Why Don’t Politicians In My Town Care About Half of the Voters? [New]
As you may or may not be aware, I am a proud citizen of the teetering-on-the-precipice-of-disaster burg of Baltimore, Maryland. Home of Earl Weaver, William Donald Schaefer, Brooks Robinson and numerous other dead or dying Caucasian nonagenarains who were last nationally relevant in the 1980′s. As part of our tireless quirky charm (hence the name “Tireless Quirky Charm City”), our election cycle for mayor falls on odd-numbered years. I’m sure there’s a boring explanation somewhere, but basically I’m saying (by way of padding) that our mayoral election is this year.
So far, the present Mayor, whose predecessor resigned following a conviction for stealing Target Gift Cards from needy children, has been a stalwart champion of the little man. And of course, by “little man” I mean WalMart and European-style open wheel rally races (the sport of the working man- of Monaco). And lest I forget, there are the least fortunate in our nation, development firms with sufficient capital to buy “bundles” of vacant housing. Ya know, Joe Lunchpail and Johnny BuyALargeChunkOfRealEstateWithCash.
Meanwhile, a few prominent challengers (Otis Rolley and Jody Landers) have emerged, both with visions. Blurry, baffling visions in which a city that constantly kvetches about being flat broke can solve its problems buy making massive cuts to the revenue stream of the same. Rolley has been quoted as wanting to cut the property taxes by fifty percent over eight years. Of course, anti-tax horseshit aside, this raises a more nagging question- how would this benefit the nearly 50% of the citizenry who don’t own their homes?
Look, I understand that for people who owned black and white TVs and phones with dials, owning a home is the end-all-be-all of human existence. But for most young working people, the idea of coming up with ten to twenty grand for a down payment is as laughable as the idea of running a European-styled motor race through the downtown of a majority-black city. As such, it is completely tone deaf in an era when ALL city residents are receiving reduced services due to allegedly slumping revenues to parade around promising tax cuts that will in no way benefit a large segment of the city’s population.
You know who WILL benefit from a big cut in property taxes? Tom Clancy. And of course, all of his millionaire buddies who own waterfront condos. Condos that, I’m sure, have private security and ADT to compensate for the fact that there won’t be any cops around if there’s an issue. And who needs public schools when you have private tutors? Tutors who, hopefully, don’t mind that the welfare of their city is being flushed down the drain because every single one of our city’s politicians is still in the thrall of Reagan’s siren song of trickle down drivel. I really dearly wish that I lived in a world where HALF of the voting population would merit at least a passing mention from one so-called “serious” contender for the top job in Baltimore.
Oh, by the way, did I mention that ALL of these guys are Democrats? Of course they are.
What Do You Think?
26 Responses to 'Why Don’t Politicians In My Town Care About Half of the Voters?'
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
dameocrat [New]
Sunday, 24 Apr, 2011 at 6:59 pm
You will vote for them as wesser-ebuls so they can safely ignore you.
Tim [New]
Monday, 25 Apr, 2011 at 4:43 pm
A two-fer: Nice to see you here, dameocrat, and to see Travis, too. FWIW I’ve gotten to the point where I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. I’ll vote only for people who have a track record of sanity and pushing policies (and getting results) that help normal people.
Emocrat [New]
Monday, 25 Apr, 2011 at 10:35 am
Nice work, Travis.
Sounds like Baltimore is ripe for revolt. If the voters can only choose between Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumber, then elections don’t matter very much.
David [New]
Monday, 25 Apr, 2011 at 2:17 pm
We have a rather uninspired race for an At-Large council seat tomorrow in DC. I feel your pain.
logicfan [New]
Monday, 25 Apr, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Anti-tax horseshit? I’m just about as liberal as they come, but I’m not a moron. Talk about short-sighted. Here’s a valuable lesson about cutting property taxes from those ultra-conservative states of California and Massachusetts.
Direct link to article. *PDF
Quick visual representation of the gist of the article.
As for the Grand Prix in Baltimore “Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley said that the race “would support 400 jobs and produce” $65-70M in economic impact.”"
I don’t know if the Governor’s numbers are trustworthy, but at the very least the event will pay for itself. And you can’t believe that attracting international attention to Baltimore isn’t going to bring money and opportunity to the city.
And furthermore, you suggest that such a race is mainly enjoyed by the billionaires of Monaco and that it would be silly to bring it to a majority-black city. What are you suggesting? Black people can’t enjoy racing? Black people are poor? Poor people can’t enjoy racing? Everything about those statements is offensive.
Yes, Tom Clancy and all eight of his millionaire buddies will benefit. But when 500 more millionaires move into town, everyone cashes in big.
And that’s the point. Lower tax rate -> A lot more homeowners -> lots more taxes -> EVERYONE wins.
Monday, 25 Apr, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Hi “logicfan”, and welcome to Merge Left! I see you were so kind as to quote your Reddit comment on this story verbatim.
“Anti-tax horseshit”, yes, as reference to the tendencies of both parties to pretend that the solution to everything is to reduce the amount of revenue coming in as quickly as possible.
