“A healthy environment is the result of decisions we make together through our government through different policies, initiatives and decisions that keep our water clean and protect our green spaces.”
“Young children thrive when we support policies that create a network of support to help their families overcome their childrens’ health challenges.”
While everyone would agree with the above statements and would support funding these government initiatives, we cannot lose sight of the fact that there are many other worthy programs in our state that also contribute to the overall health of our community. In fact the State House corridors are packed everyday with hundred of single issue advocates lobbying for their worthy programs to be protected from cuts.
The public debate about these programs should not based on whether a program is more important than another one or which one is getting cut the most but on how we all as a community decide how to support all these structures by providing them with the necessary funding to keep them functioning and servicing our communities.
In good economic times we have cut taxes in the state to bring money back into “people’s pockets”. In bad economic times, we cut taxes to “re-active the economy and create jobs”. We can not have it both ways and expect to have the same level of services and programs.
We need to continue our one issue advocacy but add a revenue message to protect the entire range of important programs that we value in our communities.
So do any environmentalists in BMG land have any ideas for how to find someplace else to cut so we can hold harmless or (gasp) restore come of the cuts outlined in the report.
<
p>
In good times we cut taxes because a lower rate will yield the same amount of money as a high rate during bad times.
spending budget surpluses on one time repairs of deteriorating public infrastructures like schools, or roads, or sewage systems, or water treatment plants, or energy saving retrofitting or public buildings, or cleaning up toxic waste dumps, or extending public transportation systems, or …………(I could go on and so could you).
<
p>If we had spent it when we had it on any of those public projects that are vital to a growing economy we wouldn’t have to burden our grandchildren with interest rates to fix them later.
<
p>So I suppose it does have something to do with interest rates, but I am noooooooooo expert.
What is missing from advocacy for this group or that group is the demand that we return to times of growth that will yield higher revenues. Sometimes that may involve cutting taxes, regulations or mandates, and that works against another set of social goals.
like the very comment you comment on. all of those projects would have created jobs and grown the economy. I’ll make it easy for you to read it again.
<
p>
Private growth comes from producing a good or service that can be sold at a profit. While it is theoretically possible for government investment to do the same, it almost never does. Without private business the projects you list would disappear like turning off a light.