So Explain This: The Poor Conservative
Posted by J. Alexander Mitchell on 07.01.2009
What do you do when the people that need help the most want the least in taxes?
I like to label myself as "Center Left". I do not claim a particular political party; I have vote both Democrat and Republican on the local level (though I would consider a third party candidate if one came up with things I would vote for), and would have had a tough time choosing my last presidential vote if Barack Obama had not won the Democratic nomination. My philosophy on politics is nuanced (as I believe any philosophy on politics should be – no one political philosophy fits all problems), but, were I to generalize it, it would be as follows – the government should provide those things needed by society and serve only as referee for those things not needed by society. It is only the fact that I deem a lot of social services as "needed" that makes me add the "Left" part in on "Center Left". This sort of philosophy becomes interesting, though, when one factors in the scenario where the people that want to be taxed the least are actually the ones using most of the services. How can one that uses governmental welfare possibly expect not to have taxes raised for their services? Apparently this not only is possible, but is happening in everyone's favorite fiscal-disaster-movie state, California.
So, my question for today is… how can one simultaneously be poor and conservative without being hypocritical?
An article caught my eye while I was searching for evidence in the San Francisco Chronicle that Barack Obama said cap and trade will greatly increase electric bills. The article was titled "State's most conservative county uses much cash". You can find the article, released June 30th, on the San Francisco Chronicle website. The gist is that the county with the highest Republican registration in the state, Modoc County, is number two in terms of the number of state taxpayer dollars received. The only county that received more money, Tulare County, was also listed as conservative. To contrast, the article mentioned that liberal strongholds such as Marin County and San Francisco county were among the highest (1st and 3rd, respectively) for contributions into the system. According to the article, the Democrats in the state want to create more revenue sources to solve the debt problem, while the Republicans think it can be solved by simply cutting back expenditures. It would appear that the Republican solution is the one that will be the direction… and will have a very large effect on Modoc, as evidenced by the following:
"I don't think voters in the conservative counties understand the connection between the service they are receiving and the votes their representatives are making," (California Assemblywoman Noreen) Evans said. "Maybe the layers of government are so convoluted that many people don't realize how it works."
In Modoc, the way it works is that if the cuts being proposed go through, near-catastrophe will reign, said County Administrative Officer Mark Charlton.
He said the entire road maintenance service would be closed except for snowplowing on a few main roads, the welfare-to-work CalWORKS program would be cut in half, many mental health patients would no longer be monitored and would relapse and wind up behind bars, and there would be fewer police patrols.
"You'll be able to translate these cuts into more accidents on the road, more people in jail, more people getting sick," Charlton said."
On the other side of the coin, Assemblyman Jim Nielsen, who represents Modoc County, believes that the deficit can be reduced by leaving social services alone and cutting things such as regulatory oversight committees and government employees. I question this, however, as (according to the article) 70% of California's general fund goes to health and education. Looking at the budget numbers from 2008 ($131 billion in spending with a $40 billion deficit) and doing some quick math, the government would have to cut just about EVERYTHING else, including the day-to-day funding to keep the government working, in order to cover their deficit. It's obvious that the people of Modoc county will be hit with something.
As an aside, this sort of situation illustrates why I dislike and am hesitant to claim either party. Is it not possible to create a plan that increases revenue while lowering some services in order to meet the budget?
The people of Modoc county – a very self-sufficient group by most measures, have their own ideas. However, these ideas show the difficulty with simply saying "cut the unnecessary stuff"; we can't agree on what is "unnecessary". A conservative cowboy in the county suggested getting rid of "environment crap" and varying government departments, while a liberal seller of herbal remedies suggested killing projects that dam the river and corporate subsidies. I'm really curious as to what both sides of this aisle would agree to, which makes me wonder how the government will be able to balance the budget simply by cutting things out.
So, that brings us to what I don't understand – how can one want to continue to receive benefits from the government while not increasing taxes and simultaneously not decreasing the benefits you receive? I can't see how anyone that actually utilizes government programs regularly could still be fiscally conservative, as that would kill your livelihood. I apologize in advance if it seems like I am "picking on" conservatives; that is not my intent. I simply want to understand this ideology. Can someone help me?