And if you lower the tax rate by say, 50%, and then the population increases by said same 50%, how does that result in a net gain for the city budget? Are you a wizard? Or just a firm believer in trickle-down theory (which has worked out SO WELL for America so far!)
Hotly Debated:
5 
3
logicfan [New]
Tuesday, 26 Apr, 2011 at 6:26 am
Yes, I did quote it almost verbatim. I assumed you and your readers wouldn’t be on reddit. Glad to see that you are.
You do realize that there are low and middle class people that own homes? It’s not just rich guys with monocles. I am a homeowner in Baltimore city and could not be considered wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. I bought a home not with 10-20 grand but with a hard saved FHA minimum 3.5% down and the seller paying everything else.
Lowering the tax rate isn’t about “putting money in people’s pockets so they can spend it on other things” trickle-down nonsense. It’s about bringing people and commerce into the city in huge numbers.
Apparently you did not read or did not understand the paper that I linked to. Obviously, reducing the tax rate by 50% and increasing the population by 50% results in a tax loss of 25% (I think you probably meant increasing the population by 100% results in no net gain but I’ll forgive that you’re not a math wizard). The point is, that increased population generates far greater economic prosperity for the city as well as driving up property values. You see when something is in short supply (homes in a bustling city) then demand goes up resulting in higher prices. When prices are higher, tax revenue goes up and SHAZAM the wizardry of economics 101.
Emocrat [New]
Tuesday, 26 Apr, 2011 at 10:14 am
But you’re still focused entirely on the supply-side, which is more than a little Tell. People don’t migrate for lower taxes. They’ll migrate for better jobs, but if there’s no jobs, then the tax rates don’t matter one whit, do they? You also seem to think Baltimore’s answer lies in gentrification, which is another Tell.
And home prices are supposed to rise, even though employment, wages and hours are all falling? Who, pray-tell, is going to pay those high prices? Wealthy morons who don’t need jobs and love low taxes?
This isn’t the Field of Dreams and we’re not building a baseball pitch in the middle of a corn field. You think lower taxes stimulate the economy. Well, you, Milton Friedman and AEI are totally wrong about that and always have been.
If you want a really good example of a city that has always operated that way, look at Phoenix. Low taxes, no planning to speak of and lots of financial and real estate speculation. They grew spectacularly and some people raked in absurd profits while doing very little for the economy itself. But during all that time, while people moved there for low taxes and sunshine, the annual turnover rate of that city was always around 30%. In other words, for every two families moving in, one would move out.Why? Because people were expecting that shining city on the hill, only to see an ugly city with all the problems of a major city (especially the homicide and armed robbery rates), and none of the benefits. The schools suck, ignorance reigns, people are really nasty during the five month summer bake-a-thon and the traffic and air pollution are in LA proportions.
Now, entire communities lay barren due to the collapse of the local economy.
What you’re suggesting is a boom-bust model that simply won’t work in an eastern city. It’s been a disaster for western cities that relied on it for their growth and they were intentionally designed to operate that way!
David [New]
Tuesday, 26 Apr, 2011 at 11:47 am
Is there a way to undo a rating? I just down rated Travis by mistake.
Tuesday, 26 Apr, 2011 at 3:12 pm
up rating it would negate your down rate I think
Tuesday, 26 Apr, 2011 at 3:12 pm
no just tried it :-/
Emocrat [New]
Monday, 25 Apr, 2011 at 3:50 pm
“The Importance of Being Capital Friendly.” That’s a nice pull-quote from that fantasy-land Neo-Liberal rubbish In Maryland Journal. The problem with this, of course, that cities are populated with human beings, not the very lifeless Capital. As the last 30 years have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, being friendly to Capital has dramatically lowered the standard of living for human beings in these here United States. Perhaps it might be better to play hard to get?
It’s always telling these days when “economists” put up Prop 13 as some kind of miracle of economic genius. For some reason, they always fail to make the connection between Prop 13 and California’s current fiscal disaster. Yes, there were short-term benefits, but the longer term costs have more than outweighed the benefits of that draconian “solution.” Somehow that eludes the walnut-sized craniums of paid flacks like Walters.
As a fan of logic, you might appreciate the following: 1)Tax cuts do not benefit the economy, they benefit rich people; 2) Tax cuts result in a shrinking tax base, not a growing one; 3) A shrinking tax base means budget cuts, closed schools, closed fire stations, fewer cops and public sanitation workers; 4)It also erodes the quality of infrastructure through neglect, which also raises the cost of doing business and will force businesses to leave as their risks become uncontrollable.
The result, then, is higher unemployment, even fewer revenues, more budget cuts, higher-still unemployment and so on.
So lower taxes will not result in more homeownership, it will result in LESS–it will result in Detroit. Seriously, only an inanimate object like Capital would care to live in a place suffering through a death spiral of ex-migration. But even in beleaguered Detroit they’re fighting back.
Human beings require more than low tax rates to be happy and productive. They require jobs, real income, savings and a decent place to live. Capital doesn’t care about any of that. It’s only interested in multiplying, much like a cancer cell.
It’s time to face facts. Uncle Miltie’s program has created nothing other than vast riches for the wealthy… at the expense of everyone else on the planet. It didn’t work as sold. Neo-Liberalism is a classic Pump & Dump Scheme.
