|
We’re #1 -- In Cost of Government August 20, 2009 Fair warning: This one will depress you. Americans for Tax Reform has issued the 2009 edition of its annual “Cost of Government Day” report. The analysis is a tabulation of how long it takes the “average American worker” to “earn enough gross income to pay off his or her share of the spending and regulatory burdens imposed by government at the federal, state and local levels.” ATR determined this year’s freedom-from-government date to be August 12 -- nearly a month later than 2008’s estimate. The culprits aren’t difficult to finger. Rising unemployment and shrinking incomes, combined with George W. Bush’s TARP and Barack Obama’s “stimulus,” have ballooned the portion of the productive sector gobbled up by Washington. It takes 111 days to cover the bill for federal spending, which ATR’s Monika Ciesielska determined “will consume 30.36 percent of national income this year.” Expenditures by state and local governments add another 49 days. The regulatory burden -- measured solely as the cost of compliance, and not the economic damage of bureaucrats’ micromanagement -- accounts for 65 more days. Add it all up, and Cost of Government Day fell on August 12. That’s if you were an American picked at random. For residents of the Nutmeg State, it’s a bit later. ATR determines a date for each state, and Connecticut’s, September 7, is the worst in the nation. Why? The state-and-local tax burden here is now the third highest -- and according to Ciesielska’s crunching of U.S. Small Business Administration data, the regulations drawn up by bureaucrats are particularly onerous. When it comes to runaway government, Connecticut is in a rouge’s gallery that includes California, New York, and New Jersey. And evidence is now incontrovertible that states with politicians who are unwilling to say no to public-employee unions, welfare-expansion lobbyists, subsidy-seeking corporations, and Nanny Staters aren’t winning the competitiveness competition. Ciesielska found that from “1997 through 2007, the ten states with the highest tax burden lost over 3 million residents to the other states. These residents took with them a staggering $82 billion in income.” The ten states with the lowest tax burdens saw an in-migration of 2.3 million citizens, who brought with them “a cumulative real income gain of $88.7 billion.” In that same 10-year period, 2.6 million Americans moved to the nine states that have wisely refused -- despite constant hectoring by voices of “fiscal responsibility” -- to adopt an income tax. (Connecticut income-tax supporters, just keep repeating to yourselves: It was the right thing to do. It was the right thing to do. It was the right thing to do ….) Jay Webber, a member of New Jersey’s General Assembly, contributed a brief look at the situation in his state to the report. He described a place that’s eerily familiar to Nutmeggers: “[T]he more the state spends, the more our citizens are taxed; the more people are taxed, the more they seek refuge in low-tax states; the more who leave, the more that the economy and budgetary revenues decline, and the more pressures are placed on remaining residents and employers to support unsustainable tax-and-spend policies.” ATR’s analysis reads like a Stephen King novel, but the worst may be yet to come. It makes note of eco-alarmists’ pointless and expensive “cap and trade” scheme, which has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives. ObamaCare is another nightmare-in-the-making. A regulatory proposal that’s received scant attention, but the report flags, is the White House’s “sweeping proposal” to overhaul the rules that govern the financial industry. At the state level, the piling-up of unfunded liabilities -- an act of fiscal child abuse Connecticut excels at -- offers an excuse for tax-hikers to get their way. And as Ciesielska argues, the “stimulus” package, so beloved by naïfs such as Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell, puts higher spending on autopilot: “Once the one-time injection of federal ‘stimulus’ dollars dries up, taxpayers … will be on the hook to pay for the expansion of state spending programs upon which acceptance of the ‘stimulus’ was contingent. Furthermore, higher spending on programs that came with matching federal funds will mean that when states look to reduce their bloated budget baselines in future years, revenue will come up twice as short.” In Connecticut and throughout the nation, tea parties have shown staying power, and the activists and ordinary citizens attending congresscritters’ town meetings appear determined to remain a part of the political battleground. That’s great news. But as the Cost of Government Day 2009 shows, restoring fiscal sanity to the public sector won’t be easy. D. Dowd Muska is a writer, commentator and lecturer. His website is www.dowdmuska.com. # # # # #
|
