Asymmetrical Information

We see this in court all the time. Plaintiff and Defendant don't bring up some issue which could be damaging to both. Then, when it's time to appeal, the looser in the contest brings up whatever it is that now might help them, since they already lost and there is nothing left to loose.

It's a dumb ploy in court (and never works) and it's a dumb ploy in politics.

As a refugee from New York I say it's the press's fault that it wasn't brought up. It's their job to find the story, it's a politician's job to get elected.
But then, except for the two or three major conservative papers, the press is liberal and wants higher taxes. Just as nobody ever defends themselves with a gun, tax and spending cuts are bad.

Do you actually think that the press is liberal and WANTS higher taxes? Why in heavens name would anyone WANT higher taxes?

Well, I can say that those of us who work(ed) for the fiscal committees certainly knew there was a huge structural deficit. We availed ourselves of nearly every possible one shot in our 02-03 budget, yet there was a fear that revenues might not actually materialize as projected. The Governor, Senate and Assembly all winked and nodded as it was an election year. We all KNEW what was to come after the election. We began talking about a post-election session in order to address the problem over the summer.
But there wasn't a political advantage for McCall to make this an issue, because once it was out he would have been expected to have a solution. If he talked about spending cuts, his base would have been pissed. And, the prospect of raising taxes would have killed any chances he had upstate.
The only person who uttered a peep was Sen. Majority Leader Bruno, just a few weeks before the election.

I can't speak for NY, Kate, but in Massachusetts, people 'WANT higher taxes' when some program they feel passionately about (and which usually affects children, the elderly, special ed, &c.) cries that their operating budget is to be cut to the bone by the mean-spirited Republican governor. The pages of the Boston Globe are then filled with pious bleating about how 'taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society' (an utterly fatuous bromide from the otherwise sensible Oliver Wendell Holmes). Although a cynic might be forgiven for noting that those who call for ever higher confiscatory rates come from wealthy suburbs such as Wellesley, Newton, Manchester or Lincoln; one suspects a single mother in a three-floor walkup in Dorchester might prefer to keep her wages.

But as a corollary to this, it is instructive to note that when Massachusetts reduced its income tax rate, it also included a checkoff box on the state tax forms so that those altruistic souls who wished to pay at the higher rate could do so. Only 300-odd families did so, thus confirming the conservative adage that liberals are the most caring, generous folk in the world - when they're spending your money, that is.

So do people really want higher taxes? I suspect many do in a 'feel-good' sense (because it shows they are good citizens who care about their fellow man), but only so long as the higher rate won't affect them in any painful way.

"Do you actually think that the press is liberal and WANTS higher taxes? Why in heavens name would anyone WANT higher taxes?"

This is a very easy question to answer: the voters who backed these taxes were never going to pay them! It is the private enterprise sector that has paid the price. The 35 hour a week public sector received enormous benefits. It's as simple as that. And yes, the lying New York Times essentially hid the truth from its readers. The Times has no shame or integrity when it comes to advocating the Liberal agenda.

We should never forget that the New York Times never had the moral decency to return the ill gotten Pulitzer of Walter Duranty long after it knew he had lied on behalf of the Soviet Union. The most recent scandal is merely the logical continuation of that earlier deceit.

Hey Jane, would it help if we sent you Grey Davis?

Comments are Closed.