Liberal Definition of "Tax Relief"

If you have an understanding of economics, and government, and need a laugh, read this editorial from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel called "Yes, it is property tax relief ".

In it, the editorial board of the newpaper explains that a 0.5% sales tax enacted 17 years ago was in fact, property tax relief. By their logic, since the money raised was spent, and didn't come from property taxes, it was "property tax relief". The flip side of the argument; if they hadn't collected the money, it wouldn't have been spent; isn't raised. The editorial board at that paper has issues with the idea of not taking and spending money.

The source of the argument is an advisory referendum slated for November to ask the voters to raise the sales tax again, so that property taxes won't have to go up to fund transportation and parks.

Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, who's vetoed just about every tax hike is against it, looking instead for spending cuts, including jobs, to keep both systems running. Walker is a conservative who took office after the board was caught in a pension scandal a while back. He keeps getting reelected because he keeps swimming upstream against a liberal board, and it's media backers to keep taxes low. He looks for efficiency, not another money grab.

Now, as far as the actual subjects of the tax, transit and parks, there is of course another solution to their funding issues, charge the people who use them more money. Add a quarter to bus fares, add a buck to the charges for park usage, like golf, swimming etc. The arguement against this is that having low cost parks and transit attracts people to a city.

While this is somewhat true having high taxes drives them away just as fast. The county already has high property taxes, and a higher than average sales tax because of it's 0.5% addition from 1991, plus another sales tax add-on that's paying for Miller Park. Oh yeah, and it's losing population.

Good luck to Walker and his allies in defeating this come November. Maybe a ballot box ass kicking will wake the rest of the Milwaukee County Board up to the fact that the residents there are sick of being taxed.

Read The Full Post!

Climate Security Act, Part Deux

Last week I wrote about the impending disaster that is the Climate Security Act as introduced by Joe Lieberman and John Warner.

Two editorials on the subject were recently written, one in the Chicago Tribune, one in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Both beat the drum for passage of the legislation, though at least the Trib is realistic in it's assessment that it won't pass this year. The Journal-Sentinel chose the title "The consequences are too dire to remain a bystander ", which should give you an idea of the slant of the writing.

Neither of the two papers editorial boards spelled out fully the EPA concerns over the amount of tax hiking the bill contains, or the warnings on GDP consequences. To the Trib's credit, they mentioned the tax hikes, and gave some idea where they should go. The Journal, on the other hand, chose to use cherry picked data to back up their title.

The Journal also points to a new federal report that lists the dire consequences. One of the notable, and to them noble, parts of the report is (as they put it) "Scientists produced the report by analyzing research from more than 1,000 publications, rather than conducting new research."

They evidently don't realize that's one of the reports biggest short comings. More, new research is needed, instead of a report that cherry picks evidence from old information. The problem is, new research would show what's been reported, by dozens of climatologists (and ignored by the environmental movement) over the last few years; the world hasn't gotten warmer in the last six years. That data can't be included in report on the "dire consequences" of global warming, because it shoots to hell the theory that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are turning the earth into an ever hotter oven.

If the Gore/IPCC theories on warming are right, six years of steady temperatures can't happen. Yet, they have, and the government report chose to ignore that fact.

While the Tribune was honest in the fact that the EPA calculated a 1.2 trillion dollar tax increase, they forgot the part about the .9-3.8% drop in GDP over the same period. Anyone who's looked at an economics course, even in passing, knows that raising taxes and dropping productivity is a great recipe for creating a recession. The Journal Sentinel, in parrotting the alarmist mantra, ignores any economic consequences of the legislation. Damn the economy, cure the planet's fever!!

To read the Journal's editorial, you would be convinced that if this legislation doesn't pass in the next 20 minutes, it may well be too late. I doubt it. The Tribune is a little more realistic, knowing it won't pass this year, and even if it does, the majority won't be big enough to override the certain veto.

Next year, as they put it, it has a better chance. That would be assuming that Barack Obama can win the election, and drag enough Democrats along to get 61 seats in the Senate. While McCain supports parts of the bill, I'm not convinced he'd sign it. I'm sure that if he signaled he would, that the fillibuster to keep it from his desk would be nearly historic.

Read The Full Post!