Your budget/economy plans

[Hippo_Tron]

Well the Republicans are saying that Democrats don't have any ideas on these subjects so I figured let's hear a few. Mine is as follows...

1) Tell state governments they have a year to start cleaning up corruption or the feds will come in and do it for them.

2) Start looking at things that arent working in this country, particularly the school system. Most Western European countries have first rate school systems and there's absolutely no reason why we (the richest country) can't have one ourselves. I think however there are two things that they do differently. The first is that they manage their schools much better than we do. The second is that they care about education a lot more than we do. We can't do much about the second one but we can do something about the first.

- Require schools and school districts to submit spending reports of how they spent EVERY city, county, state, and federal tax dollar. I want to everybody to see just where our tax dollars are going. Then once they've submitted these we have the school boards review them, the state legislatures review them, and then have congress review them (they definately don't work hard enough if you ask me). Once these reports are out what we will most likely see is that there is LITERALLY not enough money in the system. It will become SO OBVIOUS that Republicans would even have to vote to put more money into it. Then we start having the city, state, and federal governments putting the schools on a budget (one that allows them to buy what they need) and appropriating the necessary funds. Also schools should get budgets proportional to the number of students, if one public school is in a district where rich people live and it is a great school then most of it's federal and state funds should be put into other schools.

- Next we start setting deadlines for certified teachers. While I disagree with Dick Gephardts education plan altogether he made some great points about how good teachers are really what the students need to learn. I think he also had a good idea about having the teaching field be like going to service academies. You get discounted or free education if you agree to become a teacher for so many years. Once people are in the profession for so many years they probably will stay in it for a long time. I think if they are willing to dedicate their life to teaching kids and work for a lower salary than they should get the LEAST we can do is pay for them to get the necessary skills to do so. I think we should also require that teacher salaries be increased by the number of years they teach for, making more inscentive to teach for longer.

- After that we can start requireing deadlines for other things such as up to date textbooks and computers etc...

3) Tax cuts only for Businesses that provide legitimate plans to hire new employees, especially in fields where there's a lot of qualified people but a shortage of jobs.

4) Healthcare for everybody who can't affoard it

- As many Democrats in congress have said, you're better off investing the money in healthcare now so that people can get minor problems fixed before they turn into major problems and we have to pay for those. Just seems like a good investment to me.

- It would only cost about $100 billion and if that were the only thing on my list to get done they could've still had a $250 billion tax cut.

5) Privatize social security to a certain extent

- NO!!! I don't want to dump the social security funds into the stock market right this instant like some people... but I think that just putting money into a system then getting that same amount of money back out when you retire seems pointless when you could invest it and get a lot more money when you're old without any cost to the government. Just think about it... Big corporations would be giving more people money when they retire. Of course I would make sure to insure the benefits of people who have paid into the system and maybe set a date that people can start choosing to privatize. Those who have paid some into the system and decide to privatize will have the age raised as to when they can recieve social security. Those who opt not to privatize will start recieving benefits at a lower age.

6) Have congress do better annual reviews of how exactly the money it appropriates is being spent. Make sure that the executive branch is spending money the way it was intended.

That's about all I can think of now, but I'm sure I'll come up with some more.

[Warpy]

1. "privatizing"

social security is ALWAYS a stupid idea. Social security is NOT an investment. It's an insurance program. The money we are paying in today is not money we're going to see when we retire. The money we're paying in today (that isn't being robbed to fatten billionaires) is going to the people who are retired NOW. That is the way it was set up in the beginning, so that destitute old folks during the Depression would have something to live on besides their children, who themselves had nothing to live on.

Think of the insurance program for old age in this way: without it, you would probably end up living with both your mother and your mother in law at some point, as too many mens' pensions still die with them, leaving their widows with nothing but social security.

If you want to invest your other income, that's just fine. However, privatizing Social Security is like expecting your car insurance company to give you money for the down payment on your next car.

It's INSURANCE, not investment.

[Hippo_Tron]

2. That's a good point but

1) I know full well how the system works...

