Wednesday, May 19, 2010

The Prop 100 Bellwether

It was said on this board that Prop 100 would be a bellwether. Perhaps it was. If so, it means that the electorate will choose to pay higher taxes rather than cut spending when popular programs are threatened. My (moderate) Republican wife supported Prop 100 and "thought everybody did." She was surprised to hear that Dr J opposed the eminently sensible proposition.

When taxes are discussed in a vacuum, we may all feel "taxed enough already." When said taxes are weighed against popular programs, once the electorate understands the budget realities, the Republican complaints ring rather hollow.

Newt Gingrich and John Boehner have recently predicted an avalanche; a 70+/- seat GOP pickup in November. After reviewing last night's returns, Joe Scarborough opined that the GOP will not be taking back the House or the Senate this year if they can't even win PA CD12 in this environment. "That is exactly the kind of district that is supposed to change hands in a wave election."

2 comments:

Jim G. said...

confusing passage of a relatively small sales tax increase with support for bloated government spending with will require confiscatory taxes... is confusing.

Baxter said...

Doc -

You are confused because the foundation of your argument is wrong. You said Prop 100 would be a bellwether and it was. It didn't just pass - it passed two-to-one. The people recognize that billions have already been cut from state services and they are shoring up the budget on the revenue side.

"Confiscatory" taxes? Were you making a distinction about sales taxes? What's with the use of that word?

Your comment supports what I have been saying all along. The Tea Party folks are not particularly concerned about balancing budgets. The priority is lower taxes no matter the context. As Terry says, you guys want "your money for nothing and your chicks for free."