From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: or.politics
Subject: Re: Taxes (was: H. ROSS PEROT ON THE BALLOT)
Summary: Why we should pay less, and why we need more local control.
Keywords: fairness, inefficiency, bureaucratic stupidity
Date: 6 Apr 92 04:24:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: bug.960
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: or
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR.

In article <1992Apr1.005000.8060@ohsu.edu> hersh@ohsu.edu writes:
>In article <958@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>>uunet!sequent!ether!stevef	   . . .  	The only fair tax is no tax!
>            		                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Oh really?

Yes really.  I suppose I should be used to it by now, but it never ceases to
amaze me how some people's own ideas keep them from reading and
understanding someone else's.  Where did I say there should be no taxes or no
government?  All I meant by the quoted bit above is that taxes are unfair .
. . and they are!  Saying that there is no such thing as a fair tax (for
general government services) does not mean that there should be no tax, just
that you aren't going to come up with a fair one.*

Perhaps you missed it, but in the last presidential election, that question
of tax fairness came up a lot, especially from Jesse Jackson.  Our Governor
has spent a lot of time trying to convince us that our state tax system
needs to be restructured to make it more fair (and to bring in more money).
No doubt the question of fairness will come up again.  Well life isn't fair
and neither are taxes.  If you really are interested in fairness, taxes
should be minimized.  That was the point of my signature.

"In 1920 government spending at the federal, state, and local levels
accounted for only 10 percent of National Income.  By 1950 that number had
grown to 26 percent -- a figure that would have appalled the Founders.
Today, after a decade of conservative presidents, government spending has
risen to more than 43 percent of National Income.  Clearly, something must
be done, if we expect to preserve our prosperity and our liberty."
	- Edward H. Crane, of the CATO Institute, 1990.

I'm not for abolishing taxes or government, but I do think both need to be
cut.  The growth in all levels of government can't continue.  We must stop
it before all of our freedom is gone.

I would point out that in 1950, when total government spending was just
slightly more than half what it is now, we had roads, schools, and
libraries.  And in some ways they were better then than they are now.
Moreover, we were spending more on defense as a percent of GNP.[1]  Still we
are told that our troubles are that we are too stingy and aren't paying
enough taxes.  That isn't the problem!  We are spending too much, on the
wrong things, and by the wrong level of government.


* If you are having trouble seeing this, consider: most people think it is
fair that we should pay a percentage (or even a progressive rate) on our
income for government.  The more money you make, the more you pay because
presumably the easier it is for you to pay more.  But why is this fair?  The
rich get no more government services -- in fact, less -- why should they
have to pay more?  You bust your butt to make more money just so you can pay
more taxes to make up for those who don't -- this is fair?  Under this
standard of fairness, the fairest tax would be a head tax, and/or paying for
services as you use them.  Why this is unfair is left as an exercise for the
reader.

>Did you go to a public school?  Or perhaps a public university?

Yes, both.  Although I send my daughter to a private school for a couple of
years, she is in a public school now (we moved to a better district), and I
am on the local school board.  My experience has given me some insight into
what is wrong with our schools and what to do about it.  And guess what, the
problem isn't that we aren't paying enough for education*.

I worked in California for four years (I'm a native Oregonian) and one of my
daughters went to the first and second grades in the public schools down
there.  Out of 32 children in her second grade class, 8 failed to be sent on
to the third grade, including her (her big problem was math -- a subject she
now gets A's in).  We took her out and sent her to a Catholic school and
even though there where only 16 in her class there, the total cost was less
than half what the taxpayers paid to send her public school.  The difference
in the quality of education was just as marked.

So if money isn't the problem, what is?  What did that Catholic school have
that the public school didn't?  I can sum it up in one word: choice.  Or
more fundamentally: freedom.

I am on the school board of a small country school district (Pratum,
district 50, located east of Salem), but in many important ways neither I
nor the other four members of the board, nor the teachers, nor the parents
of the children, nor the taxpayers in the district have any say on how the
school is run or how the students are taught.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not
saying we have no control; I'm saying we don't have enough.  We are told
what to do and how by the state and federal governments.

I could carry on about this all day, but I'll give just two examples, one
from the state, and one from the federal government.  Neither of these
directly effect education as such, but both affect what it costs, and both
exemplify why the state and federal governments should stay out of such
matters:

 --->	Asbestos:  The main part of Pratum school was built before
	asbestos was commonly used as a building material; an
	addition was built after.  Nonetheless we are required by
	the federal government to have the air in the school
	monitored once a year for asbestos fibers.  They have never
	found any, but every year we must pay someone to do the
	test and send the paper work off to some bureaucrat.
	Great huh?

	Two years ago (before I was on the board), a more thorough
	required search revealed a gasket between the burner and
	the firebox in the furnace *might* be asbestos.  In fact,
	it probably wasn't, but it was determined that it was better
	to remove it than find out.  Regulations require that a
	certified contractor hang plastic, put up air monitoring and
	purification equipment, and while wearing what might as well
	be a space suit, remove the asbestos.  You'd think it was
	plutonium.  All that to remove a gasket that was doing its job
	and not hurting anyone for 20 years.  Estimated cost: $1,500.
	Well that is a lot of money our small district, and the board
	decided to simply do it and not tell anyone.  I helped my dad
	(who was on the board then) do it.

