Back at the Trailhead

Three months ago I set out to explore where in the world my dollars were being sent and whether I approved where they had gone and what they were doing. I also proposed several places I wanted them to go and where I wanted them to do more.

Through my investigation I found myself gravitating toward issues at home. Some were new to me, others a part of my daily life. But in almost every post I faced a challenge: how to balance cultivation of the individual and maintenance of social spending and responsibility.  I grappled with this question while I was writing, trying to discern a concrete solution. At times I probed friends and family about my topics when I found myself really stuck, hoping someone across the aisle from me would help to provide a different perspective on the issue. In some cases their answers were surprising: they agreed with me much more than I had anticipated. In others they made me reconsider my initial position (which was precisely what I wanted). My ultimate conclusion, however, surprised even me: no clear-cut answer exists. Virtually everything has pros and cons, justification and remonstration. There is no definitive “right” in politics: there just is. And I vote based on how I view that is.  

I may not approve everything my tax dollars do. But as I learned, my tax dollars are much more complicated than they initially appear. Even now I feel slightly naïve because there is still so much I don’t know about them. Yet as I write my final post, I stand here more aware than I was in September and my curiosity has been peaked. Thank you to those who have been following along with me. I hope you’ve learned as much as I have.  

Warning sign en route up Long's Peak in Colorado (2011).  Mountain climbing is hard. Learning is hard. Politics is hard and particularly messy. Never let the fear of lightning stop you from attempting the climb. Be smart about it but be brave. Happy thinking!

Update on Same-Sex Marriage and the Supreme Court

BREAKING NEWS:

At 3:18EST, the New York Times reports that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear 2 cases on same-sex marriage!!!

I Don't Approve My Tax Dollars to do That: Bribe Big Business

In the aftermath of the 2007-2008 economic crisis, virtually every politician has promised to protect the business interests of Main Street against those of Wall Street. A recent NY Times investigation reveals just how much our representatives really do keep small local businesses in mind when allocating funds and approving legislation. The bottom line? Politicians don’t. Instead, they throw thousands and thousands at big companies making too-good-to-be-true promises that go unfulfilled at the expense of social welfare.

I had no idea that my tax dollars were giving subsidies to companies while the state was approving budget cuts in public school systems. Students are losing out in bigger classes with fewer opportunities and supplies so that Facebook will set up shop nearby? I’m not just peeved; I’m livid.

According to the Times report, more than $80 billion a year is handed out to companies spanning every aspect of the corporate world by states, counties and cities. The cost of such financial incentives is incalculable while few bother to track whether the promised jobs were even created. This $80 billion stems from mayors and governors who agree to such incentives out of fear that if they don’t provide subsidies, the companies will move jobs out of the United States. This in turn has fueled interstate and intercity competition to see who can lure the companies in by providing the best financial packages. The packages typically include an assortment of “cash grants and loans, sales tax breaks, income tax credits and exemptions, free services, and property tax abatements.”

A November 2011 map illustrating which states spend the most and which spend the least in terms of film subsidies. Although we tend to think of manufacturing (ahem GM), oil, agriculture and technology as the big seekers of incentives, the film industry is right in there with them. 

Photo credit: http://www.smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/actnow/subsidies.html

Texas awards over $19 billion a year in incentives, the most of any state. Many government officials and especially company officials view the incentives in a positive light. In the long run, the incentives will pay themselves back from increased tax revenues. Job creation puts money into consumers’ pockets, which gets pumped back into the economy through consumer spending and taxpayers.

But what happens when the jobs don’t materialize? Fifty properties on General Motors liquidation list were located in states and towns that had given incentives to the automaker in hopes to keeping factories open. Now the towns are out millions and millions of dollars while GM did nothing to uphold its end of the bargain in the creation and maintenance of paying jobs.

State and town offerings of incentive packages to big businesses began in the early 1990s with the automotive industry. Since then many other industries have followed suit, pursuing states that could give them the most lucrative incentive packages. 

Photo industry: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/08/31/media-virtually-silent-about-10-billion-union-health-care-subsidy-built-

While Kansas cut its education budget by $104 million, it turned around and promised $36 million to AMC Entertainment. How can you tell your future generation that cultivating its potential for tomorrow isn’t nearly as important as gambling on jobs? I don’t pay my taxes so that my state can bribe some big company: I pay taxes so that my state can provide services like a good public school education, safe roadways, efficient transportation systems, adequate emergency preparations and responses, a police force, firefighters, EMTs, etc.

