Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Building a Better Ohio

OHIO FORUM

By Amy Hanauer

Dear Governor Kasich,

As you begin your term, it is a perfect moment to rethink priorities and map new paths. With high unemployment, big budget shortfalls, and continued erosion of our industrial base, our problems might feel overwhelming.

But during and after our toughest economic time – the Great Depression – Americans created Social Security, wove our safety net, established unemployment insurance and encouraged other innovations that generated the world’s first real middle class, with four decades of improvements to prosperity, equity, living standards, education levels, and life spans. Later we passed the Clean Water Act in response to the burning Cuyahoga, enacted civil rights, and committed resources to public schools and colleges.

Throughout the 20th century, we moved forward. At times far less prosperous than today, we still invested in education, the environment, infrastructure, workers, and families. The result was a state with greater equity, more entryways to the middle class, and cleaner, safer communities.

Good public policy has the power to increase education, productivity, safety, and security. But bad policy can do the opposite. In the past generation, we allowed economic inequality to reach Depression-level heights. We ignored manufacturing and let job quality deteriorate. We deregulated, allowing toxic mortgages, loans, and food to be marketed and sold to Ohio families.

We watched suburbs gobble green space, resulting in an ever-greater need for polluting and imported fossil fuels. We let cities, counties, and states engage in mutually self-destructive competition to slash taxes, starving public budgets everywhere.

Governor Kasich, you can recommit to what made Ohio and America great. At times far less prosperous than today, we nonetheless invested in education, the environment, infrastructure, workers and families. The result was a state with greater equity, more entryways to the middle-class, and cleaner, safer communities. The 20th century moved us forward. Despite new challenges, we must build on past accomplishments, not let them erode. Here are a half dozen ways you can lead us.

1. Restore revenues: Together with other changes, the 2005 remake of the tax system is costing Ohio $2.1 billion in annual net revenue, straining our ability to provide security, education, and basic needs. With the legislature, you can restore the highest income tax bracket, get rid of exemptions and abatements, and ensure that the new corporate tax system generates the revenue that the old one did.
2. Shrink some spending: Most of what the public sector does is needed, and the fiction that we can have a better state while delivering less is just that. Roads, transit, schools, universities, and a safety net cost money and enrich our lives. But some policies cost more and deliver less: sentencing non-violent, low-level offenders to costly prisons, giving new tax abatements despite now-low corporate tax rates, and shifting elderly residents from more economical at-home care to nursing homes. You’ve voiced interest in fixing some of these – we can help.
3. Invest in energy: You are right to support the advanced energy standard, which is creating new markets for Ohio products while reducing emissions. You can also commit to commuter transit. Workers and employers rely on these systems, which vitalize cities and reduce energy use. Ohio could have a great supply chain in transit manufacturing. Also, most buildings remain inefficient so you could put Ohioans back to work on building retrofits. We’d be happy to provide a toolkit for how to renovate communities.
4. Advance assets: Through legislation and referendum Ohioans tried to eradicate exploitative payday loans but these lenders still prey on poor families. Get rid of payday lending once and for all, put in place a state Earned Income Credit to help working families, and establish some structures to help families build savings.
5. Target training, work on work: Too many Ohioans are out of work, as you have rightly lamented. Work with your friend Speaker John Boehner to ensure more federal aid for re-employing Ohio. Retain public workers -- they fill important needs while stabilizing our economy. Strategize with employers and unions about how best to retrain workers for future jobs and guarantee job quality. One first step – bolstering labor law enforcement would improve workers’ lives and ensure that Ohio gets all tax revenue owed by employers.
6. Educate: As you know, about 90 percent of Ohio children attend public schools. Provide solid funding, support innovation and teacher training, and strengthen the public system so that it works for all Ohio students. “Ohio has tremendous parks, neighborhoods, lakes, libraries, and people,” Hanauer concludes. “Governor Kasich, what you do will determine whether these assets thrive or wither.”

Ohio has tremendous parks, neighborhoods, lakes, libraries, and people. What you do will determine whether these assets thrive or wither. Good luck!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hanauer is executive director of Policy Matters Ohio.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2011 by Ohio Forum. 1/11

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Do the Right Thing

AMERICAN FORUM

By: Lt. Gen. Dirk Jameson (ret.)

At this time of thanksgiving, we are reminded how people came together, shared resources, shared opinions and worked together to form and protect our nation.

