this issue, as well as look at the facts that taxes and cost of services at the state and local level across this nation have indeed gone up because of a lack of federal funding for package after package after package sent forth by this administration. Most normal people call that a tax increase.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Whether or not you agree with federal student funding through pell grants, stafford loans, perkins loans, etc, is irrelevant Joe.

It's completely relevant.

The only way to start cutting government waste, is to stop feeding it cash.

Actually, we're owed money by the federal government. We still haven't received the appropriation funds from 9/11 in full,

"In full".

let alone the funds for homeland security. NY is mandated to have a balanced budget. So how have we coped in the last 3 years? Double digit increases in property taxes, among others.

And this is blamed on Bush...not Terrorism? How about asking your state gov't to start re-prioritizing spending? In my family budget, Natoma, if we have some financial crisis, you can bet I'd re-prioritize our spending.

So No Child Left Behind, a federal mandate, is the fault of the states relying on the federal government?

No, it's an mostly an ill-executed piece of legislation that doesn't go far enough (no vouchers). That being said....if States are going to get Federal money, they damn well better be measured on the effectiveness of putting it to use. (They money has to come with strings attached.)

You bitch and moan about how much you don't want any money going to the states from the federal government. Well guess what, you're talking about a scenario that is far from reality.

No kidding. Which is exactly why cutting federal spending toward local budgets is a GOOD thing. It's going in the right direction.

Welcome to the real world Joe.

In the real world, people overwhelimgly oppose Gay Marriage. I guess that means you should just be content with that, right?

In the real world, Bush's policies have caused a net tax increase on the "average" american.

Wrong. In the real world, Bush's policies are forcing local governments to reconsider how dependent they want to be on federal government handouts. Do you want your local budgets depending on what the Corn Huskers in Nebraska think of NYC? Apparently so. Do you not understand that Nebraska's priorities are going to be different from yours?

Most normal people call that a tax increase.

Most normal people understand the difference between Federal and Local taxation.

 

[Natoma]

Whether or not you agree with federal student funding through pell grants, stafford loans, perkins loans, etc, is irrelevant Joe.

It's completely relevant.

The only way to start cutting government waste, is to stop feeding it cash.

Again, your personal opinion is completely irrelevant to the thread at hand. What was the point of this thread in the first place?

Bush: Americans have a lower tax burden.

That is obviously not the case. It's simply been shifted to the states. As I said, it's disingenuous to make a statement like that, and you are free to read the originating article. Americans don't have a lower tax burden at all.

Actually, we're owed money by the federal government. We still haven't received the appropriation funds from 9/11 in full,

"In full".

Yes, a significant chunk is still owed. But what was your point in putting "in full" in quotes? If we're owed $10 Million and we get $1K, is that supposed to mean something?

let alone the funds for homeland security. NY is mandated to have a balanced budget. So how have we coped in the last 3 years? Double digit increases in property taxes, among others.

And this is blamed on Bush...not Terrorism? How about asking your state gov't to start re-prioritizing spending? In my family budget, Natoma, if we have some financial crisis, you can bet I'd re-prioritize our spending.

Again, who is blaming terrorism on Bush, Joe? Homeland Security is a federal program that requires federal funding for Ports and Border Security, yet those two crucial parts are still woefully underfunded. Bush called for the department of Homeland Security, yet it has not received the appropriate level of funds in any of his proposed budgets for states or the federal responsibilities. Terrorism isn't Bush's fault, but lack of funding certainly is.

So No Child Left Behind, a federal mandate, is the fault of the states relying on the federal government?

No, it's an mostly an ill-executed piece of legislation that doesn't go far enough (no vouchers). That being said....if States are going to get Federal money, they damn well better be measured on the effectiveness of putting it to use. (They money has to come with strings attached.)

I agree that No Child Left Behind is poorly executed, however, as I said before, it is putting demands and standards on the education system at a time when there is no money to actually fund those demands and standards. Yes, we all got the $2 Trillion in tax cuts in some form or another, but that has been easily offset in part by the increases in taxes at the state and local level required to fund No Child Left Behind and other programs. And it is still underfunded, even with state and local increases.

