Friday, January 20, 2006

Tax Cuts "Cost" Who?

It seems that half the time I want to do a post on something, the Fabulous Jenna at Right Off the Shore has already covered it. So rather than blather on about Mark Pocan's recent post about upcoming bills that "cost" the state money, I'll just link to her.

Pocan is quick to criticize Republicans for wanting to "spend" money on tax cuts, when they are less willing to do so for new government programs, such as aid for heating bills. Obviously, tax cuts deprive the treasury of money it would otherwise have had, but they also create incentives for the private sector to pick up the slack and foster economic development. In the case Pocan cites, businesses would get a tax credit to pay to further the education of their employees. Those damn Republicans! (Check out his juvenile comments he leaves on this post - comforting to know 60,000 Madison residents are represented by a nine year old, huh?)

Creating a new government program costs the state money, but also institutes a new state entitlement that will rarely ever be cut or eliminated. So while it may help people with their heating bills in the short term, it creates a new class of people who are dependent on the government to pay their utilities, which will cause more strain on budgets in the future.

So not all "spending" is the same. Clearly, tax cuts "cost" the government, while new spending "costs" the taxpayers.

SIDE NOTE: Jenna is too good to be true - a 19 year old sassy college girl who's a conservative? There's an 80% chance she's really a fat, hairy FBI agent named "Hugh" on a sting operation against conservatives. When you see in the news that a conservative blogger wearing buttless leather chaps was arrested after being lured to a hunting shack in Lodi, you'll know I was right.

SIDE SIDE NOTE: Anybody seen my chaps?