Before we go, I have a follow-up to my cap and trade article and an interesting observation. First, the follow-up – the Washington Times is reporting that Democratic representative Marcy Kaptur was given a new federal energy authority in her region along with 3.5 billion in taxpayer money to help spur renewable energy and economic development in Ohio and varying Midwest states. Ohio was one of the states cited in the Wall Street Journal as potentially getting soaked by the cap and trade proposal, as about 86% of its power is currently coal-provided. Whether or not this sort of wheeling and dealing at the last moment – this portion of the bill was added in the three hundred pages appended to the bill the day before the vote – is a good thing or not is definitely up for debate.
Conservatives lack self-awareness. It's the same reason why my friend hates the idea of a public healthcare option, but doesn't grasp that the fire department is a public service paid for with his taxes. His kids (step-kids, of course - from his second marriage, but they're divorced now) go to public school, even though he has the option to send them to private. It goes on and on, but that's to be expected from a group that thinks "under God" has been in the Pledge of Allegiance since its inception.
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on July 01, 2009 at 05:15 PM
I can't comment, calculating the proper blend of someone else's tax incidence versus the maximum personal dole is beyond my experience The logic of Serfdom is better left for those who accept their place as serfs.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on July 01, 2009 at 05:55 PM
I saw on the news recently that it cost California twice as much per year for each prison inmate as the rest of the country. Why is that? It also has some of the highest taxes in the country and businesses are fleeing in the state. Fewer businesses mean less tax dollars. Taxes are necessary and sometimes they need to be raised but answer me this. Are you saying that there isnt one government job or program that cannot be eliminated? No physical assets that can be sold? Nothing! Conservatives dont mind paying taxes for things that are necessary. Its all the junk we get from both political parties that makes people made. Notice I said conservative not GOP or Democrat. There are economic conservatives in both parties,except California I guess. When the politicans show that they have cut every bit of wasteful spending and still cant balance the budget then it is time to raise taxes. As far as the story is concerned I couldnt find the report online so i cant really comment on it but as usual in the stories I did find
it depended
on how the numbers are used both sides seem to be able to support or discount the report.
Posted By: jerry (Guest) on July 01, 2009 at 10:12 PM
Apparently you must of not liked what you found when I brought up Obamas scary statement about electric bills neccessarily skyrocketing.
I guess the media should have spent more time covering statements such as that instead of licking his sack all the time.
Posted By: John (Guest) on July 01, 2009 at 10:16 PM
You're assuming that all people in a county consume government resources equally and cast votes on an equal, regular basis. People who consume the most government resources tend to vote in the least numbers - if they can't be bothered to go find work than why would you think that they would bother to go to the polls, especially when they're being "taken care of". The self important liberal folks in San Fran gladly take them on as wards of the State and they don't have to do anything but remain under-achievers. The people who vote conservatively see massive government programs that produce little more than boarded up windows and life long dependants on the government. All the while their own personal tax layout keeps increasing while the neighborhood doesn't improve. When you're doing everything right and being taxed and your neighbor isn't while collecting the benefits of government, it isn't that hard to see why you'd be angry.
Posted By: Steven Xavier (Guest) on July 01, 2009 at 10:25 PM
I have been poor and conservative, and I believe that people should generally provide for themselves. If I wanted, I could manipulate the system and not help my parents and let the government take care of them. Instead, I actually help them out, so the government refuses to help. This kind of thing sours me on welfare. I believe that people do sometimes hit a rough spot and I can see the government helping them, but I have a problem when the government won't help people who help themselves, or end up supporting families for many years. I wish there was an easy solution, but if you help people who really need it, you get a lot of people who take advantage. Obviously, it isn't everybody or even most people, but it happens and I see it every day working in the inner city. It can be very disturbing and frustrating when you see what some people do with the "free money." I think welfare should be time limited to promote upward mobility instead of keeping people dependent.
As for the poor conservative, they believe in making it in life and relying on yourself, not the government. Not all poor people want a hand out, most of them want to be successful and make their own life on their own terms. Thats how I was and now I make a solid living and I can take care of my parents myself even if it is tough.