2) If we could find a way to reform the system so that people could invest money that they are essentially putting in and getting back later (yes I know that they are putting it in now to pay for the people currently retired) why not do it. Again it would be essentially like corporations giving you a fat ass check when you retire.

[Code_Name_D]

3. Worthless rhetoric.

1) Tell state governments they have a year to start cleaning up corruption or the feds will come in and do it for them.

The problem with this is it assumes that part of the state budget crunch is being caused by fraud. But this is a typical right wing lie. The problems with each state is painfully reductions in incoming receipts, either from tax payers, or federal revenues, while cost for services are going up. Both are being caused tax cut bias and the contracting economy.

But fraud withen the system is alrgly the imaginaton of right wing lunitics who are secritly trying to shut down civel service programs. Common examples given are the "limousine welfare queens." Supposable living off of welfare wells enough to buy sports cars. But this is just a thinly failed attempt to go after legitimate welfare recipients, if not an excuse to shut down the whole program all together.

And the Fed will come in and fix things? The fed is the source of many of the problems! Here is an example.

Kansas currently has its own version of Enron taking place right now as Westar Energy is funneling regulated electric rate revenues into failing unregulated spin off corporations that have nothing to do with energy. It has been reviled that through Enron style book keeping, that a financing company that went by the name of Priority One, was soaking up huge losses through derivatives. Losses ranging in the 50 million range. (For reference, the budget for the state of Kansas is 12 Million.) So to hide the losses, Westar began to shuffle the debt into the regulated utility and started coming to the Kansas Regulatory Board for regular rate increases. Which they got. Until the citizens started screaming about rate disparities and escalating fairs, not to mention account cooking, resulting in over charging of the rate payers to the tune of tens of millions. (Can you say fraud?) The regulatory board finally grew a backbone and started denying the rate increases and asking hard questions about where the money was going, and were finally forced to start auditing the books. Especially when it became clear that Kansas was now libel for Westars debt. (That was when the 50 Million came into the picture.) The deeper they dug, the more debt they found.

But when the reg board finally started digging into the case, and bringing fraud suites, the CEO's of Westar went to the Kansas State Legislature and started getting bills passed over the boards head. Oh but this started pissing off votors, and some of the reps that were a little too cozy with Westar were voted out. Not to mention a Democratic Governor. But now that the State Legislature is standing up to Westar, what do I read in the paper by that Tom Delay is coming to the rescue by legislation written by Westar that would shield Westar Energy from its own regulatory board. Effectively privatizing the whole kit and caboodle, while still shacking the state with that 50 million.

That isn't fraud. That is crony capitalism. AKA corporate welfare. Oh it is so easy to turn a profit when you just hand over the bills to the tax payers. These expenses are HUGE! Take a look at California's situation, where a significant portion of the state budget is going directly into Enron coffers. They could build and operate their own plant for a fraction of the cost. But this theft is sanctioned by the fed, who REFUSE to investigate, let alone prosecute.

How about the north east blackout? Once the names of some high ranking Bush donors appear on the investigation docket, suddenly the energy department takes over the investigation. Can you say, white wash? Mean while the states will be left footing the bill for that whole mess.

But it gets worse. The fed is also backing out of many contractual agreements with the state. Wichita has a 2 million dollar road upgrade as we are trying to elevate some high way. It’s a project that HAS to be done. Wichita comes up with a portion of the money, paid for a voter approved sales and gas tax. Kansas and the fed also put up money vea matching funds. Well sun of a gun if the city didn't get a call from the Federal Highway Department that this money would be "delayed." Just as Kansas ran into its own short fall last year, and was forced to reduce its budget to the project by half. The debt for this project would crush Wichita, so the state assumed the charges. But now that money is NEEDED! Not just to finish the project, but to keep the contractors (who have yet to be paid) solvent. Oh, and you can just forget about actually finishing the freeway at the moment, meaning that the traffic is now permanently snarled around the construction area. It's now evident that the State of Kansas will have to assume the full 2 million. This despite the "full faith and credit" of yet to be seen federal dollars.

I could go on and on.



2) Start looking at things that arent working in this country, particularly the school system. Most Western European countries have first rate school systems and there's absolutely no reason why we (the richest country) can't have one ourselves.

