Pawlenty's job approval at all-time high!

[AVguy]

I really meant to apply earlier, but it's been a busy last few weeks.

Truly excellent reply, SlyFrog! I think you hit the nail on the head in your discussion of producing value in our economy. The real danger of overtaxing the public is that the "sticks and carrots" of earning (or not earning) income are not properly allocated to the productive members of our society. To that, I fully agree that our system of taxation should never become a deciding factor as to whether a high-wage earner works another hour. Such a result would be wasteful and counterproductive, so I certainly agree with your economic analysis. I would still maintain that taxes, even if some view spent unwisely in the opinion of some, still makes its way into the private sector by somewhat hidden means (e.g., consumer spending, military-industrial complex, etc.). I have to disagree regaring the point about paying for government to operate because such a result seems inevitable given the nature of government. (Can you imagine the corruption we would have if we did not have an auditing function within the government?)

My own personal view, in contrast with the perspective that our government should only serve to facilitate our economic goals, is not restricted to promoting solely economic efficiency and the other economic theories. Our society surely values many noneconomic objectives, sometimes at the sacrifice of economic efficiency. But back to the economic perspective, most value the fact that our government cracks down on monopolies/trusts and unfair practices even though economic efficiency is impacted. For example, we have many airlines despite the fact that one national airline would have less overhead than the current market solution through less advertising and less redundancy, the same requirements we place on our governmental institutions. I do not believe a true free market society can exist (even if we tried) because some economic efficient results are abhorrent in our society (allowing people to die can result in economic efficiency, in certain contexts) so we are forced to mix policy and economics. To that end, there will always be a debate relative to whether or not our decisions are too heavy on the policy side or too heavy on the economics side. Either way, we will have to consider the human element, no matter how inconvenient it is for economic purposes.

Some other tax thoughts:

- It seems pretty well accepted that the sales tax is a fairly regressive tax. Rich people (however you choose to define the term) spend a greater percentage of their earnings on savings than poor people (however you choose to define the term). Most people living paycheck to paycheck (or living on credit) spend nothing on savings, but spend the rest to "make ends meet," so to speak, which means all their paycheck goes toward consumer spending. People with "extra" income tend to shelter their money in investments and retirement accounts. Not everyone needs six cars, so many of those with higher incomes choose to defer their money until a time at which their earnings will be much lower (retirement). I'm not a Ross Perot-wannabe, so I don't have lots of charts to show the point where a sales tax would become regressive, but it's there, and I suspect that it breaks in the middle class (as is typically the case).

- As unpopular as the estate tax is, I question whether a world without an estate tax would promote or hinder the value of hard work in an economic sense. That is, if you work hard in America, you will generally do all right. However, this is not necessarily true of those who are born into wealth. I don't want to turn this into a classist argument, but having an economic oligarchy would mean less money to reward the hard workers. On the other hand, economic theory dictates that more wealth is generated (economic efficiency) in the hands of "rich" people versus "middle-class" and "poor" people.

^ Okay, that's probably why I didn't reply for a while (too long). Hopefully it's not totally incoherent!

[bolter]

Sorry about the question to a question but, did the "GOV" have enough guts to show up at the twins ballpark groundbreaking ceremony?
Considering he raised the Hennepin county sales tax 1/2 percent to build it.
Why couldn't he raise the gas tax to support fixing roads and bridges?
Tim the "GOV" should be tarred and feathered and run out of town like the theif he is.

[kuan]

Not enough people cared enough on election day to do anything about the stadium issue.

Put a stadium tax on tickets. $0.05 per ticket. That should get the next stadium going in 2030 or so.

[sushigirlie]

Originally Posted by Jim Stokes

I can't believe the people posting in this room? Must have mutliple aliases with all the the "me-too-isms."

Pawlenty is like the admiral in the Pirates of Penzanze. He sticks close to his desk and doesn't do anything.

So if not spending money for programs that needed $, then he's your hero. BTW, the bridge collapsed for LACK OF PROPER FUNDING AND POOR INSPECTION. Who's responsible for that? Answer--Governor Pawlenty.

I'd call him "Pawlenty of Nothing." {as in Plenty of Nothing}

I am unimpressed of Pawlenty's work. This is a classic example of Minnesotans paying high taxes and swinging toward republican pool. But wait, they will tell you that they are liberal and open-minded.

[MidniteBreeze]

I didn't read all these posts, but you can count me in the NON-Pawlenty camp. I have my reasons.

[Slig]

I wouldn't neccessarily call myself a Pawlenty supporter, but pinpointing the blame on him for the bridge collapse is absolutely ridiculous. If anybody had any idea that the bridge was on the verge of collapse it most definitely wouldn't have been open to traffic. It was public information that the bridge was inadequate and in possible need of replacement but that doens't translate to "ready to collapse" in engineer language.

[MidniteBreeze]

Oh, I will say my reasons have nothing to do with the bridge collapse.