On principle, I’m a fan of some of Trump’s budget proposals. I’ve long argued our funding is upside down. There’s no reason New Yorkers should pay for art projects that get displayed in Indianapolis. There’s no reason people in Alaska should pay for a highway in Fort Wayne. It’s safe to say almost no one could name one thing paid for by the National Endowment for the Arts in Indianapolis. I’m sure there are things, but it’s unlikely anyone knows what they are on a grand scale. Asking for money from the Feds is like asking the Mayor’s office to buy you lunch.
A discussion just the other night with someone working here in Indiana suggested the millions of dollars flowing in from the federal government to help Indiana’s HIV crisis has been responsible for a hiring spree of people who work in Indianapolis and never visit the impacted areas. That’s a situation where there’s a clear order of operations: give addicts needles, then detox beds, then send them on their way with some job training. The Federal money isn’t doing much of that if any. There’s no reason Indiana can’t handle this itself. We caused it, after all.
We’d all be better off if we kept money at the local and state level, with the most going to local governments. It’ll get stuff done faster, too because nothing cuts red tape like not having any red tape to cut through.
Trump’s proposal even cuts IRS funding by $293 million, which I guess most people won’t mind.
My biggest problem with the plan is it just shifts money around, mostly to defense. There are no true net cuts to spending. If we’re going to cut these programs nationally, let’s reduce expenditures. Move money to the debt in the short term so we can lower taxes at the federal level long-term.
If I have to spend 30% of my income on taxes, I’d rather 20% of it go to Indianapolis. I live here. I walk on these streets. I have to look at the art projects done here. Cutting taxes at the federal level means we can maintain the status quo of tax expenditures if states and cities want or can increase taxes. If they don’t, at least I have some ability to move. It’s a lot easier to move from Indianapolis to Chicago than it is to move from the US to Canada. Shifting money this way would maintain the balance to a person’s tax status quo, but now people can see what they’re paying for. That’s a big deal, and this plan doesn’t do that at all. It just throws money into an existing pile no one asked for.
If there’s a big political problem in this country, it’s the perceived or real failure of governments to provide for their residents competently and efficiently. This leads to division in spending a bunch of money on taxes because you can’t see what you’re paying for. A healthy market – even of ideas – can’t function in that system.
This just leads to the federal government taking on a disproportionate amount of work to support what were always local issues and feeds more resentment. There’s no reason Congress should fund street lights for Detroit and buses for Indianapolis. The only time the federal government should provide local funding is in the event of large-scale disasters, attacks, or catastrophes that approach a scale unforgiving to a local unit of government. I’d argue flint’s water disaster qualifies.
PBS is going to be another sore point for people. We had this same outcry when Mitch Daniels cut public radio funding in Indiana around 2009. That continued just fine, WFYI is still on the air, and life went on. Remember, too, that HBO owns the rights to Big Bird first now.
It’s nuts so many great, deserving services and programs, like nonprofits funded with federal money, is so reliant on random whims of legislators who don’t know who they are. States may be in a race to the bottom on tax rates, but that’s surely driven in part by this cycle of increasing federal taxes that take money away to put it somewhere else far away. Pressure from voters in this cycle has us moving upside down.
I get that this proposal sounds bad, and there are certainly some downright mean things in there, like cutting Meals on Wheels. But we have to be adults and recognize we’re in debt. We have to make some hard decisions. One example is The Legal Services Corp., which provides legal aid to the poor, is getting cut entirely in this proposal. Legal-help services have always been over-burdened to the point no one thinks they help. They just fulfill a constitutional requirement to the minimum level. What use is that? Can’t we do better? We’re going to have to do better. A good way might be looking to the legal help in one’s community. I’d rather pay for that here in Indiana than Florida because at least the money can stay here and it might promote a stronger sense of community and pride.
A lot of America could use that right now.