Although it starts with a local issue, David Goldstein's raises a point that might have broader implications:
The merit of the suggestion seems short- and intermediate-term. The problem with it comes over the long term. This is part of why it might sound attractive to some.
Goldy suggests that Washington state Democrats "can simply no longer afford—either fiscally or politically—to continue fighting to subsidize the inefficient and unsustainable local governments of the rural communities who most vehemently rail against subsidizing inefficient and unsustainable government".
And it's tempting. Give them what they want, and leave them to flounder and drown in the results.
But it's not just them. It's all of us, together. The elimination of school levy equalization might stick it to the conservatives, but in the end brings more complications than it solves. As education degrades in those communities, we will see an accentuation of the "lucky sperm club", such as it is. That is, there will be haves and have-nots, or winners and losers, and part of what determines that outcome would be who one's parents are and where they live. The children of conservative parents who argue against such redistribution of wealth will attend less-efficient schools, and receive lower quality educations. This, of course, will be partially offset—e.g., exacerbated—by nonstandard educational ideas. And when those kids whose parents teach them all sorts of nonsense about people and science don't get into the better colleges they hope for, they will have fewer economic opportunities. In addition to their individual suffering, as such, there will also be a collective price as these people move to cities in search of sustenance employment, and add weight to the problems of the poor and uneducated. Which, of course, will reduce the quality of life in the cities while bleeding whatever talent pool (and population) remains in rural areas.
On a federal level, we might consider taxes paid per state, and benefits received. Again, many conservative states—which receive much benefit of wealth redistribution—would suffer for having gotten what they wanted. The economic, educational, and cultural gaps between regions will increase, sharpening the definition of the "two Americas".
And, of course, those conservatives who got exactly what they wanted will eventually complain, and it will be everyone's fault but theirs.
In the long run, giving over to such conservative demands will only increase our society's troubles. But it is hard to convince our conservative neighbors of that outcome. They won't believe it until they're living it.
So, sure, it might feel good—for a while, at least—to stick it to the conservatives by giving them what they want. But should everyone else have to suffer in order to prove a point that conservatives won't accept, anyway? After all, they'll just blame the results on everyone else who was stupid enough to give them what they wanted in the first place.
____________________
Notes:
Goldstein, David ("Goldy"). "It's Time to Give Rural Republicans the Government They Demand". Slog. December 3, 2010. Slog.TheStranger.com. December 3, 2010. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...rural-republicans-the-government-they-ask-for
They won't necessarily come right out and say it, but a lot of Republicans look at this budget disaster as a good thing... an opportunity to "right-size" state and local government via fiscal crisis in a way they could never achieve at the ballot box... whatever the cost in human suffering. I mean, isn't this exactly what the Seattle Times is talking about when it lumps its focus on "resetting government to the world's new economic realities" under the brand "Reset 2010"...?
Well, you know what? It's past time for Democrats in Olympia to get the message, and realize that in this current economic and political climate, we can no longer afford to fully support our welfare state. And since a disproportionate amount of welfare in our state goes to rock ribbed Republican counties, that's where a disproportionate amount of the cuts should come.
And the first place to start? Eliminate school levy equalization.
Granted, the bleeding-heart, tax-and-spend liberal in me fully understands that levy equalization is a worthwhile program, granting poorer, mostly rural school districts a somewhat more equal funding footing with wealthier urban and suburban districts. But, at a cost of $165 million a year, that's the sort of bleeding heart, I'm constantly told, that our state simply can no longer afford.
Of course, without this redistribution of wealth from our children to theirs, many of these property-poor districts, particularly the smaller ones, simply will not be able to survive, forcing dozens our state's 295 districts to close and consolidate for the sake of efficiency, resulting in a loss of local control, and in some cases, considerably longer school bus commutes.
But again, isn't that exactly what the Seattle Times is talking about when it argues for "resetting government to the world's new economic realities"...?
