Today’s Topic: The Trickle Down Effect of Bad Federal Government
Some might call me a cry-baby for complaining about this, but I have to say that the federal government is just passing all of its tax cuts directly onto the states to make up the difference.
You see, it is the local governments that need to supply services to the population, while the federal government provides services to agencies and administrations.
There seems to be a dichotomy here in that the state and local governments are not getting the funds from federal taxes owed them, so they need to apply increases in taxes to their constituents, neighbors and families.
The concept is falsely based that the federal government can cut taxes that directly effect the state’s ability to recover their fair share, thus foisting the blame onto state and local politicians.
The fact is that we, as individual states, do not have to allow the federal government to change the historical functions of government and leave all the bad stuff to the locals.
In fact, we already have proof positive of the federal government acting so irresponsibly in foreign affairs as to seriously and adversely effect the restoration of an American city not attacked by war, but by nature.
The Executive Branch does not have the right to declare war without congressional approval under the War Powers Act, but we need to look closely at just how adversely our people have been effected by the execution of those war power acts and how hundreds of thousands of Americans remain displaced by the actions of the federal government simply bussing them to some other state or location. And it only took them 7 days to respond quickly, once they knew that perhaps 2,000 American citizens had died.
If you look at the problem at all the obvious thing that slaps you in the face is there were not enough National Guard to help. The Coast Guard did an admirable job, but in terms of In Place National Resources, there wasn’t enough to even get off the ground, much less hit the ground running.
Why, one might ask. Well, because fully ½ of Louisiana’s National Guard apparatus were in Iraq. Guess what? Today is 2 January 2008 and those resources are still in Iraq.
And yet this isn’t really the bulk of my argument nor even my piddling little gripes, but a symptom of a serious problem in America.
And this gripe comes from the failure of the federal government to actually protect the citizens by virtue of bad economic, foreign policy and military judgement.
So in two days I have paid $4 US in Maryland State taxes instituted on 1 Jan 08 for two packs of cigarettes. Ok, so what’s so bad about that? Well, it seems I’m likely to pay an additional tax of $365 per year because of an addition brought on by the tobacco companies and their manipulation of their product’s addictive ingrediant.
I’m told that the money will go to the state’s portion of Medicaid to cover the federal government’s failure to supply all the needed funds. This means I’m supporting a program of which I cannot ever take advantage. I don’t mind so much that some of my taxes go towards free education, as there is some direct personal advantage towards having reasonably schooled individuals running around the neighborhood. But I have to admit that paying the highest tax on a seemingly forced habituation is contrary to reasonable tax law. Why would anyone want to tax what would immediately become lessening revenues, either by smokers quitting smoking or more likely purchasing out of state?
Or perhaps even more obvious is why not tax people who continue to use gas guzzling cars money in order for them to get to work? Every person has to get to work, but how they do it is a taxable situation, whilst cigarette smokers, as long as it is possible, will order from some internet company who may charge shipping on the purchase, but doesn’t charge state or local taxes.
If we have any real strength in our ability to direct law, then one has to remember that laws are made to be INCLUSIVE, not EXCLUSIVE. By dictating that smokers have to pay a tax for a purchase when others who don’t make that same purchase is an exclusive tax. That doesn’t mean it excludes all purchasers, it just TARGETS a particular type of consumer. I think the excise tax on my tires is less than a week’s worth of cigarette purchases, and they cost me hundreds of dollars. Even with the taxes involved with owning and operating a car, meaning fuel, exhaust emission inspections, et al, is cheaper than one year’s worth of smoking a pack a day in Maryland.
And even while this is a particular thorn in my side about federal tax cuts and how they might trickle down whilst our state and local taxes increase, I’m more pissed about the fact that the federal government needs to step up to the plate and take care of the American citizen so that when my state or local government requests help, there is help available to request.