How hold on a second their partner. For most states (including Kansas) education is the largest outlay on the books. With so much going to education, one has no choice but to look at the education budget in order to balance the state budget.

But what dose that have to do with "first rate school systems?" I will tell you. Sqwinto! You are not talking about the economics behind education, but the quality of education. A separate issue entirely.

I think however there are two things that they do differently. The first is that they manage their schools much better than we do. The second is that they care about education a lot more than we do. We can't do much about the second one but we can do something about the first.

Utter clap trap. Such nonsense is of the same vain as superstition and religion. We may as well pray away our education problems as try to do a better job "caring" for our schools. But hay, I am from Kansas. No one can tell me that we don't care about our schools. In fact, the Kansas Education system is among the best on the country, with the highest real standards, (when the Christian fundamentalists are trying to pollute it with creationism through stealth campaigns.)


- Require schools and school districts to submit spending reports of how they spent EVERY city, county, state, and federal tax dollar. I want to everybody to see just where our tax dollars are going. Then once they've submitted these we have the school boards review them, the state legislatures review them, and then have congress review them (they definately don't work hard enough if you ask me).

Let me get this strata. We have a budget short fall, so lets create lots of red tape and review it over and over and over again in what one can only call a bureaucratic nightmare. Riiiiiiight. Sounds like something one would read in a Dilbert strip.

Once these reports are out what we will most likely see is that there is LITERALLY not enough money in the system. It will become SO OBVIOUS that Republicans would even have to vote to put more money into it.

It's obvious NOW! You really think that making something more obvious will result any action? Been there, done that, bought the tee-shirt. The fact is that many governments and even school boards set up the schools to fail by undercutting the budget. That way the Republicans can say, "see, we told you schools are crappy, we have to go with vouchers."

Six eggs never make a dozen, no mater how many times you count them, or how many bar codes you slap on them.

Then we start having the city, state, and federal governments putting the schools on a budget (one that allows them to buy what they need) and appropriating the necessary funds.

But where is the money going to come from? If their was enough money to fill the budget, is wouldn't be a budget shortfall, would it.

Also schools should get budgets proportional to the number of students, if one public school is in a district where rich people live and it is a great school then most of it's federal and state funds should be put into other schools.

Hint. This is already how it's being done. The problem is that money is not being allocated correctly. Each student gives each school only an equivalent stipend, without any consideration as to weather the school is in an affluent area, or an impoverished area. Plus, these are matching funds, so poorer school districts can even afford to claim the full stipend. And consider that wealthier schools are only adequately funded, and poorer students require ten times the money to achieve and equal education as their wealthier peers, you begin to see the nature of the problem.

Again, the problem is the fed, who refuses to addressee these issues, choosing instead to spend their time on test scores and school voucher pilot programs.

- Next we start setting deadlines for certified teachers. While I disagree with Dick Gephardts education plan altogether he made some great points about how good teachers are really what the students need to learn.

More useless gibberish. What is this, a faith based argument? Maybe if I close my eyes really tight, I will see the logic in this.

I think he also had a good idea about having the teaching field be like going to service academies. You get discounted or free education if you agree to become a teacher for so many years. Once people are in the profession for so many years they probably will stay in it for a long time. I think if they are willing to dedicate their life to teaching kids and work for a lower salary than they should get the LEAST we can do is pay for them to get the necessary skills to do so. I think we should also require that teacher salaries be increased by the number of years they teach for, making more inscentive to teach for longer.

The first rule in economics. There is no such thing as "free." Even if these teacher/students were to completely forswore off of any fiscal compensation, you still have to pay for room and board. And then there is the faculty, the campuses itself, and plenty of other additional costs.

Again, where will the money come from?

- After that we can start requireing deadlines for other things such as up to date textbooks and computers etc...

And this is relevant….. how?

3) Tax cuts only for Businesses that provide legitimate plans to hire new employees, especially in fields where there's a lot of qualified people but a shortage of jobs.

Oh yay. THAT sounds like socialism. And what is this about tax cuts? Don't you ever think that you DON'T have to cut taxes for business? Or is this budget planning by Ginsue, the makers of fine kitchen cutlery?

