From: thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Thomas Rush)
Subject: Re: RAISE THOSE TAXES AGAIN
Reply-To: thomasr@cpqhou.UUCP (Thomas Rush)
Organization: Compaq Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 18:10:00 GMT

In article <randall.723847953@seashore> randall@informix.com (Randall Rhea) writes:
>jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
>
>>the primary beneficiaries of local infrastructure are local residents
>>and businesses.  Therefore it is *their* responsibility to maintain
>>them in a way that meets their needs.  I don't think it is economically
>>wise to socialize the cost of something, simply because their may
>>be secondary beneficiaries.  
>>[...] The big trend in business is
>>to decentralize and distribute autonomy.  States and localities are in
>>a much better position to determine what is right for them than bureaucrats
>>in Washington.  
>
>This is a nice idea in theory, but in reality it does not work.
>State and local governments do not necessarily do what it best
>for the localities that support.  They are run by politicians
>that don't get re-elected if they raise taxes to support roads.
>As soon as a legislator votes in favor of raising taxes, guess
>what happens?  His/her opponent in the next election plasters
>the mailboxes and airwaves with smears on his/her "tax and
>spend" ways.   Yes, the Federal government has the same problem,
>but the problem is worse in local goverment.

How many misconceptions can be fit into one paragraph (see above)?

Of course state and local governments don't always do what is best
for the locality.  Neither does the federal government always do
what is best for the nation.  Given a choice between local or
federal control, I'll choose local, thank you.  Locally elected
officials are much more accountable: I like that.

In addition, having the funds collected and allocated locally 
removes one more layer (at least) of government interference --
the feds don't need to get their hands in the pie.

Don't you think that when people want roads built, they'll find the
funds at the local level to get them built, if they know uncle won't 
be paying for it?  And what you gain in the process (aside from the
lower overhead) is no more roads built only because Sam's picking up
80% of the cost (cf. the Houston Grand Parkway project).

I _want_ people in government to be smeared, defeated, shamed, and
dishonored for their tax and spend ways.  So far, I see all too 
little evidence of this happening at the state or national level.

The last point, hidden in your paragraph, is that the voters are
stupid (to be so unaware of the difference between wasted and
well-spent funds), but that they suddenly become astute when they
step in to the voting booth to elect their representatives.  

>Local governments are also much more likely to be corrupt.  (an 
>important argument in the Federalist Papers)  I realize that
>there is also some corruption in Washington, but it is nothing
>like what you get in some state and local governments.  If you
>don't believe me, you have never dealt with state and local
>governments.

Let's see some figures on this, please.  I'm unimpressed by vague
references to "much more" and "nothing like."

>Another problem is that an economically depressed area will
>always be economically depressed under your system.  Such areas
>will never have the money to build the infrastucture they need
>to attract and support business, and without businesses, they
>will never have the money, and so on and so on.  Such areas need
>help.  They cannot do it on their own.  Who else can help
>but the Feds?  No one- no one else has the money.  I don't
>see too many private companies building freeways and sewers.

As opposed to the system we are under now, where all areas are
becoming economically depressed.

If they ain't got the money, they ain't got the money.  Problem
is, when the feds get involved, there's a net loss in funds 
available for road building, and a net gain in projects that 
are done without a real need.

As a counter argument to the "only Feds can do it" argument, 
consider Europe.  There is a whole continent with countries of 
various sizes and wealths, from Monaco to Portugal to France.
They all seem to get their roads built just fine without funds
from outside their borders.  I think our states could do as well.

If it costs more to get roads built in Alaska, that's part of the 
cost of living in Alaska -- gas costs more there too.  If a state
is particularly efficient at building roads, then its taxes can
be lower, and there's a direct benefit to its citizens.


thomas rush			compaq computer corporation	
thomasr@cpqhou.compaq.com	their employee, not their opinions.
By my belief that government should be minimalized, I swear to oppose
the unrequested intrusion of government into the lives of individuals
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton