(Everyone, everyone loves military spending -- be it critically important or utterly redundant, outdated and needless. Even Ted Kennedy loves it. Bad weapons systems never die. - promoted by Charley on the MTA)
In taking aim at big government, proponents of Question 1, which would repeal the state income tax, are about 400 miles off target. They blame Beacon Hill for high taxes and government waste, whereas the real culprits reside far to the south, in Washington, DC.
Beacon Hill makes an easy scapegoat for those who like to complain about big government, but the facts show that such criticism is misguided. With an income tax rate of just 5.3%, the bite that state government takes from your paycheck is modest compared to that of the federal government, which devours 25% or more from the earnings of most working people.
Moreover, state taxes fund a host of benefits that most residents of Massachusetts enjoy every day - roads and infrastructure, courts and public safety, aid for local schools, a state university system, public health programs, and many others. Though certainly inefficiencies can be found, most would agree that state government delivers fairly well for the price.
Try applying a cost-benefit analysis to your federal taxes, however, and you'll find much more waste and misallocation of resources. And while great effort is made to convince the public that federal tax dollars are being funneled to welfare mothers and illegal immigrants, without question there is only one true home of big government: America's massive military establishment, with its annual budget of about $600 billion, controlled by a cartel so powerful that neither political party dares to challenge it.
Interestingly, it is often the same so-called "conservatives" who back ideas such as Question 1 who will enthusiastically support military spending, even though this country's military budget routinely matches that of the rest of the world combined.
One of the biggest lies in recent American history (and there have been many) was President Bill Clinton's declaration in 1997 that "the era of big government is over." Nobody - not Ronald Reagan, not Newt Gingrich and his band of congressional reformers in the 1990s, and certainly not George W. Bush - has been able to confront the beltway corporate/military establishment. Indeed, none of these leaders have even tried.
This is unfortunate, because the resources wasted on American militarism are enormous. With a modest percentage of what we spend militarily, we could address issues such as health care, renewable energy development, and environmental protection.
But it won't happen by attacking state government, as Question 1 backers propose. If you think state government is wasteful and inefficient, you should realize that Beacon Hill is a model of efficiency and responsive government when compared to Washington, where participatory democracy is almost nonexistent, the will of the people is often irrelevant, and corporate interests dictate public policy.
It's ironic that those who praise the military establishment tend are frequently the same people who preach the wisdom of "the free market," because the military-corporate cartel has little use for laissez-faire capitalism. Defense industries, relying on huge government contracts for their revenue, are more akin to wards of the state than swashbuckling entrepreneurs. And when the contracts become no-bid, cost-plus contracts, as they often do, any pretense of free enterprise becomes absurd.
"Small government," is a nice idea, but even those in Washington claiming to favor it are crossing their fingers behind their backs. The Cold War is long over and no serious military threats exist anywhere on the globe, yet neither party dares to put forward serious proposals to drastically reduce military spending.
American militarism continues in part because local communities won't support military budget cuts if local jobs will be lost as a result. Having grown into a $600 billion behemoth, the defense establishment is in the envious position of having entire communities, industries, and congressional districts dependant upon it for jobs and economic stability.
But perhaps the even larger obstacle to real defense cutbacks is a conventional wisdom in America that military spending simply cannot be questioned, that any politician who seriously questions such spending must be "weak" on national security. Strangely enough, this seemingly macho militaristic view is reliant on a very un-macho concept - fear.
By propagating continual fear of a world filled with endless dangers and villains, together with patriotism interpreted as American exceptionalism, corporate and military interests can easily manipulate the democratic process. Surely, no "weak" candidates need apply. Without this mindset, Americans might find themselves funding schools and healthcare instead of missiles and fighter jets.
In this light, Question 1 can be seen for what it really is - a pointless distraction, akin to a cheap novel or a brainless television show that gets your mind off bigger problems. Unfortunately, however, those bigger problems aren't going away, certainly not by deconstructing a relatively efficient and responsive state government. |
