Taxes -- Part II

You may look at the title of this post and go looking for "Taxes -- Part I"... It's not here yet. That one will contain what I think is the most important message Democrats can have on taxes. This is a secondary issue.

In last year's election, Bush won in the suburbs of big cities. Yes, if the Dems had done a better job of winning the heartland or pitching to NASCAR fans or reduced barriers to minority voting, etc., they might have pulled it out. But Bush won in the suburbs. In Colorado, where I live, the urban centers went blue, the rural counties went red, and the suburbs -- which benefit from the urban center and would not dream of moving away from it -- went red too.

Why is this? Why benefit from a city and then turn around and be in favor of cutting the government spending that city thrives on?

One reason may be that people who live in suburbs face higher costs for living there. (I'm actually trying to track down the new report NPR cited this morning, but that link will work for now.)

So, imagine. You move to the suburb of some city. The lawns are green, the neighbors are happy, crime is low, you can send the kids to the park on their own. But all the taxes and fees are higher than they were when it was just the two of you living in an apartment. Plus, since property taxes don't cover all the costs, you're being hit on every side with fees and fundraisers. It could start to feel just a little bit like the government is after you, couldn't it?

So, when someone comes along with a proposal to cut waste, lower taxes, cap property taxes, and force the State to rebate sales taxes... well that starts to sound pretty darn good. And if that person paints the picture that those cuts... well the money comes from keeping poor people from defrauding the system, and fat cat politicians from getting rich off their government salaries... that looks pretty acceptable.

Well, as this year's version of Federal spending cuts finally makes clear, it's not the waste of inefficiency that's getting cut, it's the "human waste." These cuts, and the imbalance of municipalities carrying suburbs which aren't paying their own way, hurt the poor.

An additional absurdity of this is the suburbs, at least in Denver, are home to our religious right, evangelical mega-churches. These are the churches with the financial wherewithal to sue the city for a presence in the annual holiday parade, but who then turn out votes for politicials who will cut the federal subsidy for food stamps. These are churches who are more concerned with preaching a gospel of compliance and obedience to their star pastor than are concerned with compassion. They will make no bones about being more concerned about people's souls than they are their bodies.... but maybe that's because their target demographic, those suburbanites, have things pretty good... if it weren't for all those darn costs.

So, it's a tangled web. And I haven't thought about this long enough to have a sound bite. But it seems to me we need to start talking about how those who enjoy sprawl need to start paying their own way and stop whining.

Incidentally, there's a parallel to this on the state level. Read more here.

"Greedy Oil Companies"

In the past quarter, while hurricanes were shutting down Gulf Coast oil wells and refineries, distribution was upset and Iraqii oil stopped flowing once again, while George Bush and his allies (including Pat Robertson) insisted on antagonizing Venezualian president Hugo Chavez, and continuing to ignore CAFTA rulings that would benefit Canada, gas prices soared. Exxon and other major US oil suppliers posted record profits. This week, those oil industry executives are appearing before congress to account for thier profits.

The attempt is being made to paint the oil companies as bad corporate citizens for taking a profit while people are hurting. And to punish those companies for their profits. This is bad, bad, bad.

Here's why:

• With record prices, all it would take for the industry to record record profits is a constant percentage of the sales price taken as profit. I don't think anyone would (or should) begrudge the industry that.
  
• This policy is clearly out of line with congressional response to others with administration connections who are benefitting from the tragedies of our time. Where's the proposed penalty on Halliburton, KBR, a dozen private security firms in Iraq, Carnival Cruise lines, Enron?
  
• We shouldn't offer the oil companies a way to get out from under the image of being dirty, rotten scoundrels. The way to reduce oil industry profits is to *buy less oil*. This would be so good for the country all the way around.
  

Oil prices are now falling. I never thought I'd be happy filling up at $2.27/gal as I did this morning; but it was a lot more comfortable than the $2.80 I had been paying. But even though I feel a relief at that, I think higher oil prices are a good thing.

• less driving = less pollution, lower health care expenses; = more walking, reduction of weight, lower health care costs, more talking to neighbors, less crime; = less US money going overseas, less oil money to fund terrorism.