States and towns are relinquishing millions upon millions in tax revenues to attract or keep companies. In a time where nearly every state has a major budget deficit and when there’s talk of raising MY taxes, I cannot believe officials turn a blind eye to a source of funds they are not just ignoring but they are actually throwing anyway. Start-up incentives including deals on land and build up costs I can understand but exemption from taxes? We all pay taxes. These companies need to start paying their fair share. It is disgusting that they can get away with this while asking for government handouts when things go bad and getting funds at the expense of more important social expenditures.

At the end of the day, it's all about making money. 

Photo credit: http://www.onenewspage.us/n/US/74rkhti23/Ag-Rakes-in-Most-State-Subsidies-in-Santa.htm

In 1996, the Supreme Court ruled that taxpayers do not have legal standing to challenge a state’s tax actions in federal court. Yet that’s my money. Those incentives should not come at the cost of my job, my education, my health care, my roadways and certainly not in the form of higher taxes.

I don’t approve my tax dollars to do that: bribe big business. 

I Approve My Tax Dollars to do That: Make Gay Marriage Constitutional

One thing I’ve increasingly learned and appreciated is the art of timing. To get what you want, you have to balance a forceful push with consideration of current conditions and opinions. Decision makers have to be in a position where they can accept your proposition, whether that acceptance stem from external pressures generated by a majority or a change in personal conviction.

With Obama’s re-election, proponents of gay marriage have started to whisper about whether it’s time for the Supreme Court to finally take a stand on the issue. Moreover, time for the Supreme Court to declare the legitimacy of same-sex marriage through the smack down of California’s Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Valid point. I never okayed your marriage. You have no right to deem mine legal or not. 

Photo credit: http://harvardcrcl.org/2011/07/22/dojs-powerful-doma-brief-in-the-9th-circuit/

There are two potential decisions facing the Supreme Court. Though the two piggyback upon one another, the first is whether Congress can prevent legally married same-sex couples in Massachusetts, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, New York, Vermont Washington, and Connecticut from receiving “federal benefits otherwise available to [heterosexual] married couples.” As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, this includes several aspects of reaping Social Security benefits. But the bigger issue relates to how the Constitution defines (or does not define) marriage. Does the Constitution allow for same-sex marriages or can it confine the legitimacy of marriage to only a man and a woman?

These graphs represents 2011 data illustrating how different age groups, ethnicies, educational backgrounds and genders support (blue) or oppose (yellow) the repeal of DOMA. In all categories, support for repeal outweighs opposition by approximately ten percentage points. I believe Americans are ready to make the change. 

Photo credit: http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/doma-majorities-of-almost-every-demographic-support-repeal/legislation/2011/03/23/18226

Thirty-one states have prohibited gay marriage. While I do not agree with the decisions made by those thirty-one states, I concede that the Tenth Amendment gives them the right to do so. Neither my parents nor I have to live there.

This image is slightly inaccurate after the last election (Washington, Maine, and Maryland should be bright blue, Minnesota is no longer bright red and North Carolina did pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and thus should be bright red). My question to those who oppose gay marriage is how would allowing it negatively impact your life in any way, shape or form? How many same-sex couples do you know? Chances are, you know and are friends with them. Your children share a classroom with them. Why do you insist that these Americans be treated as second-class citizens? 

Photo credit: http://www.wingerjock.com/2012/09/30/the-invisible-minority-should-gays-be-featured-in-pro-gay-marriage-tv-spots/

That being said, I do not agree with the Supreme Court’s present silence on the issue. Thus far, the nine justices have not commented on whether they will accept a case. It is clear however from the results of the past election that the country is priming itself for change. Four years reversed Maine’s stance (in 2008, Maine residents shot down a proposition allowing for gay marriage; this year they passed it). Some of the very socially conservative states will never come around. They would not have integrated schools had the Fed not mandated them to. That’s why the Supreme Court needs to deem such prohibitions of gay marriage and DOMA unconstitutional.  It’s time. The country, though many may not initially like it, is ready. Such a case will not impact most Americans. For those it does impact, however, it will be revolutionary. Let’s legalize equality, once and for all.

I approve my tax dollars to do that: make gay marriage constitutional.