The Cincinnati Beacon - To tax, or not to tax: COAST chair Jason Gloyd responds to Greg Harris

Friday, August 29, 2008

To tax, or not to tax: COAST chair Jason Gloyd responds to Greg Harris

Recently, we invited Democrat Greg Harris to provide a rebuttal to anti-tax positions articulated by Christopher Finney, co-founder of COAST. Now, we have taken the debate another step forward by allowing current COAST chair Jason Gloyd to respond to Harris. (Any suggestions on a candidate to rebut Gloyd?)

Here is our email exchange:

1. Christopher Finney characterized taxes as oppressive government costing everyone, including the poor, lots of money. Greg Harris, in his rebuttal, wrote the following: “When Bush became president, he destroyed a white hot economy with his so-called “free market” policies. Republican tax policy essentially amounted to class warfare against working class America that resulted in a sizable redistribution of wealth to the very top. For example, households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which have an average income of approx. $1.2 million saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 20 percent in 2004 from 24 percent in 2000. Their rate of tax decrease was double the rate of tax cuts for most of middle America. And middle America’s modest decrease has been more than offset by skyrocketing fuel costs, inflation, wage stagnation, healthcare costs (health inflation was reigned in under Clinton), higher interest rates, and for many, the foreclosure crisis.” As a COAST representative, how do you respond to Harris’ criticism of “Republican tax policy”? Please be specific.

As with Chris Finney’s position, The COAST Board has voted on only a limited number of issues. They have not generally weighed in too heavily on federal tax policy, so I can only speak for myself on this issue, but I do suspect this reflects the thinking of many COASTers.

First, I’d note the Mr. Harris deftly changed the questions from specific comments Mr. Finney made about state and local tax policy to federal tax policy, where beating on the Bush Administration is quite easy game. As to these criticisms, I certainly (and I think most COASTers) am generally disgusted with the tax and spending policy of our State and National Republicans. It’s simply indefensible. However, to turn their hypocrisy and failures, which we do not in any way defend) into justification for higher taxes is irrational. Advancing the Nancy Pelosi theme that cutting taxes for those that actually pay taxes “benefits the rich only” is nauseating. We know this sounds good in 60 second sound bites on national T.V., but as a matter of logic and policy, I find it absurd.

COAST has very openly and consistently criticized the Taft administration in Ohio, and several COASTers have vocally opposed the policies of Bush and the current Republicans in Congress for their tax and spending ways. Mr. Harris can try to tie COAST tothese failed policies, but they are false. The only candidate who firmly promised to fundimentally deviate from these policies, Ron Paul, was the COAST endorsed candidate in the Republican Presidential primary in 2008.

I also note Mr. Harris avoided, or was not asked about:

Ohio is a very high tax jurisdiction. We are also high on the scale of having governement regulated economy. In other words, we are not friendly to businesses and families. Do you suppose that this might be why Ohio has four of the fastest dying cities in the nation? Or why Ohio has one of the top forclosure rates in the nation?

Indeed, within a high tax State, Hamilton County is a high tax jurisdiction, particularly as it relates to property taxes. Is this a good thing? Is it helpful to folks who want to buy their first home? Does this fact help or hurt the “poor” big government types claim to want to help?

I certainly think Mr. Harris has been nothing but professional in his replies and I would love to hear a response to those important questions.

2. At one point, Harris characterizes certain taxes as a necessary investment in the future of America. He writes, “Now we are at a moment in history when sizeable government investment is needed to remake our economy for the future. For example, take the issue of energy independence and global warming. We can solve both problems at once, while at the same time transforming our economy by growing a domestic-based energy industry, creating legions of new jobs while driving down energy costs for most Americans. It will require costly one-time investments, for example, to convert to wind energy in coastal, great lakes and plains states. (But not as costly as say, three months in Iraq.) But once this investment is made, it will harness something that is free and doesn’t harm our environment.” Does it make sense, from a long-term perspective, to reject an approach to taxes like this? Why or why not?