	Other districts haven't been so lucky.  Down in California,
	tens of millions dollars were spent removing asbestos.  Whole
	schools were closed for years at a time to do it.  Now they
	say that there are different kinds of asbestos and most of it
	is not that dangerous (most people who looked into this have
	known this all along).  And it is safer not to remove it, but
	to simply cover it over with something, like paint.  Meanwhile
	the air quality samples go on every year, and probably will
	until the end of time.

 --->	Busing: You city dwellers may not know it, but some of the
	rural districts don't provide transportation.  The parents
	in my district have decided they'd rather their tax dollars
	went to actual education than to busing (I know . . . the
	board has asked).  Well that choice was taken away from them.
	One of the 97 bills affecting primary education passed by the
	last session of the legislature and signed by the governor
	requires all school districts to provide transportation for all
	students living more than a mile from school (1.5 miles for
	high school students).  Because of the way the roads are layed
	out in our district, it would very expensive to run a bus.  We
	looked into the cost of buying a van and hiring a driver,
	hiring a busing company, or simply paying the parents to drive
	their kids (we found out that is legal).  By far the cheapest
	option was the latter.  So the board called a meeting with the
	parents (most of which came), we explained the options and
	asked them what they preferred.  The parents decided to do
	what they've always done, just now they will be paid a token
	amount for it.  BTW, to sweeten the deal, the state is picking
	up 70% of the cost of transportation.**  If that isn't a 
	formula for waste I don't know what is: the people spending
	the money and receiving the benefit are insulated from 70%
	of the cost and responsibility.  Think that will encourage
	frugality in districts that already have busing?

This should be obvious, but students are individuals.  What works well for
one student, won't work at all for another.  Moreover, school districts
across the varied regions of this state are also different.  The needs and
life styles of parents are different in Malheur county than they are in
Portland.  Teacher's must be free to taylor the curriculum to the needs of
her students.  Administrators and school boards need to be free to meet the
needs of their district.  And, ideally, parents should be free to find a
school that meets the needs of their children.  That is what that Catholic
school had, and what our public schools sorely lack.

But instead of moving in that direction, our state leaders are taking us in the
other.  More regulation, a new common curriculum, and cutting the number of
school districts from 297 to 177.  Good thinking.

* We pay more per student for primary education than any nation in the World
except Switzerland.

** Does this sound like the actions of a state strapped for cash because of
measure 5?  Consider that as Babs tries to talk you into new or higher taxes.

>Do you use public parks and roadways?

Yes, and I pay for them with my taxes.  And surprise!  I approve.

>Do you advocate compassionate care for the poor, the elderly, the disabled?

Well, to some extent I believe the indigent should be cared for, but we have
gone way beyond that.  I am as compassionate and care about people as much
as anyone, but I am deeply suspicious of people who talk about being
"compassionate" with other people's money.  Forcing your neighbors to pay
for your compassion is a false compassion I don't have a lot of respect for.

>Do you care for maintaining a clean environment?

Sure, but I'm not sure why this should involve a lot of new government
spending.

>I am no touchy-feely liberal, but I recognize the need for government.  It
>should be made better and more efficient, absolutely, but it is necessary.

Again, who said otherwise?

You said government should be made more efficient -- what an understatment!
Michael Kinsley (sp?), a well known liberal commentator, just reported that
for every dollar the taxpayers send to the federal government to help the
indigent, less than 30 cents actually gets to them.  Are you happy with
that?  The problem is not just that the federal government has too much
red-tape or is top heavy with management or is using old inefficient methods
and equipment or that the government employees aren't trying or working hard
enough.  Oh, I'm sure that some or all of the above are factors and with
effort we could probably improve these factors and make the federal
government more efficient than it is now.  But none of these, or all of them
together, is the fundamental problem.  No matter how efficiently you run the
federal government, no matter what you do, having the federal government run
welfare, or involved in education will be inefficient.  These are local
issues.  The fundamental problem is that the federal government simply
should not be involved in these things.  It just makes no sense for us to
send our money to Washington so that they can send a little of it back to
us.

When the federal government makes rules for welfare or for education, they
must apply to the whole country, from Alaska to Florida (and most people
forget, American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands, etc.).  It should surprise no
one that conditions are different in Allakaket, Alaska (where my Aunt and
Uncle are teachers) than they are in Orlando, Florida.  Rules, policy, and
services that make sense in New York City, may be profoundly stupid in
Aripeka, Florida, or even Miami (or more to the point: Pratum, Oregon).  The
federal government simply can't take all these differences into account.
Federal welfare and many other programs shouldn't be reformed, they should
be abolished in favor state or local programs.

And the problem isn't just a question of efficiency.  Too much of government
spending isn't just inefficient, it is counter-productive.  We have spent
trillions of dollars since the 60's to poverty, teenage pregency and other
social problems, but I can help but notice that much of the progress has
been negative.  One of the factors you "compassionate" liberals invariably
neglect is that people *do* respond to the incentives before them.  We need
to stop being surprised that when we pay young women to have children out of
wedlock, an ever increasing number taken us up on the deal.

[1] I don't have exact figures for 1950, but in 1960, total defense
expendentures were 9.5% of GNP.  If I remember correctly the figure for 1950
was about the same.  By 1988 that figure was 6.1%.  The highest it ever got
during the 80's was in 1986 at 6.5%.  These figures are from pg 330 of the
"Statistical Abstract of the United States 1990".  Before someone blasts me,
I think defense spending should go down and I'm glad it did, but don't tell
me that all our troubles are because we spend too much on defense and not
enough social programs.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef		I am the NRA		  Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef	   . . .  	The only fair tax is no tax!
Newsgroups: or.politics