4) Healthcare for everybody who can't affoard it

The concept of "no money" just has no hold on you, dose it?

- As many Democrats in congress have said, you're better off investing the money in healthcare now so that people can get minor problems fixed before they turn into major problems and we have to pay for those. Just seems like a good investment to me.

- It would only cost about $100 billion and if that were the only thing on my list to get done they could've still had a $250 billion tax cut.

The problem is that at the moment, only the states pay for a portion of Medicare and Medicaid. The rest of it is already privatized. And the problem with the privatized system is that ratios rise so fast they are given their own inflation index. We also have a lot of corporate welfare and crony capitalism going on here. The short of the story is that their ain't enough dollars in the WORLD to pay for this.

To salve this problem, you are going to have to nationalize the whole system. Even universal health care as many DLC dems like to push will fall short of addressing the ever escalating costs. To quote Republicans, "you can't just throw money at it." Especially money you do not have.

5) Privatize social security to a certain extent

- NO!!! I don't want to dump the social security funds into the stock market right this instant like some people... but I think that just putting money into a system then getting that same amount of money back out when you retire seems pointless when you could invest it and get a lot more money when you're old without any cost to the government. Just think about it... Big corporations would be giving more people money when they retire. Of course I would make sure to insure the benefits of people who have paid into the system and maybe set a date that people can start choosing to privatize. Those who have paid some into the system and decide to privatize will have the age raised as to when they can recieve social security. Those who opt not to privatize will start recieving benefits at a lower age.

Some one else is already tacking this issue. So I think I will pass.

6) Have congress do better annual reviews of how exactly the money it appropriates is being spent. Make sure that the executive branch is spending money the way it was intended.

So we are back to counting eggs again? Let me see here; one, two, three, four, five, six… nope. Still no dozen.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. I've started to realize why we disagree so much

You're from Kansas and I'm from Louisiana, I forgot to mention that what works for one state does not necessarilly work for another.

1) Corporate Scandals aren't what I was referring to, I was referring to the people in my state government who just take money from the state and put it in their pockets and no it's not a right wing conspiracy theory, it's the truth.

Also... if I were President basically any legislation proposed by Tom DeLay would probably get a nice Veto.

2) I said we can't do anything about the caring for education but we can manage it better. What I'd want to do is see EXACTLY where the tax dollars are going on all levels before I put anohter penny into the system. Since you say Kansas has a good education system I'd probably ignore Kansas, why mess with a good thing? Louisisiana something like 49th in the country, our education system is horrible. We do need to see exactly where the funding is going to and shove the numbers in the Republicans' faces. You can't argue with the fact that a school LITERALLY didn't have enough money to replace history textbooks that are 20 years old (that was an example). Also my point about teachers was that having qualified teachers is the first step towards having a good education system. If teachers are dedicated they will find a way to educate the kids even if they are given limited resources to do so.

3) Your alternatives are... The Bush Jobs and Growth plan. OR Basically do what I suggested except in the form of grants and not tax cuts. I just figured anything with the tax cut label would please more Republicans.

4) Privatization is a good thing, if employers are paying for peoples' healthcare that takes off the burden from the taxpayers. As for corporate scandals I'm sorry they happen but I'm not sure how do solve that problem, if you have an idea please share it. Bush can manage to come up with 50 billion for AIDS in Africa and 350 billion for a tax cut. Not to mention this as well as any of my other plans would not just take place right away. To quote another Republican "We've tried increasing spending to fix these problems and it didn't work, we need a growing economy to fix these problems." If I were president right now I would not even think about proposing a new healthcare bill, I would wait until everybody has jobs and the economy is good like the Clinton years. That way it will actually be practical. Also, if almost everybody has a job then it's easier to ask employers to put up for some of the healthcare costs, because everybody has an employer.

6) You are probably right in the sense that just looking at the budget doesn't solve the problem but I want to see where all the money is goinge before I put more in.

[Code_Name_D]

5. Is there an echo here? My response, and my ideas.

You're from Kansas and I'm from Louisiana, I forgot to mention that what works for one state does not necessarily work for another.

