7 ms·

"Most of the state will be part of the ocean within fifty years, but don't worry people, we've slashed services so the budget's balanced and your taxes won't go

"Most of the state will be part of the ocean within fifty years, but don't worry people, we've slashed services so the budget's balanced and your taxes won't go up." Sometimes you need to spend money to protect against a future where the costs are even higher. The mosquito control initiative could have paid for itself with the sales taxes on that $5.5B in revenue that never happened.

Gustomaximus 10y ago
I 100% agree with your point in priciple. The problem is reality. Government leaders use this principle to overspend on non-productive causes and create debt problems. So end of the day I'd prefer to have a government balancing the budget and leaving some opportunity on the table, rather than the likeyhood debt spent on non-productive causes will become an anchor to future development.
- astrodust 10y ago
  Dealing with the inevitable future where flooding isn't just frequent but perpetual sounds like a pretty good expenditure of money. Either that or start working deals with other states to deal with the inevitable exodus of people and the complete implosion of the tax base.
  - stuaxo 10y ago
    This is brought up a lot, is there much evidence in the past of exoduses of people due to tax rises ?
    - astrodust 10y ago
      Only the ultra rich bail on a place because of high taxes. Others have connections they place more value on than an incremental increase in tax. Remember, a lot of these states that are suffering from tax revenue problems have some of the lowest tax rates in the country. Where are people going to flee to? The 49th lowest tax state instead of the 48th?
will_brown 10y ago
Agreed, but sometimes there is no money to spend, and that's my point...it is purely a budget issue not a political one. When your State budget goes from say $70B down to $60B (including a stimulus package from the federal government) and the state is already $200B in debt where does the money come from? Had the republican (turned independent, turned democrat) governor Crist known saving $5.5M would cost $5.5B he wouldn't have done it, but he didn't and instead maybe he saved 100 state jobs. It's easy to know the right decision after the facts, but these budget issues cut both ways. For example, during the housing crisis to keep Florida operating I believe Crist liquidated like 1/3 to 2/3 of FL pension trusts. So, yes it's great that FL didn't shut down, but what happens when FL can't pay retirees pensions? So if you want $100M for mental Health funding who do you take it from?
- astrodust 10y ago
  Where do you get that money? I bet you could shake $100M out of the prison system if you looked for cases of people being locked up for ridiculously trivial offenses. Given how prisoners often cost $40-60K per year, wouldn't take that many. I don't expect people to be psychic, but common sense must apply here. When you "save money" by slashing budgets on road repairs, and ten years later your roads are so awful you have to replace them all at great expense, is that really savings? A bridge that's deteriorating is expensive to fix. A bridge that's collapsed from lack of maintenance is crazy expensive to replace. The so-called fiscal conservatives are always looking at saving money now, they don't seem to care about what happens tomorrow.
  - seanp2k2 10y ago
    Indeed; the length of a political term and the length of the consequences of some of the decisions being made during that term are at odds. Is there a better solution?
  - will_brown 10y ago
    >I bet you could shake $100M out of the prison system if you looked for cases of people being locked up for ridiculously trivial offenses. Well FL already has programs in place releasing felons to free up funds, so whats a few more felons...although talking about looking at saving money now vs not seeming to care about what happens tomorrow, about 10% of those released early will commit new crimes during the period they should have still been incarcerated. >The so-called fiscal conservatives are always looking at saving money now, they don't seem to care about what happens tomorrow. Perhaps they are cutting their nose off despite their face as you suggest due to some warped politically ideology, but they say the same thing about the other side. Looking at the most fiscally healthy states, they are all red states. In fact what makes the most fiscally unhealthy states what they are is not that they are blue, but that they are taking on obligations (usually pension and healthcare) today that will make them insolvent tomorrow. I am aware the common response is sure they don't have the money to pay the obligations but the revenue will come in the future, but history shows that debt simply continues to climb resulting in more and more tough budget cuts...until bankruptcy and while we haven't had one at the State level yet, there are 51 municipalities/cities who have filed (both red and blue, but by far the largest bankruptcies were blue). Still I maintain it does no good looking at these things as left/right, because they are budget decisions and both ideologies fail and both succeed fiscally. Unfortunately politics gets people taking a side and acting irrationally when confronting facts, say for example how fiscal conservatives hammer Obama for doubling the debt and yet they praise Reagan (who tripled the debt). Or when you get Trump saying Obama is soft on immigration when there have been more deportations during his administration than any other.