During my long career in the US Air Force I was at the very sharp end of the spear that defended our nation, rising to deputy commander-in-chief and chief of staff of U.S. Strategic Command.

During that time, going back to the Reagan years and before, the U.S. methodically and relentlessly carved out a process for understanding and reducing strategic nuclear arms -- in order increase our national security.

Many have forgotten or did not live through those times during the Cold War when the numbers of nuclear weapons and delivery platforms were escalating at a tremendous rate and costs were ratcheting up at an ever-increasing pace.

It was courageous of political leaders in those perilous times to begin talking to our heavily-armed enemy, the Soviet Union, to find paths to lower numbers of nuclear weapons, lower cost burdens, and greater security for our country and the world.

Since those efforts took root, real progress has been made, the numbers of very deadly weapons are dramatically lower, costs have dropped, and our security vis-à-vis the former Soviet states is far stronger.

Today we have a good treaty ready to take force and continue the progress on numbers, costs, and national security.

The New START Treaty that is presently before the Senate contains verification and transparency measures—that will allow our inspectors inside Russian strategic nuclear facilities, as well as create stability between our forces.

Without New START, we will reintroduce uncertainty into the U.S.-Russia strategic relationship. Over the length of the Cold War, we learned that uncertainty breeds mistrust, costly worst-case planning, and risk. New START reduces uncertainty by locking in the size of each side’s arsenal and providing for onsite verification. The resulting improved strategic stability that will come with New START will make it possible for both sides to pursue agreements on tactical nuclear weapons and proliferation.

Without ratification, we will be left with the requirement to spend our limited resources and money on weapons we don’t need to counter a force structure that could be verifiably reduced under the treaty.

Without New START our national security institutions will need to devote more resources to monitoring Russian strategic forces, by satellite and other means; we will also have to force- plan for scenarios we should not need to. This will involve spending money where we don’t need, and worse, it could mean taking away money from programs and systems that our war-fighters actually do need.

What stands in the way? An ever more vague, disingenuous, and ill-advised raising of the bar for political support. The very same questions that have been asked and answered about missile defense, verification, and stewardship of the nuclear enterprise are brought up again and again in the face of iron clad analysis and billions of added dollars. These “red herrings” are presented wrapped in ever more demanding commitments from future legislators that no arms control treaty past or future could meet.

As this treaty is pushed off with no deadline and no path to prevent an already developing cooling of U.S., Russia relationships, Cold War nuclear realities echo in my head saying to Senators, “Do the right thing!”
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lt. Gen. Jameson (ret.) is a former deputy commander and chief and chief of staff, U.S. Strategic Command who had responsibility for all ICBM strategic nuclear forces. He is a member of the Consensus for American Security http://www.securityconsensus.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by American Forum. 11/10

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Remember the Mortgage Crisis on Election Day

MISSISSIPPI FORUM

By Lynn Evans

For anyone planning to vote in the November elections, “The Big Short” by Michael Lewis should be required reading.

Author of “The Blind Side,” on which the Oscar-winning film was based, Lewis went to Wall Street to try to understand the causes of the great Subprime Mortgage Meltdown of 2007-2008 and the resulting government bail-out that has so angered the American public.

As Lewis makes clear, there were few people who understood what was happening inside the world of mortgage investments, but they were not the people in charge of either the investments themselves or the government and ratings oversight agencies that were supposed to protect ordinary consumers.

The story begins with the Shadow Banking Industry that sprang up after banking deregulation during the Reagan years. Local banks no longer hold the mortgages in their communities like Jimmie Stewart’s bank did in “It’s a Wonderful Life.” They sell them to bigger banks based on what money can be expected to be earned in the future, given the credit worthiness of the borrower and the worth of the property. Since ordinary families’ incomes have not kept up with inflation over the past two decades, refinancing to get the equity out of their homes has been the way many Americans have chosen to maintain their standard of living or pay off big expenses. This lending was based on the assumption that housing prices would always go up and Americans would always pay their mortgages. Therefore investing in mortgages was, as the British say, “safe as houses.”

Wall Street investment banks figured out that they could “bundle” these individual mortgages and sell them as big investments, again based on the assumptions that housing prices would always go up and never go down, and that mortgages were based on real worth. The bundled investments were called Mortgage Bonds, and they were highly rated by Moody’s and S&P. The SEC concluded this month that Moody’s, at least, used a flawed ratings model in calculating how safe these mortgage bonds were.

According to Lewis, most of the bond raters had no idea what was even in the mortgage bonds they were rating AA and AAA. They, too, were sold on the notion that the bonds were all “safe as houses.”