You bitch and moan about how much you don't want any money going to the states from the federal government. Well guess what, you're talking about a scenario that is far from reality.

No kidding. Which is exactly why cutting federal spending toward local budgets is a GOOD thing. It's going in the right direction.

But again, this is far from the reality of the situation. I'm not dealing with hypotheticals or what I want Joe. I'm dealing with what is the current situation in our country.

Welcome to the real world Joe.

In the real world, people overwhelimgly oppose Gay Marriage. I guess that means you should just be content with that, right?

What was my statement at the beginning of this thread Joe? It had nothing to do with whether or not I believe states should not receive any federal funding for their own local mandates, to which I agree to a certain extent if you really must know. What was my statement, and my statements throughout this thread?

My point in bringing this topic up was to stress how Bush says "I cut your taxes!" when overall, taxes have actually increased. It's a disingenuous statement.

Nothing more, nothing less.

In the real world, Bush's policies have caused a net tax increase on the "average" american.

Wrong. In the real world, Bush's policies are forcing local governments to reconsider how dependent they want to be on federal government handouts. Do you want your local budgets depending on what the Corn Huskers in Nebraska think of NYC? Apparently so. Do you not understand that Nebraska's priorities are going to be different from yours?

Uhm, the state governments have no say in how they fund No Child Left Behind. They have no say with Homeland Security. There is absolutely no choice with those programs. State governments have no say in how much veterans have to pay for their prescription drugs. State governments have no say in how much they have to charge students to attend local colleges due to decreases in federal student aid.

That is far different than depending on some ethanol subsidy, thus basing your entire state economy around that. These are issues that the states must comply with. There is no getting around it.

Most normal people call that a tax increase.

Most normal people understand the difference between Federal and Local taxation.

Again, not the point of this thread.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

That is obviously not the case. It's simply been shifted to the states.

No, the decisions for state budgeting has been shifted more to where it belongs. To the states.

As I said, it's disingenuous to make a statement like that, and you are free to read the originating article. Americans don't have a lower tax burden at all.

I'm an American...and I have a lower tax burden.

Yes, a significant chunk is still owed. But what was your point in putting "in full" in quotes?

Because I was emphasizing the point, perhaps?

If we're owed $10 Million and we get $1K, is that supposed to mean something?

Yes, that you're still going to get it.

I agree that No Child Left Behind is poorly executed, however, as I said before, it is putting demands and standards on the education system at a time when there is no money to actually fund those demands and standards. Yes, we all got the $2 Trillion in tax cuts in some form or another, but that has been easily offset in part by the increases in taxes at the state and local level required to fund No Child Left Behind and other programs. And it is still underfunded, even with state and local increases.

Then with luck, people will prioritize their spending. That's the point.

It's quite amazing how easily people spend "other people's money", isn't it? But when it comes time to more or less directly vote for more money to come out of your pocket, people actually consider what they are doing.

1) "Oh, we can get 5 Mil from the Federal government? Cool!"

2) "Oh, I have to see direct impact on my local tax bill to raise 5 Mil? Let's think about this."

But again, this is far from the reality of the situation. I'm not dealing with hypotheticals or what I want Joe. I'm dealing with what is the current situation in our country.

And the current situation is this:

Bush is putting more CONTROL local spending and budgeting issues back to the states.

My point in bringing this topic up was to stress how Bush says "I cut your taxes!" when overall, taxes have actually increased. It's a disingenuous statement.

Nothing more, nothing less.

And your point is meaningless.

Bush cut the taxes he has control over. True or false?

Bush cut my taxes, that's for sure. I still haven't seen any statistics (no matter how many times you try and point me to your talking points page) that show that "overall," the tax burden is in fact higher, and that Bush's Federal cuts are the reason.

All I see is ancilliary "some things went up", as if they woudn't have gone up anyway.

Uhm, the state governments have no say in how they fund No Child Left Behind.