Gustomaximus 10y ago

I 100% agree with your point in priciple. The problem is reality. Government leaders use this principle to overspend on non-productive causes and create debt problems. So end of the day I'd prefer to have a government balancing the budget and leaving some opportunity on the table, rather than the likeyhood debt spent on non-productive causes will become an anchor to future development.

astrodust 10y ago
Dealing with the inevitable future where flooding isn't just frequent but perpetual sounds like a pretty good expenditure of money. Either that or start working deals with other states to deal with the inevitable exodus of people and the complete implosion of the tax base.
- stuaxo 10y ago
  This is brought up a lot, is there much evidence in the past of exoduses of people due to tax rises ?
  - astrodust 10y ago
    Only the ultra rich bail on a place because of high taxes. Others have connections they place more value on than an incremental increase in tax. Remember, a lot of these states that are suffering from tax revenue problems have some of the lowest tax rates in the country. Where are people going to flee to? The 49th lowest tax state instead of the 48th?

will_brown 10y ago

Agreed, but sometimes there is no money to spend, and that's my point...it is purely a budget issue not a political one. When your State budget goes from say $70B down to $60B (including a stimulus package from the federal government) and the state is already $200B in debt where does the money come from? Had the republican (turned independent, turned democrat) governor Crist known saving $5.5M would cost $5.5B he wouldn't have done it, but he didn't and instead maybe he saved 100 state jobs. It's easy to know the right decision after the facts, but these budget issues cut both ways. For example, during the housing crisis to keep Florida operating I believe Crist liquidated like 1/3 to 2/3 of FL pension trusts. So, yes it's great that FL didn't shut down, but what happens when FL can't pay retirees pensions? So if you want $100M for mental Health funding who do you take it from?

astrodust 10y ago
Where do you get that money? I bet you could shake $100M out of the prison system if you looked for cases of people being locked up for ridiculously trivial offenses. Given how prisoners often cost $40-60K per year, wouldn't take that many. I don't expect people to be psychic, but common sense must apply here. When you "save money" by slashing budgets on road repairs, and ten years later your roads are so awful you have to replace them all at great expense, is that really savings? A bridge that's deteriorating is expensive to fix. A bridge that's collapsed from lack of maintenance is crazy expensive to replace. The so-called fiscal conservatives are always looking at saving money now, they don't seem to care about what happens tomorrow.
- seanp2k2 10y ago
  Indeed; the length of a political term and the length of the consequences of some of the decisions being made during that term are at odds. Is there a better solution?
- will_brown 10y ago
  >I bet you could shake $100M out of the prison system if you looked for cases of people being locked up for ridiculously trivial offenses. Well FL already has programs in place releasing felons to free up funds, so whats a few more felons...although talking about looking at saving money now vs not seeming to care about what happens tomorrow, about 10% of those released early will commit new crimes during the period they should have still been incarcerated. >The so-called fiscal conservatives are always looking at saving money now, they don't seem to care about what happens tomorrow. Perhaps they are cutting their nose off despite their face as you suggest due to some warped politically ideology, but they say the same thing about the other side. Looking at the most fiscally healthy states, they are all red states. In fact what makes the most fiscally unhealthy states what they are is not that they are blue, but that they are taking on obligations (usually pension and healthcare) today that will make them insolvent tomorrow. I am aware the common response is sure they don't have the money to pay the obligations but the revenue will come in the future, but history shows that debt simply continues to climb resulting in more and more tough budget cuts...until bankruptcy and while we haven't had one at the State level yet, there are 51 municipalities/cities who have filed (both red and blue, but by far the largest bankruptcies were blue). Still I maintain it does no good looking at these things as left/right, because they are budget decisions and both ideologies fail and both succeed fiscally. Unfortunately politics gets people taking a side and acting irrationally when confronting facts, say for example how fiscal conservatives hammer Obama for doubling the debt and yet they praise Reagan (who tripled the debt). Or when you get Trump saying Obama is soft on immigration when there have been more deportations during his administration than any other.