Seeing what great money they were making off mortgage bonds, investment banks realized they could create even more bonds by inserting more and more subprime loans into their big bundles of mortgage loans. This sent eager local agents out scurrying for borrowers, resulting in some of the unbelievable stories Lewis relates like the New York nanny with five mortgages. The eventual result was that banks all over the world owned mortgage bonds consisting of more and more subprime mortgages presented as solid investments.

In the end, too few of the investment bankers and hedge fund managers who created the feeding frenzy that led to the subprime meltdown were held accountable for their actions. Under the bail-out program set up by Bush, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson used money from Congress to prop up the biggest investors in the subprime business, like AIG and Citigroup. And, as we all know now, too many of those institutions turned around and paid huge bonuses to the very employees who either dreamed up the increasingly exotic mortgage instruments or ignored their risk.

The American people need and deserve a federal government that has the enforcement power to make sure everyday people are not made the dupes of the big banks and corporations whose one purpose is to make lots of money. We need to stop blaming government for creating a crisis which was in fact created by a lack of government oversight. And for those who don’t get that yet, the assigned reading is “The Big Short.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evans is an activist and writer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by Mississippi Forum 10/10

MISSOURI FORUM

By: Jason Whitaker

Our heroic service members are in harm’s way each day they wear the uniform of the United States military. Around the globe, they defend our national security interests so that we can be safer here at home. America’s fighting men and women signed up for this because they care for our country and want to keep it stronger for future generations.

Yet in the face of this enormous sacrifice, our troops encounter perils beyond wildest imagination, threats that undoubtedly can and must be prevented. In order to make this happen, Senators must start leading and work to end our addiction to oil.

Our forces deployed the Middle East are all too familiar with IEDs – Improvised Explosive Devices – which have killed many military personnel and countless numbers of innocent civilians. My lieutenant was a victim of such an IED during one of our convoys in Afghanistan. His Humvee exploded just two vehicles in front of me. And the newest, and most deadly of these weapons are called EFPs, or Explosively Formed Projectiles. Able to penetrate our best armor, these roadside bombs are brutally effective.

These new, dangerous weapons are coming into Iraq from oil-rich Iran. In fact, for every
$1 increase in the price of a gallon of gas, Iran makes another $1.5 billion to use against our soldiers. The connection between energy, our national security, and the sacrifices made by our military couldn’t be more obvious. Our reliance on their vast oil reserves enriches the extremists who directly threaten our military and way of life.

Aside from the direct link our dependence on oil has on the deaths of American and allied soldiers, former CIA director James Woolsey has put it in another context worth mentioning: “Except for our own Civil War, this [the war on terror] is the only war that we have fought where we are paying for both sides. We pay Saudi Arabia $160 billion for its oil, and $3 or $4 billion of that goes to the Wahhabis, who teach children to hate.” In fact, in 2008 we sent $1.19 billion per day to some of our most dangerous enemies for
energy. These are unstable, unfriendly regimes – and they’re funding terrorist organizations across the globe with our gas money. The funds are funneled through shady front groups in Saudi Arabia and end up as AK-47 rounds being fired by the Taliban in Kunar where I served. They end up in increasingly dangerous and extremist
Nigeria. And they kill men and women in Iraq in the form EFPs from Iran.

The Department of the Defense, the CIA, and the National Intelligence Council have all noted that energy security and climate change pose significant strategic threats to America’s strength and safety. From the vulnerability of our oil supply, to the threat of weak nations destabilized by climate disruptions, we are threatened by our continued use of dirty energy from dangerous places.

The U.S. Senate has so far refused to debate comprehensive legislation that would address these threats, and that is why I call on Senators McCaskill and Bond to show leadership and bring this issue to the floor. It is time for our Senators to sever the flow of money landing in the hands of our enemies by working to pass legislation that would create clean, secure American energy. Right now, they have an opportunity to join members of both parties in support of comprehensive climate and energy legislation that would begin to free us from oil dependence, strengthen Missouri’s economy, and prevent the long-term impact of climate change. From both sides of the aisle and all parts of the country, veterans are speaking out in support of clean energy legislation – not because of environmental reasons, but because our dependence on foreign energy and carbon pollution pose a threat to our national security.

