As reported by Michael Cooper of The New York Times, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, Chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, recently addressed that group to discuss ways states have chosen to come out of the depths of the recent recession and how different their approaches are to those states controlled by Republican governors. I took particular interest in this story because the Internet is awash with political rhetoric about how every state controlled by Republican governors has improved their state treasury while reducing private sector unemployment (conveniently ignoring the role Federal money has played in allowing them to do so). Interesting to note are the facts raised during the Conference that illustrate the two divergent political models in existence between the ideologies of the Democrats and the Republicans. Two states serve this model well. In Mr. Cooper's report, Maryland, under a Democratic governor and Statehouse, chose to raise income taxes on its top earners in an effort to maintain budgets relating to state services and education. Kansas on the other hand, run by a Republican governor and Statehouse, chose instead to cut income taxes in an effort to make it more "competitive" in the chase for business and potential employers. Although Florida does not have an income tax, the Republican governor and Statehouse have passed successive budgets slashing education, public employment and public sector benefits in an effort to also become "more competitive" for business and potential employers.
It is interesting to note that the differences between the two states could not be more apparent. According to Moody's Investors Service, Maryland's economy has stabilized and its tax revenues have solidified its state budget. Moody's rated Maryland at the top of its credit ratings. On the other hand, Kansas, according to Moody's, will suffer "dramatic revenue loss" and the potential loss of its credit rating. Kansas took the tax cutting approach because they felt it was losing business and related "opportunities" to be more "competitive" with surrounding states having lower tax rates. GOP Gov, Sam Brownback indicated that the loss of revenue has been dramatic at approximately $800 Million, and that additional cuts to social services and education may be necessary. Like Florida, GOP leaders believe continued cuts are the answer to lead to higher prosperity somewhere down the line (while businesses enjoy tax advantages now). In Pennsylvania GOP Governor Tom Corbitt has initiated a policy of trading benefits for the disabled in favor of tax cuts for business. And the beat goes on. Either way, the dilemma facing our state governments in these economic times is whether they should continue to cut taxes on the theory of the "if come" basis for business and "job creators" or whether becoming more "competitive" actually diminishes the quality of services and ultimately the lives of its citizens.
But whose "quality of life" do we measure? The one that is based upon the life of a business or the life of an actual, living and breathing American? After all, what does "Quality of Life" really mean?
It is interesting to note that the differences between the two states could not be more apparent. According to Moody's Investors Service, Maryland's economy has stabilized and its tax revenues have solidified its state budget. Moody's rated Maryland at the top of its credit ratings. On the other hand, Kansas, according to Moody's, will suffer "dramatic revenue loss" and the potential loss of its credit rating. Kansas took the tax cutting approach because they felt it was losing business and related "opportunities" to be more "competitive" with surrounding states having lower tax rates. GOP Gov, Sam Brownback indicated that the loss of revenue has been dramatic at approximately $800 Million, and that additional cuts to social services and education may be necessary. Like Florida, GOP leaders believe continued cuts are the answer to lead to higher prosperity somewhere down the line (while businesses enjoy tax advantages now). In Pennsylvania GOP Governor Tom Corbitt has initiated a policy of trading benefits for the disabled in favor of tax cuts for business. And the beat goes on. Either way, the dilemma facing our state governments in these economic times is whether they should continue to cut taxes on the theory of the "if come" basis for business and "job creators" or whether becoming more "competitive" actually diminishes the quality of services and ultimately the lives of its citizens.
But whose "quality of life" do we measure? The one that is based upon the life of a business or the life of an actual, living and breathing American? After all, what does "Quality of Life" really mean?
RSS Feed
