"Taxes are what we pay for civilized society."
††††††
-Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
†
All those governmental programs you like and approve of - those that fight crime, care for abused children, patch potholes, plant trees, whatever - they are all losing out.
Why? First, because taxes generally are fixed; their rate doesn't change -while our population grows. So less money is available to fund programs supported by the overwhelming majority of us.†Second, the cost of living goes up (indeed, business groups would complain at the lack of "progress" if it didn't). Supplies cost more, travel costs more and workers cost more. The same amount of money raised from the same tax rate provides less and less to carry out needed programs for us all.
Smart politicians†(not an oxymoronic phrase) would "index" those taxes to tie an increase to the Cost of Living (COL). Voila! No need to raise taxes.†No rallying cry for the "No New Taxes" crowd, no wedge for hometown opponents to campaign on, and those needed programs would continue to be funded at the level required.
There's a problem with this, however. Only a small percentage of taxes can be so "indexed." The majority require the political will to raise them when, after not too many years, they fail to produce adequate funds for needed programs because of rising populations and the rising COL.
Now, of course choices are involved, by you and me and our elected representatives. Maybe lesser programs can be ended. The question is, whose "lesser"†programs? Each governor has his list of "lesser," and it's expressed through the budget document. A budget is actually not columns of figures, but a setting forth of public policy priorities by each administration and legislature. The budget indicates our priorities and how we intend to back them by allocating whatever funds are available.
And the rubber hits the road when it appears, as now, Kentucky doesn't have the funds to support programs the great majority of us have wanted for years. So we either cut or find new revenues. Casino gambling might be one new source. There are others. And selected tax hikes are a possibility, perhaps tied to support specific programs (and maybe even "indexed" to save us going through this every two years.)
This is where the focus should be: on whether this program or that is worth supporting and at what level, rather than "no new taxes."
And, by the way, if you don't raises taxes statewide, but allow every state college and university to hike tuition 12 percent, why isn't that a "tax" hike?† Certainly it feels the same for parents and students. And if you agree Kentucky's future lies with a better educated workforce, then shouldn't the entire state support those institutions rather than saddle increased costs on just students and parents? Isn't that a public policy decision of the highest magnitude?
And have we learned nothing from Katrina? Suppose something akin should hit Kentucky or this region? Katrina certainly taught us we can depend just so far on the feds. Much of any recovery for our people, our businesses, our institutions, must come from ourselves. It's a double whammy: fewer tax sources available in a disaster to pay higher taxes, but if we don't, recovery will be set back even more (as in the Gulf States today). So like it or not, at least some short-term hike in taxes is, in my humble opinion, unavoidable if we are to have a faster recovery from a catastrophe. And the rainy day fund won't cut it in such a happening.† (I wonder if the lawmakers in Louisiana and Mississippi raised the "no new taxes" cry in trying to cope with and recover from Katrina.) Surely we cannot rely on FEMA or other federal agencies based on their recent performances.
From these examples, I would argue the popular cry for no new taxes makes very little sense. Does that mean we should, therefore, fall in behind those arguing for increased taxes in this time of fiscal crisis in Kentucky? Not necessarily. My argument is that those who cry "no new taxes" should be fair and add "for higher education, for abused kids, for new highways."† Conversely, those who support new taxes should also be required to explain why and for what programs and how long. That places the public debate where it belongs: on programs, on our priorities, and not on a hollow, if politically popular, slogan for both the "aginers" and the politicians without backbone.
Ken Kurtz is a semi-retired journalist, and former news director of WKYT-TV. He has covered state legislatures in six states, and has spent the last 30 years in Kentucky. He is a member of the Kentucky Journalism Hall of Fame.