Saturday, August 13, 2011

The Trickle

In a Tea Party Economy, Washington does not attempt to land the unusustainable house of cards economy fall softly, it just lets the collapse trickle down. By the time it gets to the local level:

State and local officials face tough hurdles for the foreseeable future as service needs will not diminish, but assistance formerly received from higher levels of government are likely to be cut. These same elected officials will have to face an electorate who feels “taxed enough already”, and aren’t likely to want to hear that the services they have been receiving have at least partially been financed by deficits in Washington D.C.

Truth hurts.

But don't worry, I'm sure the folks who play conservative on television will find some way to blame all this on Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives.



Dante said...

So the local governments were getting money that didn't really exist in our budget to begin with, the federal government is going to start giving out less money it doesn't really have, and that's a bad thing? I don't care about blame. There's enough to go around. But I do think a good solution is raising local taxes and fees to cover the local programs. Then everyone knows exactly what they're paying and what they receive for that money.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

No, I don't think it is a good thing when state and local governments become overly dependent on monopoly money. This is bad.

But that's what happened, and has been happening in one way or another since long before you and I were born. That's just the reality of the situation.

There's a big difference between strategically stepping down from unsustainable spending and simply nose-diving the whole system.

Dante said...

A gradual step down would be nice, but I've never ever ever seen it happen. We either get immediate cuts or "cuts" that are not cuts but rather slowing the rate of growth that only happen after the current crop of politicians end their election cycle. Show me a real gradual reduction plan and I'll get behind it.

Of course this could all be solved by government actually recognizing when they're in a boom and not spending every damn penny they have and more during that time. If they would put back money in times of excess, they would be able to cover times like we're having now.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

A gradual step down would be nice, but I've never ever ever seen it happen.

The country has managed it before, once very, very well after WWII and once very, very badly after the Civil War. It looks like we're using Reconstruction as our model instead of the Marshall Plan. Which one of those proved more successful?

It is also difficult to complete a gradual step down when the opposition party refuses to constructively participate in the process, and opposes the clarification of the previous economy as "unsustainable."