Stop enabling Republican governors or watch the Dem party die at the state and local level.

[Union Yes]

When the federal government bails out states that are running massive deficits, the government should only offer bailout money to states that have raised taxes on their wealthiest citizens.

Not on their middle class and poor but on their wealthiest citizens only.

If states refuse to raise taxes on individuals who earn $250,000 per year or more, then that state should not receive any federal funding.

Example.

Tim Pawlenty-R Minnesota is a 'no new tax' governor. Every budget that Pawlenty has faced has been forcasted as a massive deficit. Pawlenty has enacted tax cutting programs to lure business which may sound like a good idea but the result is local governments left without a tax base due to inability to tax many business that qualified for Tim P's 'JOBZ' tax exemption. 'JOBZ' is a program created by Tim P that grants tax immunity to certain business's for job creation.

So just how does a Republican 'No new tax' governor of a state of 4.5 million people balance record $4+ billion state budget deficits? Minnesota's state constitution requires a balanced budget and forbids deficits.

How can Pawlenty balance record deficits without raising taxes on the wealthiest? How can he continue to honor one of the most regressive policies in American history at least at the state level.

That policy- "No New Taxes".

BTW ask a Minnesotan if their taxes and fees haven't gone up under Tim P. Property taxes have exploded under Pawlenty. Almost all other state fees have risen dramatically. Cig and booze taxes, double digit annual property tax hikes.

You know, regressive Republican taxation. Tax the middle class and poor so that the wealthy don't have to pay their share.

So far, it's worked for Tim P.

How is this possible?

Enter the Chief Enabler- The Federal Government.

In swoops the Fed Guv to save Timmy's 'No New Tax' pledge by patching Minny's gaping budget deficit with a federal grant.

The Federal Government helps keep that horrid NNT policy intact by enabling and paying for Tim P's refusal to tax his state's wealthiest citizens.

The Federal Government balanced Minnesota's budget when Pawlenty's shoddy accounting and NNT policy couldn't raise the revenue to balance it.

Enabled.

Republicans love this 'No New Tax' policy. They campaign on it in many places all across America.
Yet, they bash the federal gov while requiring fed money to keep their state government afloat.

They bite the hand that feeds them.

They campaign on that fact. They've won elections campaigning on that.

Why continue to enable Tim P, Rick Perry of Texas etc?

Enabling this 'No new tax' policy is killing the Dem Party at the state and local level.

I don't blame Obama for this disastrous policy of bailing out these states that won't tax their wealthiest.

Not yet anyway. However if Obama doesn't address this problem and do it soon, the Dem Party will suffer even moreso at the state level.

Solution- Obama needs to threaten withholding ALL federal grants to any state that refuses to raise taxes on it's wealthiest until said states fix that horrid policy and pass fair taxation laws.

No more using the Federal Government to balance a Republican's 'NNT' budget deficit.

NO MORE ENABLING!

To those who may disagree with the premise of this OP..

Continue to sit on your hands and watch the Dem Party die at the state and local level.
We need to change this policy or watch the Dem Party suffer. Then, we all suffer.

[DKRC]

1. K&R

:kick:

[quiet.american]

2. Interesting insights, indeed.

Could use a proper "frame," though.

I don't think stating that no gov't funds will be forthcoming to states unless the wealthiest are taxed will go over too well, despite all the current mouth-breathing about "angry populism." Wingnuts would certainly use that and run with the "socialism" crap (which has actually faded out a bit now).

The substance of your argument sure makes sense, though.

[Union Yes]

5. That's why making the $250,000 threshhold is important.

Assuring people that anyone under $250k won't be affected at all by these tax increases.

Look to Oregon as an example. Granted , Oregon is a solid blue state. But their voters just voted to increase taxes on the wealthiest and only the wealthiest. So it somewhat proves that a tax increase on only the wealthy can pass the 'angry populist' sniff test.

You do bring up a valid point. Dems absolutely need to assure voters that taxes on middle class and poor people won't be raised. Or they would suffer the wrath of angry populists.

Thanks for adding to the debate.

Peace.

[T Wolf]

3. Democrats' unwillingness to use every weapon available to fight the enemy across the aisle

will be the death of us all.
and still, they do not fight. Worse, they capitulate.

[Union Yes]

6. The capitulation and squandering of political capital are sickening indeed. nt

[Winterblues]

4. In a sense this is already occurring

Alaska's Republican Governor wants to cut gasoline tax (about nine cents a gallon) but Alaska's lone Representative also a Republican told the Governor if he did that the Feds would cut off Highway funding to the state..Imagine that, Republicans that want to pay no taxes but still suck the Government tit..Who would have thunk it? :shrug:

[John Kerry VonErich]

7. It is a bad habit to take the eyes off state and local levels.

good call

[Ardent15]

8. Kick and Rec nt