We begin another Monday morning with enduring populist theatrics from St. Daniels and his Disciples, worthy of note only because it's an example of "good" populism, as opposed to the "bad" populism that occurs when the GOP spin machine did not originate the agit-prop and is not in a position to control it.
What's next, a Constitutional amendment banning bridge tolls? Sounds reasonal to me, so long as the objective is pandering to flat-earthers and cheapening the document, while ignoring problems in the real, non-partisan world.
Voters could add tax limits to Indiana constitution, by Lesley Stedman Weidenbener in the Courier-Journal.
"This type of subsidy is called a tax expenditure. How much are state tax expenditures in Indiana? I don’t know. I have not found a report on them. I did find reports on tax expenditures for Minnesota, California and New York. But then, we’re not known for transparency or for giving the public a clear understanding of our state’s finances.
ReplyDeleteNow Indiana is poised to put a new tax subsidy into its constitution. The property tax cap proposal is just more destructive legislative pandering to the prejudices of an ill-informed public. We already have substantial property tax subsidies for homeowners from the 35-percent homestead reduction in assessed value. That subsidy is so huge that the caps mean nothing to most homeowners. According to the Indiana Legislative Services Agency, of the $148 million “relief” from the caps in 2009, only 4 percent went to owner-occupants. Nearly 60 percent of the caps benefited the owners of small rental housing units, commercial apartments and second homes, with about 36 percent going to commercial and industrial properties. Farmers got virtually nothing from the caps.
Tax expenditures are a back-door means of subsidizing pet causes when legislatures don’t have the courage to spend money directly to achieve their goals. The various committees examining federal debt issues are all evaluating tax expenditures. Maybe the Indiana General Assembly could do likewise."
- Morton Marcus, Tax expenditures are back door to spending
Morton, hardly a voice for liberalism, makes a strong point about Indiana's transparency, or rather, lack thereof.
ReplyDeleteI think the "Prop 13" approach is enormously short-sighted, and bluegill makes an enormously important point about how this "constitutionalizes" a permanent subsidy.
The premise is just wrong. But when people don't know what's at stake, the ability to establish the premises is the winning play, and the GOP/Teabagger "No" meme is winning on this one.
It will take creative politics to ever reverse what's assumed to be a fait accompli, but nothing could be more stupid than to enshrine this particular tax subsidy into the constitution.
California's Prop 13 is the same thing. It has proven to be a disaster for that state's ability to be a world-class economy, and it will relegate Indiana to the backwaters of the world economy, too.
Read Jeff's comments above again. Though it's practically impossible to believe this doofus initiative will fail to pass, we can mark that day as the beginning of the end for local government flexibility to provide the services our people will DEMAND.
Now is the time to begin the process to prove how enormously ignorant this initiative is, and now is the time to start the long period of repealing this, too.