Bush = Cut in Services

A new blog on Salon has a very good essay (see the second article, "Give Me a Break") on the effect of the rebates/tax cuts. Somewhere — afraid I've lost the exact link — there's a website maintained by progressive Dems where they suggest a slogan like "Bush favors cuts in government services" or "Tax Cuts = Service Cuts".

And that's what it boils down to. If standard governmental services are to be maintained — such as interstate highways (on the national level) or education (on the local level) — the money has to come from somewhere. It's an absurdly simple equation. Yet voters in both California and New York have yet to grok this basic principle of economics.

This suggests a level of immaturity, in which one expects someone else to "take care of it". Well, that's not really how it works. Either the individual takes care of it, or the individual pools resources with like-minded neighbors to take care of the desired service. There are some services — interstate transportation being an obvious example — which are best served on the national level.

So, a sensible debate begins with a question of what services are best served on a national level, and which ones are best served on the local level alone. The next question is whether it is appropriate for the Federal government to set standards (e.g., for education) without providing funding to help meet those standards. Is it appropriate to have an "unfunded" mandate? Incidentally, the term "unfunded mandate" is really a misnomer, as the money will eventually come from somewhere.

It seems to me these questions are basic to what it means to be an American. I hope to post more reflections on this topic in the near future....