But water still runs down hill in Kansas, as it doses in Louisiana. The sun rises in the east, and sets in the west in Kansas, just as it doses in Louisiana. And a dollar in Kansas is the same shade of green as a dollar in Louisiana.

Your claim that "thinks work differently here" doesn’t fly when it comes to economics. If you send more than you take in from tax revenue, you are going to run a deficit, weather you are in Kansas, or Louisiana. And in this case, there is only one correct way to deal with the problem. Predestined that the natural laws of economic realities do not apply to Louisiana was exactly how Louisiana got into trouble in the first place.

1) Corporate Scandals aren't what I was referring to, I was referring to the people in my state government who just take money from the state and put it in their pockets and no it's not a right wing conspiracy theory, it's the truth.

You're right, it's not a right wind conspiracy theory. The Republicans have been open about this theft for some time. And even brag about it. Kenny boy isn't in hiding incognito. I hope you know.

2) I said we can't do anything about the caring for education but we can manage it better. What I'd want to do is see EXACTLY where the tax dollars are going on all levels before I put anohter penny into the system.

If you have a patient dying of hunger, than what is the logic of performing heart surgery? You have only one course of action left open to you, to feed the patient. Any thing else and the patient dies. If you already know the budget is undefended, what makes you think a budget review will solve the problem?

It is far more likely that you are beholden to the myth that fraud is taking place on the school board. Or perhaps they are poorly spending the money on $500.00 pencils. But I just be you there is a stack already a mile tall of such accountings that have failed to find any fraud. Just under funded systems and hard choices with too few dollars. Can you really fault the administration for not buying text books when most of the money has to go to the heating bill? But if they bought the books instead, you would be railing about the fact that the schools aren't heated. So you are not satisfied either way, and would still insist on the accounting.

But this "account for every penny" idea still dose true harm. Such accounting is not cheep. The tighter the focus, the more money you must spend on the act of the accounting itself. The demand that "every penny be counted" only creates more and more red tape and creates even more expensive bureaucracy. Money that is ALREADY in short supply, and you want to siphon more off to the been counters?

These politics of failure.

Since you say Kansas has a good education system I'd probably ignore Kansas, why mess with a good thing? Louisisiana something like 49th in the country, our education system is horrible.

Sounds to me like you should pay more attention to Kansas schools, in an effort to try and learn what we are doing right, and what you are doing that is wrong. But this is a two way street. Louisiana may be a comedy of error when it comes to education, but there is a vast untapped wealth of knowledge within those errors. This is so because you truly learn more from your mistakes, than from your successes.

We do need to see exactly where the funding is going to and shove the numbers in the Republicans' faces. You can't argue with the fact that a school LITERALLY didn't have enough money to replace history textbooks that are 20 years old (that was an example).

Apparently, it isn't obvious to you at all. Because you have JUST stated that "What I'd want to do is see EXACTLY where the tax dollars are going on all levels before I put another (corrected spelling) penny into the system." You don't want to fully fund any thing, you just want to drawn in more red tape for teachers to wade through to get their pencils.

Also my point about teachers was that having qualified teachers is the first step towards having a good education system. If teachers are dedicated they will find a way to educate the kids even if they are given limited resources to do so.

And it is STILL irrelevant. This has to do with education quality, not economics. Any why are you expecting teachers to do more with less? A copout so you don't HAVE to fully fund education?

3) Your alternatives are... The Bush Jobs and Growth plan. OR Basically do what I suggested except in the form of grants and not tax cuts. I just figured anything with the tax cut label would please more Republicans.

Either way, you still have the one trick pony of the tax cuts dancing in your circle. This is a good example of crony capitalism, that we have to use tax cuts and grants to "encourage" responsible behavior on the part of the corporations. If this is truly your concern (which I know it is not), then government has a far more effective and far cheaper tool at their disposal. The investigation and prosecution of irresponsible behavior. And it doesn’t require us to give away the story, to "encourage" the corps to do things that they should be able to do on their own.

Part of the problem with state budgets, is that they already gave away to much of the store, to those who already have more than there fare share.