Hell, I’m not averse to paying higher taxes as long as they go towards the benefits of the people. Education is a definite advantage to the people, and this federal government has under-funded a federal mandate. That’s actually against the law. By placing the onus of strict testing achievements without funding, the tax burden has fallen to the states and local governments who apparently cannot comply.
New York City had 159 schools rated as failing in the latest report. I think its something like 54 of those schools will be closed. How does consolidating our children into bigger and more centrally located environments apply towards the ability of our children to learn? How can an inner city mom with 2 ½ jobs accommodate a trip across town to pick up their child if he or she is sick? How can school in one region of Harlem be shipping their children to some school miles away and maintain any continuity of family and neighborhood?
Washington, D.C. itself is closing a number of schools. This is the city from which all federal law exudes, and yet our schools cannot make the grade because the tests are a failing effort to determine whether one can learn or not.
Perhaps the way towards a better educational system is to not have teachers living in the same projects and housing that their students live. I’m not saying segregate the children from their teachers, but rather those teachers are foremost the first line of defense in our country’s national interest by supplying well taught children. Our teachers need to teach our children to THINK, not HOW TO THINK.
But the largest number of test results seems to indicate that our system has failed to teach our children how to LEARN in the first place. This is the essential failure and the problem rests directly on our federal government for sheep creating policies since Ronald Reagan. The republicans have long desired a flock to which they direct, whilst the "elitist" left wing educators have the audacity to teach our young how to learn and to think freely.
I find myself in awe by how the republicans have created an art form of disassociation whilst proclaiming the ideals of the American people.
For instance, no farmer wants his son to work on the farm all of his life unless he can do something positive with his legacy. Farmers who have fought nature and the government and ended up losing their farms to a large Agro-business certainly would want something better for their sons. The concept of family farming has gone away, not because a child cannot understand the value in their parent’s efforts, but because their parents have to scrape everyday to even survive, much less have something to show for their efforts. In the 60s and 70s there were high school sponsored agricultural classes which taught these same farmer’s sons to better utilize their farm resources. After Reagan, that was all shut off and now we have the majority holder of American soil being multinational Agro-business.
Without an education, how is one to continue on with the family’s dreams and strengths and hopes and desires? When Monsanto wants you to buy corn seed from them but you have to either buy new seed next year or pay Monsanto a royalty on the use of subsequent seeds, how does a small farmer survive? Thousands in India are committing suicide because of bad crops and continually larger debts to the likes of Monsanto. Iraqi farmers are soon to follow. So the local seems to go global within the span of a couple of decades, and we are "benefiting" from the fallout which is being promoted by the same federal government who has continually failed the American people.
Even this doesn’t go far enough on the concept of "trickle down". The decline of education is but a part of the concept. By Bush’s connotation "No Child Left Behind" is really the same type of previously used nomenclature that hides the real outcome. By leaving no child behind in this administration’s declarations, the obvious outcome is that all children are left behind. In other words, coming to comity by virtue of an under funded mandate, we haven’t reached comity at all. We are failing school systems without regard to the social harmony, which would be present if we raised the knowledge/skill level of all the children at the same time.
Perhaps the better way to look at it is if we somehow raised all the children that excelled to a level of less obtrusive and more aggressive manner in terms of paying educational expenses for those rather than expecting the average American parents to pay for further education. You cannot separate the cream if you continue to shake the milk can. No Child Left Behind shakes the milk can. By continuing to shake the schools based on test scores, all fall to the bottom as a result. In order to find the cream, you have to wait once again.
The point is, if it comes down to it and I have a say in how I pay taxes, I’d much rather pay the same amount of taxes I will pay in the next year for cigarettes and apply that dollar value to raising teacher salaries so that they might engage their students rather than trying to get through the day with their students having no more knowledge.
The trickle down effect, in this particular arena, means that I pay taxes for purposes where the average American has a stake. Sure, take my money, but take it for a good cause and wrest away the control of the federal government when they do no provide the services to the states and the American people they are sworn to provide.
2:20:17 PM 
|