Posted By: My Opinion (Guest) on July 01, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Its almost an anthropology question more than it is a political one. Statistically, Conservatives are much more likely to donate to Charity. To the extent that poor conservatives want to help or be helped, they do it locally and voluntarily in mostly rural areas. They view the world through their insular communities, and wish to stay disconnected from media and political types with whom they don't identify. It creates a disconnect where they support local initiatives that need taxpayer money but elect politicians that claim to be for lower taxes.
Now, maybe if they gave up on a massive warfare state and the drug war, they could have their cake and eat it too, but that's another rant.
Posted By: Tom (Guest) on July 02, 2009 at 12:54 AM
John - I searched repeatedly for any evidence of that statement and found NONE. There are plenty of articles citing the statement,but I found nothing in the San Fran Chronicle supporting its existence. That's why I didn't go into it.
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on July 02, 2009 at 02:19 AM
Jerry said "When the politicans show that they have cut every bit of wasteful spending and still cant balance the budget then it is time to raise taxes. "
First thing - I checked the San Francisco Chronicle link and it works.
Secondly - how does one know they have killed "wasteful" spending when any two people don't agree on what is wasteful? Who decides what is wasteful?
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on July 02, 2009 at 02:27 AM
The explanation is that conservatives know, if only instinctively, that there's no free lunch. They know that unless I have the freedom to starve today, I will have the obligation to prevent someone else--everyone else--from starving tomorrow. And there may be people I want to see starve. Conservatives know that what you tax will be avoided, and what you subsidize will be abused. If I get the use of the fire department anyway, why should I buy a concrete-walled house when cheap and flammable wood is available? If I get free health care, why shouldn't I eat to my heart's content and ruin my liver with drink? Conservatives know that the best hope today for curtailing government is to bankrupt it by lowering taxes politically and draining the services socially.
Posted By: Paul J. Amore (Registered) on July 02, 2009 at 07:12 AM
Yes Paul, people choose to build a house out of wood instead of concrete because they know the fire department will put out any fires.
That is one of the most asinine comments I've ever read, and John posts here regularly.
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on July 02, 2009 at 10:55 AM
J.Alexander,
Go to you tube
Type in Barack Obama admits energy prices will skyrocket under cap and trade.
I found it in two minutes.I apolgise for not linking it but I am on my blackberry.
Sounds like to me you didn't try that hard.You can do better than that.
Posted By: John (Guest) on July 02, 2009 at 03:05 PM
J.Alexander,
Go to you tube
Type in Barack Obama admits energy prices will skyrocket under cap and trade.
I found it in two minutes.I apolgise for not linking it but I am on my blackberry.
Sounds like to me you didn't try that hard.You can do better than that.
Posted By: John (Guest) on July 02, 2009 at 03:06 PM
Echo,echo....echo.No response J.Alexander?Here I will reach out first,I should not have pressed the submit button twice.
Now here is were you admit you did not put in the effort to try to find the statement.You are familiar with you tube?Right?
Denial and silence in the face of facts is not pretty bro.
Posted By: John (Guest) on July 02, 2009 at 07:28 PM
Legislators and their staffers in California get two free eyeglasses each year,sunglasses if they do not wear eyeglasses. To show they are cutting back they are agreeing to only get one pair. Might not be alot of money but these are things that people are talking about. They get a free car,gas and maintenance,this on top of six-figure salary. This is just one thing I found in about 5 minutes online. Also the link did work, I was referring to the report that was cited in the SF newspaper story. I did not want to comment on the question that was raised in the story without actually reading the report.
Posted By: jerry (Guest) on July 02, 2009 at 07:43 PM
J.Alexander, here is your link about Obamas comments on cap and trade
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqHL404zhcU
Posted By: John (Guest) on July 02, 2009 at 09:48 PM
As a citizen of Modoc county the real crime in this county is what our elected county supervisors do with the money they get from the state. It is criminally mismanaged. Recent news reports in The Modoc County Record and the Klamath Falls Herald and News have largely gone ignored by state auditors.
Posted By: Mark (Guest) on July 08, 2009 at 04:21 PM
STAY CURRENT