COASTers (at least most of them) pay their fair share of taxes. To some degree or another, we agree that paying taxes and some government spending is a necessary price for civilization. The issue that COAST has focused on is do we want higher taxes and spending as a local, state and national policy. Or, do we want the same or less government but with different priorities than today. Should the government be allowed to grow larger and faster than those they govern? Is this a sustainable system? If Mr. Harris honestly thinks we need a higher level of taxes and spending, and a resulting increase in government programs, that’s a fine position. However, he should say so directly and honestly. COASTers have the opposite position and have tried to be very clear on it. Through better prioritization and efficiency we should keep the rate of growth in taxes and spending beneath the inflation rate.

The idea that government can “create jobs”, and spur the economy is one that I fundamentally reject. For example, imagine if Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, with their consistent innovation and entrepreneurial advances were replaced by a government program. Where would we be today? Do you think the government would have better advanced personal computers? This is what Mr. Harris suggests we do for the energy industry. The democrats took over congress 2 years ago and have done absolutely nothing to alleviate our energy costs or oil dependence. In fact, gas has doubled since they took on this project! Harris proposes that self-serving bureaucrats, saddled by unionism, patronage, favoritism and input from 24 our a day sound bite media can “solve” this problem better than private industry. COASTers have more confidence in private industry and free markets to solve these problems.

3. Harris also takes on universal, single-payer health care: “And take the issue of universal healthcare. Why do we need insurance companies serving as the fat, bloated middleman? They needlessly drive up costs. A single payer system or an efficient insurance system like Medicare spends far more on direct healthcare treatment than it does on administrative costs. And think of the economic dividends. Think what it would do for businesses to not have to pay up to 40% of their cost per employee on insurance. This money could be freed for new investment, and would definitely lead to wage/salary increases that would accelerate the economy. Our current healthcare system is imploding because so much is fleeced at so many layers of profiteering. For me, I support universal healthcare for moral reasons. But I think any bottom-line conservatives could support it for its economic dividend alone. I would rather pay for universal healthcare than corporate welfare, and universal healthcare—like energy independence—would ultimately pay for itself.” How do you respond to his contention that government healthcare would ultimately save money? On what do you base your response?

AS far as I know, COAST has never weighed in on this issue and apologize if I’m wrong about that, but here is my perspective:

We already have a health care system that is primarily government run and government funded. With Medicare, Medicaid, Workers’ Compensation and many other government programs paying for health care for rich and poor Americans. I find it laughable to say we have a private system now. In an environment of failing government subsidies and regulation, Mr. Harris, in simplified spin, blames it on “big insurance”, just as I’m sure he blames “big oil” for our gas prices. Let’s not stop there, what about “big drug companies”, “rich doctors”, “hospital administrators”, and anyone else who profits from this twisted system and blame it on free enterprise. You can do that, but government has created this mess and more government will not solve it. Two of my favorite quotes from one of our founding fathers Thomas Jefferson: “A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvment, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.” and “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

4. Harris takes on an issue about which COAST feels successful. He writes, “COAST feels very proud about taking on transportation alternatives, but I think if they were really sincere about such matters then they would challenge mainstream transportation policy that essentially subsidizes urban sprawl. Indeed the costs of sprawling development are far greater than the cost of compact development and redevelopment. The Homebuilders Association also utilizes the ‘free market’ rhetoric to its advantage when in fact massive public investment in such things as remediating septic systems, highways expansion, extending sewer lines, etc., makes them the biggest de facto welfare recipient in the region. Yeah, its “free market” for them; indeed, it’s more than free. But it is costly as hell for the rest of us.” How do you respond to this allegation? Is Harris right or wrong when he suggests his concept is more fiscally responsible? Why or why not?

Those who fight the evil of “suburban sprawl” typically want to penalize (through higher taxes and regulations) those who choose not to live in the City core. Personally, I don’t care where people choose to live. But, if you look at consumer preferences, black and white, liberal and conservative, they tend to want suburban residences beyond the reach of the havoc created by liberal politicians governing America’s core cities. In my experience, the three consistent things people look for when choosing a residence are: reputation of schools, safety and affordable housing stock. You don’t have to be a conservative to appreciate any and all of these. These may be reasons that Mr. Harris thinks are bad, but it is not my choice and it certainly isn’t Mr. Harris” choice.

