Politico explains why some states can’t raise taxes to pay for education and other public services. Conservative Republicans, obeying their puppet masters at ALEC (funded by the Koch brother, the DeVos family, and major corporations) persuaded voters to change the laws to require a supermajority for any tax increases.
“TEACHER STRIKES HIT STATES WITH STRICT TAX HIKE REQUIREMENTS: In Arizona and Oklahoma – where tens of thousands of teachers have flooded state capitals in recent weeks to demand better pay and hundreds of millions of dollars in education funding – the state constitution makes it hard to raise taxes. Voters in both states approved constitutional amendments in 1992 that require a supermajority – much more than half – of the state legislature to impose new taxes or increase existing ones, as opposed to a simple majority.
“- A major lift in some states: It takes two-thirds of the state legislature in Arizona to impose new taxes or increase taxes. In Oklahoma, it takes 75 percent of the state legislature – one of the strictest requirements in the country. And while supermajorities aren’t the sole driver of education funding woes, critics argue that they lock in tax cuts year after year, making it difficult for states to address education funding shortfalls.
“- “This is a classic example of something that sounds good, but it’s a complete poison pill,” said Nick Johnson, senior vice president for state fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “Supermajorities just reduce the power of a state to do what it needs to do.” Johnson said the requirements also allow conservatives to “lock-in” their “advantage into the future.” Florida is considering such a proposal on the ballot this November.
“- CBPP notes that Arizona “cut personal income tax rates by 10 percent in 2006, cut corporate tax rates by 30 percent in 2011, reduced taxes on capital gains, and reduced taxes in other ways over the last couple of decades.” State education funding in Arizona is also down 14 percent since the recession hit, after adjusting for inflation. A coalition of Arizona public school advocates led by a progressive policy group is now pushing for a ballot measure to raise income taxes on wealthy Arizonans to help pay for public education.
“- Conservative organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council have long-pushed for supermajority measures nationwide in an effort to curb “excessive government spending.” Jonathan Williams, ALEC’s vice president for the center for state fiscal reform, argued that supermajorities haven’t prohibited states from taking action when it comes to education funding. He pointed to Oklahoma, where the threat of massive teacher walkouts prompted state lawmakers to pass a rare tax hike in March that would fund a $6,100 pay raise. “When something becomes a necessity, these state lawmakers were able to hit even the most stringent of the supermajority thresholds,” Williams said.”
Long story short, even if the people of a state want to raise taxes on themselves and businesses to pay for basic things like education, the oligarchs, plutocrats and other ideologs who are opposed and want to control who gets paid for what have the biggest vote and the biggest say. Citizen voices don’t matter, the people are just a commodity to be exploited for financial gain and ideological warfare.
What about excessive political spending by ALEC?
Why not have a supermajority of both Houses of Congress approve of any political spending done by anyone linked to the Kochtapus?
The outrageous thing about ALEC, which is a political operation, is that it has 501(C)3 status with the IRS, which means that it is considered a “charity,” not a political lobbying organization, and any contributions to it are tax-deductible to donors.
Here’s one loophole and a gaping one, too.
It seems that no one in power is willing to challenge ALEC and refuse to back down.
The teachers in Arizona are directly challenging ALEC.
Not the conservative politicians. They want to be part of the Destroy Democracy Club.
ALEC will lose the majority of Americans if they turn this into a smear campaign focused on the teachers, but I don’t think the Koch brothers and their allies care what America things.
Lloyd Lofthouse
Who is this ALEC fellow that he will lose the majority of Americans . Why would you think that the majority of Americans have ever supported ALEC’s agenda . Further why do you think that ALEC or your legislative Representatives give a hoot (I’m being good) about what the American people want . The Gilens ,Page Princeton study would say they do not.
But the point is as Diane pointed out , ALEC is a 501 C which means they are using my Tax dollars for their campaigns Any taxes they are not paying by extension means a greater tax burden on me .
I do recall that there was a certain scandal involving the IRS that involved 501Cs did Obama lead the charge in putting an end to this vehicle of corruption of course not . Why would he . He played defense and launched an investigation at the IRS. As the republican congress attacked the Institution. That is what happens when you are drinking from the same trough of corporate graft.
If ALEC was only one fellow, but ALEC is a well funded political machine that was launched in 1973 by Charles and David Koch with very long-term and specific goals, and it has a membership of about 2,000 very wealthy extremists far-right conservative lunatics and they are led by David and Charles Koch.
I’m sure you already know this.
ALEC meets once a year to adjust their long-term agenda in secrecy and behind closed doors.
Are you aware of how large and dangerous the Kochtopus is?
The willingness of so many legislators to not only get on board but to adopt ALEC words/actions so exactly feels like a surreal form of national hypnotism.
This didn’t happen overnight. ALEC has been at it for 73 years following long-term objectives and adapting along the way to flank any moves that threatened to slow them up or stop them.
Sorry, I was thinking 1973 when I typed 73 years. ALEC and the twin Koch brothers have been at it since 1973. I’ve read that Charles is a mastermind of secrecy and planning in detail long-term goals.
Colorado already has a similar law called TABOR. I think it was so named because Tabor is a famous name in Colorado. Horace Tabor was a silver king who purchased a senate seat for himself. He would fit in well with today’s Congress.
It was also passed in 1992, so that’s three major tax limitation laws passed in 3 states in the same year. Here’s my question: How many more states were these laws passed in 1992? This seems like a major topic without much research on it.
Tabor stands for Tax Payers Bill of Rights. Here is a Planet Money podcast about it: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/01/24/580407861/episode-819-tax-me-if-you-can
The Hunger Games.
“Jonathan Williams, ALEC’s vice president for the center for state fiscal reform, argued that supermajorities haven’t prohibited states from taking action when it comes to education funding. He pointed to Oklahoma, where the threat of massive teacher walkouts prompted state lawmakers to pass a rare tax hike in March that would fund a $6,100 pay raise. “When something becomes a necessity, these state lawmakers were able to hit even the most stringent of the supermajority thresholds,” Williams said.””
Yeah, you commoners go on strike if you want something. In the meantime, the laws support the really important people: the rich guys. The same way, I do not understand all this whining about gerrymandering: If you, losers, want a different governor, different president, you are always welcome to rise up, get your arms out of the closet, and go for it.
The problem is one person with a firearm does not a revolution make and that one person will soon be dead or in prison.
75%, holy cow.
Question:
A state has passed legislation requiring 75% or 2/3 of the voters to approve a tax increase. Does that mean that the law itself cannot be repealed without a 75% majority?
In other words, can one of those states vote in new legislation — by a simple majority – in which only a simple majority needs to approve a tax increase?
I believe they could, correct? Otherwise it seems as if a Supreme Court challenge was necessary.
(Sorry this questions seems convoluted but hopefully someone will understand it!)
Most (not all) of the states have provisions mandating a balanced budget. When there are also provisions mandating a super-majority for tax increases, states are hit with a “double whammy”.
How much more proof do we need that corporate tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves in economic growth?
Business lobbyists keep shifting business taxes to individuals and homeowners whose wages and benefits businesses continue to slash and eliminate. It’s no wonder parents feel that the economic security of their children and grandchildren will be worse than their own.