4) Privatization is a good thing, if employers are paying for peoples' healthcare that takes off the burden from the taxpayers.

But they AREN'T pay for it. If they were, than it would be a problem, would it. Employers do not fully pay for health care for there employees, given the growing co-pay amounts and exceptions to coverage. But what about the unemployed? What about the collage student? What about the elderly? What about the self employed? What about the lower class who HAVE no benefits at all that comes with their job, let alone health insurance. Jobs such as Wall Mart and temporary agencies. What immigrants, both legal and illegal? What about the incarcerated, both for debts to society or mental disorders? What about tourists and visitors to our country, they aren't covered either. But they still need health care coverage.

And now I shift into second gear by bringing up public health. You remember 9-11, right? How is a privatized health care system going to respond to a disaster of that scale? Privet systems have proven time and time again, they are not going to pay for emergency preparedness. Their solution with constant cost cutting is to run the system on a skeleton crew on normal days. When a disaster strike, they are completely overwhelmed. You remember the anthrax attacks, right? How are you going to pay for pro-actively guarding against future attacks? And once an attack is detected, how can you respond with a privatized system, who can simply declined to do their job. To be prepared to an emergency, you have to have something called elasticity. You have to have extra equipment in storage, and back ups standing idle behind the primary system. Such elasticity is expensive, VARY expensive. Expensive enough that privet for profit systems can not support such extra capacity. But a tax payer funded, non-profit system CAN support this elasticity.

As for corporate scandals I'm sorry they happen but I'm not sure how do solve that problem, if you have an idea please share it.

Here is a thought. Quit giving the corps hand outs and tax cuts. (Opps, I meant to say, grants.)

Bush can manage to come up with 50 billion for AIDS in Africa and 350 billion for a tax cut. Not to mention this as well as any of my other plans would not just take place right away.

Huh? Where the heck did that come from? We are talking about state budgets and you are over there in Africa? What is this, a message from our sponsor? And BTW: It's not 50 bill, but a meager 12 thousand. The rest is just "promised." Focus here. Try to at least keep it in the same hemisphere.

To quote another Republican "We've tried increasing spending to fix these problems and it didn't work, we need a growing economy to fix these problems." If I were president right now I would not even think about proposing a new healthcare bill, I would wait until everybody has jobs and the economy is good like the Clinton years. That way it will actually be practical. Also, if almost everybody has a job then it's easier to ask employers to put up for some of the healthcare costs, because everybody has an employer.

So you would do nothing but sit on your ass and wait for better days to come from their own accord. Right. I have a rock that can do the same thing. But it doesn’t need a pension.

6) You are probably right in the sense that just looking at the budget doesn't solve the problem but I want to see where all the money is going before I put more in.

It's called a budget allocation report. All government agencies at all levels, and even most business, openly publish these reports. They are in fact the blue print of budget priorities and where the budget should be allocated to meet those priorities, as well as anticipated expenses and discretionary funds. Some are compiled annually, others quarterly. But most schools only tinker with the budgets, an publish the reports only when changes are made.

And it is where most states are finding their problems. Because they have more responsibilities and priorities than they have dollars to pay for it. So simply saying that we have to adequately fund something is only part of the answer. The money must still come from some where.

Solutions that I have in regards to state budgets.
One: Establish a budgetary independence from the Fed.
Most states have something called a foreword budget. That is, they forgo the taxation of their citizens, and draw directly from the federal budget. In return, the federal government promises a portion of the federal taxes you and I pay for back to the states. A similar deal is held between most counties and the state, with the county forwarding its taxation rights to the state.

The reason why they do this is expediency and simplicity. You are spared having to file complicated tax forms with both your county and state. And instead, you just have to be tortured by the federal form. What forms you do have to fill out for county and state usually draw directly from the federal tax forms. But also, this makes your county and tax bills far smaller.

The problem however is the fed is pulling back on its promised funds. These are NOT block grants, but moneys that the state has a right to expect. But more and more, these moneys are not being forth coming. And more money that is submitted back to the states is done so with more and more strings attached. This is especially so for education.