Yes they do, actually. It's called accountability. You show your compliance and results, and you get more money.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040108-1.html

President Bush's overall Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 budget represents a 48% increase for elementary and secondary education since FY 2001.

What the hell else do you want from the Federal gov't in terms of spendings? It's never enough for you libs, is it?

When President Bush entered office in January 2001, only 11 states were in full compliance with previous Federal education accountability standards. On June 10, 2003, President Bush announced that all 50 states have approved accountability plans under NCLB.

Amazing what a little "accountability clause" does, eh?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20040212.html

Bill, from Maryville, Tennessee writes:
As you probably know, No Child Left Behind is a big, big topic of conversation in this part of Tennessee. Of course, the claim is that there is not enough funding to carry out the No Child Left Behind regulations. I'm not a teacher, but a very concerned parent.

1. Is this a legitimate argument? 2. What is your reaction to the statement that No Child Left Behind puts too much stress and pressure on students and teachers?

Margaret Spellings
Thanks Bill,

No Child left behind is not an unfunded mandate. With the President’s ’05 budget there will have been a 49% increase in federal funding since he took office.

He has made funds for reading instruction, funds for Title 1 – the main federal program devoted to our neediest students, and funds for special education students his priorities. While resources are certainly part of the equation, NCLB is about results for every child. It asks the question – what are we getting for our money – how are the kids doing.

NCLB really does cause us all –educators, policy makers and parents to focus on all kids by looking at the results we are getting. The old way was to mask the problems of underachievement and move kids through the system.

This cheats kids out of the preparation they need to succeed in life. NCLB moves us from denial into confronting reality. Test data helps us diagnose problems kids are having early so we can get them the help we need.

What were you talking about wrt "Reality", Natoma?

Some more for you:

Daryn, from Middlefield, CT writes:
Can states or districts opt-out of NCLB if they have their own accountability measures that are equal to NCLB or more stringent?

Margaret Spellings
Thanks for your question. There are similar questions from Utah and Arizona -- so let me try to be responsive too all three with this answer.

NCLB offers resources to states that develop state accountability and testing systems. States who don’t want to meet those provisions can leave that money on the table and avoid accountability.

There was a news report last night on WTOV-TV that said No Child Left Behind is underfunded nationwide by at least $7-billion this year. Is that accurate? How do you determine if something is underfunded?

Margaret Spellings
Thanks Gary

As I said earlier with President's Bush's 05 budget there will be a 49 percent increase in k-12 funding since the President took office. As recent as yesterday, an independent study by Accountability Works found that NCLB is not only not an unfunded mandate but they assert that states will have $785 million more than they need this upcoming school year to comply with the provisions of No Child Left Behind.

 

[John Reynolds]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20040212.html

Yeah, more whitehouse.gov links. 8)

Joe, Vince, you both argue like the states haven't for years relied heavily on federal funding, as if the two have traditionally operated completely separated. Democoder has a valid point that certain states such as CA have been fiscally irresponsible, but there is definitely a causal relationship at work. Of course CA is also going to be paying about $2 billion/year for the next 30 years thanks to Bush's power deregulations, but he needs to keep the billionaires who love him and help fund his campaigns happy.

As for NCLB, a co-worker's wife is a local educator and he was telling me about she loathes this program, loathes Bush, and how that feeling is almost unanimous among her fellow educators and school administration.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Geeze...all of this refutation of Natoma's "lib site of the day" talking points makes it sound like I'm a great supporter of the NCLB act.

I'm not, really, because the problem is states will find always come up with ways to "show they are compliant" to get the money without really making a real-world difference. And it's largely difficult to come up with some real, effective measurements for effectiveness, so that you gan gauge progress...especially on a national scale.

That being said, the scheme as it is set-up is orders of magnitudes better than just "giving money" out with no strings attached at all.

Education will always be a "local" issue to me. I'd prefer the Fed government just pull out all together and say: "You guys are on your own." Individuals local to their own school systems are in a much better position to gauge the "effectiveness" of their school system, and make better choices as to funding levels.