The link brings you to a story about a political stand-off in Louisiana's state government fiscal problem. They are spending more money than they take in. One side wants to increase taxes (an increase of record proportions apparently) and one side does not want the increase.
So the one side uses a crowd favorite, the Louisiana State University's football team (the Tigers) as a HOSTAGE! Is it a real threat, or just demagoguery? The article lists other areas that would be hit...but the main point is this; aren't there always TWO means to balance a budget? Increase revenues or cut spending right?
The dirty little secret here is that spending is ASSUMED (the Federal Government calls it 'base line budgeting') to always increase at a specified rate. So, any increase in spending that is less than that assumed increase would be considered a CUT??? Like illustrated below, the BLUE line, is it a cut? Or is it growth?
According to base-line budgeting, it is a CUT!
Like in Flint, where they have decided to spend over $2,000,000.00 on park renovations instead of using that money to address their existential water issue? Wow...
If a family has less money coming in than it spends, priorities must be determined. Which is more important? Cutting grass in a park, or getting clean drinking water? Welfare payments to marginal individuals or a state-wide loved football team? (Please understand that it is NOT an all-or-nothing proposition regarding the marginal welfare recipients. We're talking here about the person that is able-bodied, just discouraged from finding work after years of looking.) Given that we are talking about spending public funds, shouldn't the calculus of MB greater or equal to MC be considered?
LASTLY...it is as true as daytime being lighter than nighttime. Taxes reduce economic activity. Everytime. Never not.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/13/louisiana-dem-gov-edwards-warns-agree-to-proposed-tax-hikes-or-lsu-football-could-be-sacked.html