Our brave men and women in our armed forces have displayed unparalleled signs of courage and conviction in the face of adversity. Lawmakers in Washington can honor their commitment and stand with the men and women of our armed forces to prevent more oil-funded attacks. This is not rocket science; it is an issue of paramount importance to support our troops, defend our nation and de-fund our enemies. After all our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have done for America, this is the least we can ask of our Senators.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Whitaker is a former U.S. Army Staff Sergeant.
Use of his military rank, job titles, and photographs in uniform does not imply endorsement by the United States Army or the Department of Defense."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Missouri Forum. 9/10

GEORGIA FORUM

By Major General Paul D. Eaton

Through repeated tours at Fort Benning and eventually serving as its Commanding General, I got to know Georgia and Georgians pretty well. First, among the places I have served, my neighbors around Fort Benning display a pride, patriotism and national security awareness that helped me in my mission at the Home of the Infantry. And they are natural allies to those of us in uniform who devote our careers to America’s national security, our No. 1 priority while on active duty, and in retirement.

Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson will soon have the opportunity to protect America’s national security by voting in favor of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia, which would further a process started by Ronald Reagan to verifiably reduce U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals to 1,550 warheads and 700 deployed launchers. The New START Treaty also ensures strategic stability by reinstating strong verification regime that allow U.S. inspectors, for the first time, to peer inside Russian missiles and track Russian warheads with unique identifiers.

As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has written, “The New START Treaty has the unanimous support of America's military leadership -- to include the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all of the service chiefs, and the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, the organization responsible for our strategic nuclear deterrent.”

Recently, I joined a group of retired flag officers, including Lt. Gen. Dirk Jameson, former commander of all ICBM units and Deputy Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, in expressing my support for the New START accord. Like Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, we understand that the New START Treaty is essential to our national security.

For over 40 years, the U.S. has pursued strategic stability through an arms control process that has been vigorously supported by Republicans and Democrats alike. The New START Treaty both continues these established principles and tailors them to meet the security needs of the 21st century. In today's security environment we must protect against the dual threats of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism. With the combined nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia accounting for nearly 95 percent of the world's nuclear weapons, the first step to nuclear security begins with New START.

The original START agreement expired on December 5, 2009, leaving the U.S., at present, without the intrusive inspection and verification regime that allowed U.S. inspectors to monitor Russia’s nuclear arsenal for so many years. The U.S. Senate should work to reinstate these verification provisions by ratifying the New START accord and getting U.S. boots back on the ground as soon as possible. Without these measures, our Strategic Command loses its access to Russia’s nuclear forces and the predictability between the world’s two largest nuclear powers is called into question.

Some have argued that we’ve not yet fully explored the treaty. That’s not true. The Senate has held an extensive series of hearings and meticulously reviewed the treaty and its accompanying documents. Throughout this process, serious national security experts of all ideological stripes have voiced strong support for the New START treaty. James Schlesinger, Brent Scowcroft, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Stephen Hadley, Colin Powell and scores of others have all expressed strong support for this treaty.

Senators Chambliss and Isakson would do well to recognize that when they cast their vote for New START, they will be faced with a choice: strengthen our national security with a vote in favor of the New START Treaty, or choose to ignore the advice of our nation’s most trusted voices and expose the nation to greater risk due to loss of verification of Russian behaviors and intent. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, George H.W. Bush’s National Security Advisor, previously warned Senators that a rejection of this treaty would throw our nuclear policies into a “state of chaos.”

The support for New START from our military is clear. The national security benefits of New START are clear. So is the choice. Senators Chambliss and Isakson must support the New START Treaty and choose a safer Georgia and a stronger America.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major General Eaton served more than 30 years in the United States Army, including combat and post-combat assignments in Iraq, Bosnia and Somalia and command of the Army Infantry Training Center in Fort Benning, GA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by Georgia Forum. 8/10

MISSOURI FORUM

By Jane H. Aiken

Incarceration rates in Missouri are 12 percent higher than the nation. We also spend 6.8 percent of our state budget on the cost of incarceration.

Currently there are over 30,000 men and women in Missouri’s prisons. Reducing that number would substantially reduce costs so we can better spend that money to support the thousands in the state who find themselves out of work, hungry and homeless.

Governors all over the nation are looking hard for ways to stop unnecessary, costly incarceration. Absent some kind of expansive legislative action, this cost-saving strategy rests solely in the hands of the governor. The concern, appropriately, is that if we release these prisoners, will they commit new crimes?

So how can we reduce the prison population, while at the same time, protect Missourians?

The single best indicator of determining whether a person will commit another crime after leaving prison is age. Older prisoners pose a significantly lower risk of recidivism if released.

