RALEIGH – Self-styled “progressives,” regardless of party or ilk, pride themselves on being courageous enough to advocate tax increases to fund the government services needed for a civil, civilized society. They are focusing on the wrong issue, however.
Advocates of limited government are not against taxes. They are simply asserting that current federal, state, and local budgets fund programs that are far outside the core, far down the fiscal priority list, and far beyond the ability of government actors to deliver effectively.
It isn’t really about the taxes, in other words. It is about the spending.
Very few on the Right say they would refuse to pay the taxes necessary to police the streets, enforce contracts, and perform other rights-protection duties. Most on the Right would add, at the state level, that taxes are appropriate to fund certain public goods that would be costly if not impossible to perform voluntarily, such as the provision of city streets, or that are required in a self-governing republic, such as the guarantee of a minimum level of education (which may be funded through taxes but not necessarily provided through government-monopoly schools).
Why should politicians running for Congress or president pledge not to raise federal taxes? Because hundreds of billions of dollars are spent annually by Washington on pork-barrel projects, corporate welfare, entitlements for the middle class, and wasteful projects that do not carry out federal constitutional functions in an effective manner.
Why should politicians running for North Carolina General Assembly or governor pledge not to raise state taxes? Because hundreds of millions of dollars are spent annually by Raleigh on pork-barrel projects, corporate welfare, entitlements for the middle class, and wasteful projects that do not carry out state constitutional functions in an effective manner.
And why should local politicians running in municipal races this fall across North Carolina pledge not to raise local taxes? Pretty much for the same reason, albeit to a lesser extent (much of what local governments misspend they are ordered to misspend by higher-ups, for example). Consider the current situation in Charlotte, where there is a spirited mayoral campaign as well as several hot races for council and school board:
• Some city officials want to spend tens of millions of tax dollars on new arts and cultural facilities, even after having committed hundreds of millions of tax dollars to a new arena for a basketball team attracting little public interest, a new convention center that stays vacant most of the time, and a coming rail-transit system that will bring trivial improvements at best to regional traffic. Meanwhile, critical road projects remain unfunded and crime is rising in Charlotte while falling in most other N.C. cities.
• On the county side, Mecklenburg voters are being asked to approve a $427 million school bond. It really represents a downpayment on a $2 billion school-construction plan over the next 10 years that will add more than $200 million a year in debt-service costs. That represents a whopping 22 percent property-tax increase in the coming years, on top of a big property tax already enacted in 2005. Much of the scheduled work has nothing to do with accommodating enrollment growth, and the proposed new schools are far too expensive.
Is it irresponsible for local politicians to pledge “no” to new taxes? Of course not. Until government is pared to its core responsibilities, and better priorities set, it is irresponsible not to make such a pledge.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.