It’s a contradiction that the fed continues to cut taxes, while at the same time cutting the funds allocated to the states. And just as state forms draw figures and formulas directly from the fed books. Changes in the fed tax code automatically changes the state code, automatically cutting the state taxes without approval from the state house.

The first step to stabilizing the state budget is to arrest control back from the fed. This is a simple tack actually. It just requires rewriting the state tax code to write out references to the fed, and assuming no returns from the federal government. But there are some painful problems here. One, the state will be forced to submit their own tax forms. That means more complicated paper work for you, as well as higher state taxes. But you will be less at the mercy federal government, and your state will be more in charge of its own fate, and free to make its own mistakes.

Two: Restore a true progressive income tax.
Currently, most states and the fed have regressive tax structures. That is the poor bare a larger share of the tax burden. A progressive tax structure progressively increases taxes as the wealth climes.

Three: Restore reason to the tax code.
Kansas is extremely bad at this. As I said before, we take pride in our education system, and have managed to keep it adequately funded. But over the years, Republicans have been giving us a diet of "quick fixes." As they cut taxes for the wealthy, this leaves holes that must be filled in following years. So they give us added sin taxes such as those for cigarettes and lottery tickets. The revenues go to the schools.

But has set up the system that is nothing short of madness. Last year, we had a good news/bad news situation. A state survey found that cigarette use was down dramatically. This is in part to oppressive taxes on cigarettes as well as an aggressive anti youth smoking campaign. But this meant that their was not a substantially budget shortfall for the school, leading to a sick conflict of interest. The state school board canceled its anti-smoking campaign. Though careful in their wording, the implications were clear. The high school students who smoke are paying for their own education, and the state board now found itself actively encouraging students to take up smoking. (The tobacco lobby just loved us to death that year.) It is a dilemma that has yet to be resolved. But the only solution will be to wean schools off of the cigarette sin tax revenues. Something that the state house is reluctant to do given our budget shortfall.

The solution is clear. Return to a more "traditional" tax code. Schools tend to be paid for by property taxes. Not only can these taxes target only those in a specific school district, but it place the tax burden on those who use the schools. Namely the residences. It's not a perfect solution, poorer districts who have little privet property to tax will still have problems. But there is a newer solution called a unified education tax district that could solve that problem. Again, based on property taxes, but eliminates the traditional school tax district, allowing money to flow from the wealthier areas, too the poorer ones. And you won't have to encourage your high school students to pick up smoking & gambling.

There are hundreds of such bizarre fund allocations. Thinks such as liquor sales to fund park maintenance, allocation of "red light" districts. Public parking & public transportation, sales, and gas taxes. Restoring a progressive property tax base. Zoning for smarter tax revenue and support. Reclaiming zoning and utility "right of way" rights. Just to name a few.

Four: Re-evaluate state function from 1st world, to 3rd world.
This is probably one of the most painful decisions that will have to be made. Unfortunately, I don't see that many states, including Kansas, have much of a choice in the mater. The "barrow and spend" Republican's budget policy has simply frittered away too much of our recourses and infrastructure to go on pretending that we are an economic power house (at the state level.).

But this decision is not as ominous as it might seem. Most of its implications would likely be invisible to the public. It would most likely mean fewer road and bridges, fewer museums and other luxuries such as sports stadiums. It would mean that the state would change its focus away from "attracting jobs" to helping its citizens take care of itself by starting up and running their own businesses and farms.

Five: Abandon dependence on the corporation.
Certainly they are abandoning us. Currently, some states and cities go to great lengths to attract corporations into their tax districts. Handing out grants, tax right offs, even building their facilities on the tax payer dimes. All in the hopes of recouping these expenses from the income and property taxes of the workers who will work at these jobs.

But it’s a losing deal. Nearly all of these deals fail to recover even a portion of the original expenses. Most of the jobs are low wage jobs, and in many districts, the workers will commute in from out of district, returning NO tax revenue back to the host. And to make maters worse, once the grace pied ends for the gust corporations, they pack up and leave. Taking advantage of other deals submitted by other areas hopping to lure the corps away to their districts. This means that the corp leaves, taking the jobs with it, some times without even paying a penny in property or income taxes to the state or host district, while leaving the district with an empty facility that they can not sell on the open market. Some districts even "sign over" the property to the corporation, so the district can't even use the facility that they built to attract a new corporation. Other times, the corp will simply black male the district for more concessions, using the jobs as hostages.