In addition to their lower risk, older prisoners impose much higher costs on the system as maintenance and medical costs, on average, are two to three times that of a younger prisoner.

Let’s look at a 40-year old prisoner. The prisoner did not have a criminal record before the present offense. The prisoner has already served considerable time and has an excellent institutional record. The prisoner has made use of the rehabilitative, educational and skills-building training provided in the prison. The prisoner has a supportive family and job prospects upon release. It’s easy to see that the prisoner described here (while admittedly rare) should be considered for release to save us all money.

To make it easier, let’s add equity issues into the mix. Missouri has historically sentenced women charged with violent crimes far more harshly than their male counterparts. Issues that have been traditionally excused in men, like alleged infidelity or alleged poor parenting, have been used to taint women, inflame juries, and obscure weaknesses in proof. This has resulted in extremely long sentences and perhaps wrongful convictions.

The problem of gender bias has improved over time but there are women in Missouri prisons who were convicted before societal awareness of this problem existed.

Governor Nixon is considering a clemency case that calls out for release, if not to correct the gender bias that plagued her trial, to reduce the cost of incarceration.

Patty Prewitt is emblematic of the prisoner who should be free. Prewitt’s trial focused far more on her infidelities and suggested bad mothering than on the facts of her case. Not surprisingly, she was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for 50 years. Her case is ripe for scrutiny. Even if the equities do not persuade, she is 60 years old, has served 25 years of her sentence, has an excellent institutional record, has participated in virtually every prison program for which she qualified and even created others, has a family eager to have her home, and four job offers waiting for her.

Even former Department of Corrections’ employees support her release. Sixty-five legislators saw the merit in ending her incarceration and urged Governor Nixon to grant her clemency. It’s time to release Patty Prewitt. If not for her, then for all of us who must pay the bills for her incarceration and her inevitably increasing health care needs.

There is nothing more the State of Missouri can do to her or for her. Send her home to her children who have been waiting for their mother for 25 long years and to her aging parents who yearn for her to be with them in their final days.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aiken is the director of The Community Justice Project at Georgetown University Law Center and former Director of the Civil Justice Clinic at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by Missouri Forum. 7/10

Monday, July 26, 2010

Healthy Democracy Needs Philanthropy

AMERICAN FORUM

By Aaron Dorfman

When those who speak for regular folks – you, me and everyday working people – are outspent in Washington, even the most welcome legislation tends to serve the rich and powerful. As the country anticipates President Obama signing financial reform legislation, the scorecard is so starkly out of balance that it's shameful. While a coalition of national and community-based organizations was able to raise $3 million to advocate for average people, the financial industry was spending $1.4 million a day on lobbying efforts.

Americans for Financial Reform, a broad coalition of local, state and national organizations, took up advocating for a financial system that's for the people, one that's accountable, fair and equitable. Despite the enormity of what’s at stake – jobs, economic security and the future of millions of Americans – a new report from the Institute for American’s Future makes it all too clear how much the coalition has been severely outspent by larger, better-funded interest groups.

If financial reform, or any reform, is ever to serve the interests of the people, the balance of power – which is to say, the ability to generate vital lobbying resources – must shift.

Our nation’s 70,000-plus grant-making foundations – which steward half a billion dollars of partially public money – have an opportunity to help solve pressing social problems by investing in grassroots civic engagement and advocacy. Their commitment to democracy can save it; their failure may well doom it.

The recent passage of health care reform shows that David can win against Goliath, especially when foundations help out. Thanks in large part to efforts of Health Care for America Now (HCAN), a broad coalition of advocates, Americans now have the beginnings of a better, more accessible and affordable health care system. HCAN would not have been as successful as it was, however, without the impressive support it received from numerous foundations, including the largest advocacy grant in history, provided by The Atlantic Philanthropies.

HCAN raised and spent some $40 million in its effort to represent health consumers in the debate. Sure, its spending was dwarfed by the spending of health industry interests. But at least HCAN had enough resources to mount a strong fight. That fight clearly demonstrated that the nation’s private and community foundations are the perfect vehicle to ensure that voices of our communities are heard.

A recent study on the effect of foundation support to nonprofit organizations involved in advocacy, community organizing and civic engagement in Los Angeles County demonstrates conclusively that it makes a world of difference. In greater L.A., over a five-year period, foundations invested $58 million in the advocacy work of 15 grassroots organizations. This handful of groups trained more than 14,000 community leaders, generated more than 40,000 new members and drew close to 55,000 people to public events focused on critical civic issues. By promoting democratic participation in this way, their efforts resulted in nearly $7 billion in tangible benefits for families and communities – benefits like higher wages, better access to health care, expanded civil and human rights, and a cleaner environment.

