the cost of no government
2011-Jul-01, Friday 04:40 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mellowtiggerIt's finally happened. Minnesota is "shutting down" its government. A judge has ruled on what services are deemed "essential" for the safety of the population or necessary to meet federal obligations, and those will remain functioning. The effect will be the furlough of 2/3 of state government employees, the largest layoff in state history. I think my list of the essentials would have been slightly shorter, but hers includes:
I happen to like living in a society that includes almost every service that Minnesota state government provides. Exactly which of these services are frivolous? I presume that the race tracks and lottery are meant as revenue generators rather than mere entertainment. Which service exactly is the one that Republicans are offended at supporting? That's what I don't understand. For the most part, I like this government. How do we benefit by refusing to fund it? I think it could certainly be simplified (especially the tax process) but not eliminated.
Suppose a government needed to acquire 20% of all money circulating in its economy to keep its civilization content. If you can't collect any more money from the poor ("squeeze blood from a turnip" is a phrase that comes to mind) then you have to tax the rich since they have the majority of the money anyway. Republicans seem hellbent on protecting the rich on both the national and state levels, however, so now we get to see what it's like to do without much of the government. They couldn't legislate their way to smaller government, so I guess they intend to starve it instead. They're having much more success with that method.
We've turned off the infrastructure repair in Minnesota today. What happens when we shut off education and prison too? Why can't we tax the rich to keep all this stuff functioning?
It's a http://www.shutdownshame.org/main/, indeed.
- judicial courts
- most of the state's prison system, state patrol
- driver license renewal, vehicle license plate renewal
- buses and rail lines (I would have closed them as being huge conveniences but inessential to state government)
- emergency maintenance of roads and bridges
- K-12 education, and state colleges and universities (I would have closed all of them)
- benefits payments for medical assistance, MN Care (that affects me directly, presidential-hopeful Pawlenty intended to cut it)
- welfare, child support, refugee assistance
- veterans homes
- unemployment benefits
- benefits for childcare assistance, criminal background checks, food shelf distribution
- regular maintenance of roads and bridges (this change affects my commute across various bridges over the Mississippi River)
- new driver license testing services
- highway rest stops
- minnesota historical society sites
- minnesota zoo (except as needed to keep animals safe and secure from escape)
- state parks
- hunting and fishing licensing
- race tracks and state lottery
- some legislative staff (apparently, though I can't find specifics on who)
- any new payments to city or county governments
I happen to like living in a society that includes almost every service that Minnesota state government provides. Exactly which of these services are frivolous? I presume that the race tracks and lottery are meant as revenue generators rather than mere entertainment. Which service exactly is the one that Republicans are offended at supporting? That's what I don't understand. For the most part, I like this government. How do we benefit by refusing to fund it? I think it could certainly be simplified (especially the tax process) but not eliminated.
Suppose a government needed to acquire 20% of all money circulating in its economy to keep its civilization content. If you can't collect any more money from the poor ("squeeze blood from a turnip" is a phrase that comes to mind) then you have to tax the rich since they have the majority of the money anyway. Republicans seem hellbent on protecting the rich on both the national and state levels, however, so now we get to see what it's like to do without much of the government. They couldn't legislate their way to smaller government, so I guess they intend to starve it instead. They're having much more success with that method.
We've turned off the infrastructure repair in Minnesota today. What happens when we shut off education and prison too? Why can't we tax the rich to keep all this stuff functioning?
It's a http://www.shutdownshame.org/main/, indeed.