It is truly a difficult concept for some folks to grasp that we are better off without the corporations. They talk about jobs, but do not take into account the some times massive loses that the state, city, or county absorbs in hosting these corporations, and in the end, still have nothing to show for it.

Within 20 years, a state could shift from being dependent on corporations, to self dependence. It is also a basic tenant of natural economics that where there is a sufficient mass of people, with good social support structures can sustain itself, even without a core economy. And in this modern world, core economies are NOT hard to come by or produce, given a little bit of creativity and ingenuity.

Tourism is one such example. Its actually been proven to be a money maker for a city to expend even VAST sums of fiscal resources for some of the dandiest things. Take Sain't Lousi's arch? Here is a massive structure and a technical challenge in and of itself, that serves no useful purpose, other than an attraction. But that attraction generates an economy in the form of souvenirs, hotels, and tourism to make it pay for itself, and then become a revenue stream for the city.

Wichita is also finding that as the air-lines and manufactures move out, that the tourism trade, appealing to an "old west" way of life, is managing to take up the slack. Wichita is also now becoming a Mecca for trades in crafts and artisans. A little push from the city, and Wichita could vary well become the source of the finest wood carvers in the country. With her artisan's works appearing in Rotundas and who knows where. But that is just speculation into the future.

Now don't get me wrong here. I am not suggesting that we through the corps out. Only that cities and districts quit trying to attract them through give away and tax deals. Corps would still be welcome and free to set up shop. They just wont be able to do so for free.

But even if they do leave, nature abhors a vacuum. In time, with some aid and assistance from the state in the form of services and infrastructure, the average citizen will fill in the void left behind by the corporation through self employment and small businesses.

[Aaron]

6. Re privatization of healthcare

"Privatization is a good thing, if employers are paying for peoples' healthcare that takes off the burden from the taxpayers."

I'm not an economics type so I usually stay away from posting in this forum but that sentence caught my eye. I think, and you folks probably know more about this than I do, that one of the arguments for nationalized healthcare is that it lowers costs by removing redundancies and profit - so it makes things more efficient (as I understand it that added efficiency would benefit the economy). I suppose there may also be a national defense component, something about how terrorists might use disease, perhaps are more likely to use disease/bio-warfare, than we are to be invaded so spending money on making the population healthy is a tool for national defense. Also something about not being able to divide the benefit of health - that is it's sort of like a lighthouse. If more people are healthy in the population then less people are around to make you sick, but it's hard to charge based on that benefit - so by taxing and nationalizing healthcare then everyone pays for the benefit of a healty society.
I'm not sure if all that made sense, like I said I'm not much of an economics person, I usually just read what you guys write and try to learn a few things but that thing about health care and privatization caught my eye.

Edited to add: I found this in another thread - it looks like Canada saves a lot of money on overhead versus the US in their healthcare system - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=117&topic_id=457

[Hippo_Tron]

7. Well we are finding some things in common now

1) Sad but true...

2) We probably won't agree on this so I'll just drop it.

3) A better idea than my first one would be taking all the tax cuts from the rich and putting them into capitol investment tax credits for businesses.

4) You've actually made me realize why universal healthcare would be a bad idea, however I do think we need to do more to make it more affordable, I'll think up of some other plan.

Now for your ideas

One: Hey getting promised funds sounds good me. The other alternative is to raise state taxes when we have a federal tax cut. The only reason I can think that raising state taxes might be better would be a bit less complicated. But of course, it isn't always politically possible so...

Two: Seems fair to me, unfortunately it won't fly in Republican controlled states but oh well.

Three: And if you start equally funding schools, wealthy people will find that schools in their district are being somewhat underfunded as well. That might prompt them to vote for more funds into the schools system.

Four: I don't think that would be necessary if the economy would just go back to like it was in 1998, of course that's really easier said than done.

Five: True, and besides isn't it the federal government's job to give out corporate handouts?