Given the remarkable impact this modest investment in democracy delivered, there is little doubt that vigorous support for advocacy and policy engagement will help counter rising corporate influence on our democratic debates.

The Los Angeles experience is not unique. Similar studies in Minnesota, New Mexico and North Carolina reveal the same result – where foundations support civic engagement, democracy grows dramatically stronger.

Sadly, too many nonprofits that seek to broaden citizen participation in the policy process are underfunded. Efforts to bring voices of ordinary Americans into policy debates need more support from the philanthropic sector to balance out the efforts of other interest groups. We need a concerted, concentrated commitment from local, state and national foundations to support the broadest possible participation in the discussions.

Democracy and the future of America are at stake. Philanthropy can open – and keep open -- the door to more vigorous, thoughtful and creative debates about who government serves: corporations or individual citizens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dorfman is executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, which conducted the studies on the impact of foundation support for advocacy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2010 by American Forum. 7/10

Friday, February 12, 2010

Higher Sales Tax Proposal is Bad Magic


MISSOURI FORUM
By Amy Blouin

Wouldn’t it be nice if Missouri could magically find the money needed to pay for services people need and to make the sort of investments that help build a prosperous future?

That’s pretty much what some state lawmakers are proposing. Wave a magic wand and — poof! — the state income tax disappears. Wave it again and — poof! — corporate taxes disappear. How would reducing revenues get us the money we need? Watch carefully as supporters of this plan pull a rabbit out of their hat. But wait, that’s not a rabbit — it’s a sales tax like none ever before seen in Missouri or any other state.

Measures have been introduced in the state House and Senate that would essentially take this approach to paying for Missouri’s needs. And like all magic tricks, they involve sleights of hand that, when closely observed, reveal that things are not as they seem.

Eliminating individual and corporate income taxes and replacing them with a greatly expanded sales tax would in fact be a bad deal for the vast majority of Missouri families, while also threatening the state’s ability to meet future needs.

First, let’s consider how much money we’re talking about. The taxes that supporters of this plan would eliminate took in almost $9.4 billion in 2008. To make up all of that through only a sales tax would mean taxing far more purchases than is the case today; in fact, far more than any other state taxes. According to the language of the proposals, we could see a new sales tax on nursing-home care, doctor’s office visits, child day-care services, purchases of new homes, funerals, food and prescription drugs, legal counseling and financial services, private K-12 school tuition and much more.

Not only that, but the sales tax rate itself would have to go up dramatically in order to offset the money lost from ditching other taxes. That means what we pay in sales tax on items already taxed would have to be increased as well. Recent estimates show that to fully replace lost revenue, the



new sales tax rate would need to be approximately 11 percent -- not the 5.11 percent rate stated in the legislation.

It is clear who would bear the brunt of that increased tax rate. Because they don’t have as much money to stash away in savings, middle-income Missourians (including most seniors) spend a higher portion of their incomes on buying products and services than do the wealthiest people. Folks in the middle would get the biggest tax increases as a result of the income tax being eliminated.

And that’s just the impact today. As families know, needs and costs tend to rise. So how would this system pay for necessities like education, highway repair and job training in the future? The proposals rely on the Missouri Legislature to further raise the sales tax rate after the first year if the proposed rate proves insufficient. So there is no telling how high the sales tax rate would have to go, with the alternative being massive cuts in services people need.

No other state taxes services as broadly as would Missouri under these measures, which, among other things, raises the issue of how competitive Missouri would be with its neighbors. There are a few states with no income tax, but they collect significantly more revenue from tourism or oil severance fees than Missouri. None has in place a system like the one being proposed for Missouri. There simply is no comparison we can use to assess this proposal.

What is known, though, is that putting all of our eggs in the sales-tax basket would be a risky strategy, especially in tough economic times like these. No tax structure is perfect during a recession, but a diversified approach — sales and income taxes; taxes on businesses and individuals — has proved through the years to be the strongest.

In the end, there is no magic to building a prosperous state. We would do well to resist temptations of easy answers.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Blouin is executive director of the Missouri Budget Project.
------------------------------------------------------------------Copyright (C) 2010 by the Missouri Forum. 2/10