Et balansert budsjett betyr at utgiftene fylket bruker på varer og tjenester må være lik inntektene fylket har i skatter og avgifter. Altså 100 millioner i utgifter må betales for med 100 millioner i inntekter. Ok, les dette (merk):
Think Progress has been doing important yeoman’s work tallying up the states where Medicaid and other social services are being slashed at the same time that corporate taxes are being cut. In Pennsylvania, for instance, ‘Gov. Tom Corbett (R) presented a budget last week that would cut taxes for corporations, while freezing teacher salaries, cutting dental care for Medicaid recipients, and eliminating more than half of the state’s universities.’
The trade-off between the benefits of social spending and the drawbacks of taxes is, of course, among the longest-running debates in American politics. But that’s not actually the debate being had in most of these states: Rather, the cuts to social programs are being justified as a necessary response to budget deficits. And the tax cuts? Well, it’s increasingly Republican orthodoxy that ‘we have a spending problem, not a taxing problem.’ Unfortunately for them, their budgets don’t agree, and since these states are constitutionally required to balance their budgets, what’s actually happening is that the cuts to social services are, in part, going to pay for these regressive cuts.
(Via Ezra Klein.)
I praksis da, kuttes skattene og inntektene til fylket til 80 millioner. Man må nå enten låne 20 millioner for å betale for eksisterende tjenester, eller så kutter man 20 millioner. Hvem fikk skattekuttet og hvem fikk budsjettkuttet? Og hvem kan være overrasket over dette?
Dette minner meg om en debatt i en episode av The West Wing (Presidenten):
Here’s my question: What are the next ten words of your answer? Your taxes are too high? So are mine. Give me the next ten words. How are we going to do it? Give me ten after that, I’ll drop out of the race right now.