I’m a bit unclear on what subsidies he’s concerned about? What expense has Mr. Harris paid for someone who chose to move to Mason or West Chester? Most residential and commercial developments involve developers paying for streets, sewers, and utilities being installed. Things like schools and public servicies are paid by the new residences themselves. The reality is people work in Cincinnati and live in West Chester, they pay a City earnings tax, but use significantly less city resources, resulting in a net gain for Cincinnati. These people actually subsidize the urban core, not drain from it!

5. Is there any other issue relative to this discussion you feel it important to emphasize? If so, please identify and respond.

Mr. Harris has avoided dealing with specific issues COAST has taken on over the years. We would love for him to weigh in on each of these. I would also ask him to justify his support of the Pepper/Portune Super-Sized Jail Tax. Are there any government funded programs that could be defunded or for which funding could be significantly reduced?

1. Bringing the Olympics to Cincinnati (opposed)

2. Sales tax for light rail serving Mason (opposed)

3. Jail Tax (opposed)

4. More tax dollars to NURF Center (opposed)

5. The Drake Levy (opposed)

6. Property tax rollback for city residents (favored)

7. Funding for the “art”. i.e. some rich guys determination for what art is. (opposed)

8. Illegal spending of tax dollars on campaigning (opposed)

9. Excessive levies for public school bureaucrats (opposed)

10. Red light cameras (opposed)

11. Cincinnati Trolley plan (opposed)

12. Open government initiatives (favored)

Thank you again for providing this forum of discussion as I do find it enlightening and hope others do as well. I’ll be the first to admit that COAST isn’t always “right”, but I do think we do a good job of holding government accountable, after that, it’s up to each of us to make up our own mind.

• Share This Article!
Listen to this article

Help The Cincinnati Beacon Grow! Participate in Social Networking!

Socializer!

Members

Tell us what you think!

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

says:
29 Aug 2008 at 04:49 pm | #

I would like to thank all of you guys for sharing your thoughts here at the Beacon. I would also ask that everyone else keep the dialog respectful and about the issues.

Thanks!

anon says:
29 Aug 2008 at 11:11 pm | #

Jeffre’s the pot calling the kettle black.

On this issue - I can’t even bring myself to read their crap again.

Just look at our economy, look at our needs, look at our infrastructure, look at our debt, look at the rich getting rich --- and then, pass some God damn new taxes and help the 95% of people suffering so big wigs can buy a freaking summer house.

You’re darn right - tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend --- spend on green jobs and innovation, spend it on our roads, bridges, and dams, spend it on education, spend it on college, spend it on investments into communities, spend it!

says:
30 Aug 2008 at 06:46 am | #

Gloyd said:

As with Chris Finney’s position, The COAST Board has voted on only a limited number of issues. They have not generally weighed in too heavily on federal tax policy… First, I’d note the Mr. Harris deftly changed the questions from specific comments Mr. Finney made about state and local tax policy to federal tax policy, where beating on the Bush Administration is quite easy game. As to these criticisms, I certainly (and I think most COASTers) am generally disgusted with the tax and spending policy of our State and National Republicans. It’s simply indefensible. However, to turn their hypocrisy and failures, which we do not in any way defend) into justification for higher taxes is irrational.

So, anon #2, you have not sensible refuted the point.

Freedom Fighters says:
30 Aug 2008 at 11:16 am | #

We think Jason did an excellent job of respectfully repeating the rhetoric.

We only wish that the Beacon would have presented the question: When there is a tax in place should everyone pay their fair share ?

The Beacon has done several posts on corporate welfare and corporations not paying their taxes through off shore shells, but, locally the question is how can a city lawyer attempt to claim and receive proerty tax subsidies by claiming their Indian Hill estate is a commercial farm ?

In our humble opinion, COAST semms to pick and chose their cause based on a political idiology and not the general welfare.

We think the solution is smooth as ice cream:

http://www.truemajority.org/oreos/

says:
31 Aug 2008 at 10:56 am | #

FF, didn’t David Pepper address this in a recent blog post at PepTalk?

says:
02 Sep 2008 at 08:04 am | #

I hope this dialogue continues. It is very revealing.

Anybody that is interested in non main stream politics, check out C-span 2 today. Ron Paul is holding a “Rally for the republic” alternative convention. I think C-span is covering the entire rally.

Hot News!

Contact Us

Events

Friday, August 29, 2008