The reality is, the economic divide in Washington state largely tracks the political one: rural vs. urban. And since it's rural Republicans who largely oppose all but the most minimal government services (at least rhetorically) and the taxes that support them, given the current budget crisis, it's time for urban Democrats to give the opposition what they claim they want.
Well, you know what? It's past time for Democrats in Olympia to get the message, and realize that in this current economic and political climate, we can no longer afford to fully support our welfare state. And since a disproportionate amount of welfare in our state goes to rock ribbed Republican counties, that's where a disproportionate amount of the cuts should come.
And the first place to start? Eliminate school levy equalization.
Granted, the bleeding-heart, tax-and-spend liberal in me fully understands that levy equalization is a worthwhile program, granting poorer, mostly rural school districts a somewhat more equal funding footing with wealthier urban and suburban districts. But, at a cost of $165 million a year, that's the sort of bleeding heart, I'm constantly told, that our state simply can no longer afford.
Of course, without this redistribution of wealth from our children to theirs, many of these property-poor districts, particularly the smaller ones, simply will not be able to survive, forcing dozens our state's 295 districts to close and consolidate for the sake of efficiency, resulting in a loss of local control, and in some cases, considerably longer school bus commutes.
But again, isn't that exactly what the Seattle Times is talking about when it argues for "resetting government to the world's new economic realities"...?
The reality is, the economic divide in Washington state largely tracks the political one: rural vs. urban. And since it's rural Republicans who largely oppose all but the most minimal government services (at least rhetorically) and the taxes that support them, given the current budget crisis, it's time for urban Democrats to give the opposition what they claim they want.
The merit of the suggestion seems short- and intermediate-term. The problem with it comes over the long term. This is part of why it might sound attractive to some.
Goldy suggests that Washington state Democrats "can simply no longer afford—either fiscally or politically—to continue fighting to subsidize the inefficient and unsustainable local governments of the rural communities who most vehemently rail against subsidizing inefficient and unsustainable government".
And it's tempting. Give them what they want, and leave them to flounder and drown in the results.
But it's not just them. It's all of us, together. The elimination of school levy equalization might stick it to the conservatives, but in the end brings more complications than it solves. As education degrades in those communities, we will see an accentuation of the "lucky sperm club", such as it is. That is, there will be haves and have-nots, or winners and losers, and part of what determines that outcome would be who one's parents are and where they live. The children of conservative parents who argue against such redistribution of wealth will attend less-efficient schools, and receive lower quality educations. This, of course, will be partially offset—e.g., exacerbated—by nonstandard educational ideas. And when those kids whose parents teach them all sorts of nonsense about people and science don't get into the better colleges they hope for, they will have fewer economic opportunities. In addition to their individual suffering, as such, there will also be a collective price as these people move to cities in search of sustenance employment, and add weight to the problems of the poor and uneducated. Which, of course, will reduce the quality of life in the cities while bleeding whatever talent pool (and population) remains in rural areas.
On a federal level, we might consider taxes paid per state, and benefits received. Again, many conservative states—which receive much benefit of wealth redistribution—would suffer for having gotten what they wanted. The economic, educational, and cultural gaps between regions will increase, sharpening the definition of the "two Americas".
And, of course, those conservatives who got exactly what they wanted will eventually complain, and it will be everyone's fault but theirs.
In the long run, giving over to such conservative demands will only increase our society's troubles. But it is hard to convince our conservative neighbors of that outcome. They won't believe it until they're living it.
So, sure, it might feel good—for a while, at least—to stick it to the conservatives by giving them what they want. But should everyone else have to suffer in order to prove a point that conservatives won't accept, anyway? After all, they'll just blame the results on everyone else who was stupid enough to give them what they wanted in the first place.
____________________
Notes:
Goldstein, David ("Goldy"). "It's Time to Give Rural Republicans the Government They Demand". Slog. December 3, 2010. Slog.TheStranger.com. December 3, 2010. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...rural-republicans-the-government-they-ask-for
