January 31, 2010

Logical conclusion of anti-tax policies

Thanks, Republicans. Here is a City under conservative rule:
More than a third of the streetlights in Colorado Springs will go dark Monday. The police helicopters are for sale on the Internet. The city is dumping firefighting jobs, a vice team, burglary investigators, beat cops — dozens of police and fire positions will go unfilled.
The parks department removed trash cans last week, replacing them with signs urging users to pack out their own litter.
Neighbors are encouraged to bring their own lawn mowers to local green spaces, because parks workers will mow them only once every two weeks. If that.
Water cutbacks mean most parks will be dead, brown turf by July; the flower and fertilizer budget is zero.
City recreation centers, indoor and outdoor pools, and a handful of museums will close for good March 31 unless they find private funding to stay open. Buses no longer run on evenings and weekends. The city won't pay for any street paving, relying instead on a regional authority that can meet only about 10 percent of the need.

Who needs paved streets? If people want them, they should pave their own streets. Oh, you say that is what we do through community and government? Yeah, that is why you are communist.

12 comments:

LB said...

I know nothing of Colorado politics, so I can't comment directly on the issue.

However, life where government is controlled by liberals isn't necessarily better. California is a disaster of a state on many levels. It as been controlled by the left for years.

Streak said...

Actually, that is not completely true, LB. California certainly has a history of liberal government, but their economic policies (taxes, especially) have been driven by Republicans for years. I am not saying that liberals haven't overspent at times, but Republicans have decided not to pay for existing programs, and have fought every effort at raising taxes to address existing needs.

Fitzgerald said...

If the people of Colorado Springs want to spend money on more "government services" they can always raise taxes. But they might find that they like having more money in their own pockets to spend as they want.

Streak said...

Of course, Fitzgerald. Of course. Paved streets are a luxury that only the wealthy should be able to enjoy. Clean water? Nope. That is socialism.

steves said...

Sorry, I am with LB here. Liberals across the nation vary, but the ones in control in CA have done a lousy job. The GOP hasn't helped, but they don't drive the agenda and I would hardly call Ahnold a right leaning Republican.

Streak said...

You seem to assume that the liberals have had a free rein with California politics. I would like to see some evidence here. I am not saying that liberals are always good with budgets, but this tax cut nonsense has certainly permeated their politics as well.

Steve, you might also check where I suggested that Arnold was anything other than a moderate. I did not. But that wasn't my point.

leighton said...

The biggest problem with California in my estimation is the combination of requiring a supermajority of voters to approve any tax increases (not a liberal policy by any means), combined with the ability for voters to mandate via ballot that X million dollars of the annual budget be sent to topic Y. My understanding of "liberal government" vs "conservative government" is that in both cases, the government is, in fact, in charge of its own spending, and budgets according to liberal or conservative principles, respectively. What they have over there isn't really either of those things, so much as a hodgepodge of government by corporations and wealthy individuals who can gin up slick enough marketing campaigns to get low information voters to make decisions they're frankly not qualified to make.

WJB said...

Leighton is quite correct - Prop 13 was a conservative measure - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978)

The other thing is that when one looks at California political history, the state has elected more Republican governors than Democrats. Beginning with Ronald Reagan's term as governor in 1967, there has been 4 Republicans (both serving two four year terms) and 2 Democrats (Jerry Brown for eight years and Gray Davis for four years).

I guess this does not have a lot to do with Streak's original posting, and more to the comments of LB.

Streak said...

Yeah, we got off topic a little with California. I understand there are many people to blame for their debacle, but it is undeniable, in my mind, that a big part of the problem has been conservatives. I didn't realized, (thanks CIL) that California has elected more Republican governors.

I am reminded of hearing George McGovern speak in 1992. He noted that Republicans loved to call liberals "tax and spend," which he noted was preferable to "borrow and spend," but that doesn't seem to stick to Republicans as well. But it should. And the Bush administration is the best example. For all the talk about the current healthcare proposal, it is supposed to be paid for. Contrast that with both wars under Bush or the Medicare prescription drug program--none of which was ever paid for outside a giant credit card. And it is Obama who is now the target of the newly discovered fiscal responsibility bug.

Anonymous said...

Actually, it is too bad that we got off topic because you raise some very good points about "luxuries." It did seem that Fitzgerald was arguing that people in Colorado Springs (or Norman or Las Vegas or Laramie) would be happier with more money in their pockets and inadequate roads, schools, public libraries, etc. But as you have noted, lacking good roads, schools, public libraries, parks, etc. may have long-term costs, which could be more extra change in one's pockets. Certainly, the converse could be true as well. But, it does seem facile to argue that people would like "money in their pockets" rather than inadequately maintained streets.

This discussion also made me think about to what degree some people might want these services privatized. When I lived in Norman and Laramie, the city governments took care of garbage pick up (with a fee of course). In Las Vegas and Woodland, however, private companies do the work. In fact, my cousin operates one of these companies in California and Nevada. One can only remember the school voucher idea of a couple of years ago as another indicator where some believe that a private education is superior to a public one. So, I wonder if for some people that privatization is the solution to public services, as some think with waste management and education.

Finally, I think I too wanted to debunk the idea that "liberals are running California." This is not to say that California does not have a strong liberal base in the state, but California also possesses a strong conservative base as well. I think it is easy to look at presidential politics and write, "California is a disaster of a state on many levels. It as been controlled by the left for years." When in fact conservatives have controlled state-wide politics during both the boom and bust of California.

-- WIV

Monk-in-Training said...

I know that conservatives sing the praises of profit, etc , but I think that having roads, and museums, streetlights and trash pick up will never be done at a profit, but will always be a "cost of doing civilization".

If I can be assured of having police protection, fire protection, lights at night, fairly good roads, and that disease spreading trash is collected, over all I am willing to live and work in a local. Without those "costs of civilization" I am unwilling to live there and be part of the local economy.

Tulsa is another city ran by Christianist politicans for years and we are doing the same thing, driving at night without streetlights (did it last night), laying off police officers, selling cars the whole gamut.

They keep this up and Tulsa may not have to wait for the general Apocalypse!

kbrown said...

Hard earned tax dollars at work I love it. Good post...