Logic would dictate that another course be plotted.
Well Liked:
6 
2
logicfan [New]
Tuesday, 26 Apr, 2011 at 6:15 am
1) I’m not talking about “Tax cuts” I’m talking about a specific solution to a specific problem.
2) Shrinking base? I provided a well researched and articulated paper backing up the opposite point. You’re provided a statement by you. That’s not very convincing.
3) I couldn’t agree more.
4) Again, very true.
You want to avoid becoming Detroit? Do you realize how ironic it is that you bring that up as an example? They have an absurdly high property tax rate of 6.6% compared to Baltimore’s 2.4%.
The wealthy already have vast riches, that’s the definition of wealthy. If you want to argue the finer points of lowering the property tax I think it would be a good idea not to have it be flat. Keep it high or even higher for the rich while gradually reducing it to nothing for lower value properties. A good target would be to aim for 1% (equivalent to the surrounding counties) for middle income homes.
Emocrat [New]
Tuesday, 26 Apr, 2011 at 9:50 am
Well, you specifically argued that low taxes for the rich would attract them and, “…everyone would cash in,” which 30 years of economic data have proven to be false. When the rich cash in, only the rich cash in.
Using Detroit wasn’t very sharp of me, as what really did that city in was globalization. It wasn’t taxes. As far as property taxes go specifically, that has always been a way of maintaining a sort of apartheid system with respect to public goods, education, fire and police protection. If that’s going to be the primary mode of financing those things, then slashing taxes also means slashing services and firing teachers, among others.
Put simply, the whole argument over taxes is a race to the bottom for everyone who isn’t rich. Until the lack of equity in that system is resolved, it’s silly to talk about cutting taxes. Raising wages and thusly the standard of living is the answer there. Put simply, if taxation isn’t abusive or rapacious (like sales taxes are for the poor in most states), then it’s less a concern for most people than their quality of life.
AS for the article, I can’t tell you how many such articles I’ve read over the last 20 years. I basically stopped a couple grafs after the line I quoted above, since it completely misses the point in any discussion of urban renewal. Walker is an advocate for Capital and banking interests and little else. He doesn’t give a rat’s ass about anything else. He spouts what amounts to religious dogma, as if it isn’t plainly false at this point.
Cities improve when the investment is made in all or most of the public goods. Better schools, better infrastructure, better transportation and a better quality of life will attract people and businesses. It requires real investment and in this age of fiscal destruction, that’s simply not possible. The cities are stuck due to declining revenues, the states are laying people off so helping their biggest economic engines get better is off the table–which is also self-destructive. The federal government is too busy shoveling money at people who neither need or deserve it, while screwing everyone else.
So the phony utopianism being sold by the likes of Walker not only rings hollow, it rings pretty damn dumb at this point. That blog post also was just terrible in it’s ignorance. “BEing friendly to Capital” doesn’t create shining cities on the hill. It creates wealthy fortresses surrounded by ghettos.
Well Liked:
4 
0
Tim [New]
Tuesday, 26 Apr, 2011 at 6:48 pm
We also didn’t have this scale of social and economic problems from 1946 to 1980 or so. The only policies that have changed since then are the sharp de-taxation of the wealthiest, constraining middle class wages (through busting unions, offshoring jobs, trade agreements), massive deregulation, and the government allowing any corporate merger (which also destroys jobs). The income charts for the past century show a sharp divergence around the mid-1980s to date. There’s a clear cause and effect that no amount of writing can make disappear.
And I notice logicfan hasn’t bothered to argue the morality of the wealthy using court systems, roads, bridges, and other taxpayer funded infrastructure to get their wealth then refuse to pay back and help create wealth for the next generation. Infrastructure doesn’t magically happen. And there’s a reason we’re three trillion dollars behind in keeping up with repairing infrastructure all across this country.
Emocrat [New]
Tuesday, 26 Apr, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t recall Neo-Libs ever making moral arguments about much of anything, except dropping Freedom Bombs(tm) on unsuspected swarthy persons, of course.
As the high priests of “Teh Economics”, they avoid moral problems with technocratic mumbo-jumbo, which, at this point, the data has long refuted. They know that if people look at things from a more human standpoint, they’ll lose. So they just keep selling phony utopianism as if it’s somehow moral.
So all they can do is just keep repeating themselves. That’s all they’ve got.
Tim [New]
Wednesday, 27 Apr, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Morality in politics is an interesting topic, to me, at least. The use of the Moral Majority and Christianists since the Reagan era mostly neutered the idea that politics should reflect a moral viewpoint. Not in the religious sense, necessarily. But at the least morality in the sense of our obligations to ourselves and our communities that transcends any selfish individual desires. So it is not immoral to seek profit but it is immoral to do so past some point. Your religion might reinforce your sense of morality but the two are not to be confused. An atheist can be more moral than the most devout Christian or Muslim.
That view of morality and politics is mostly non-existent unfortunately. Instead of calls to our better angels, we get targeted marketing and branding all the other cues to make us feel good about being selfish. Were morality might energize us to change and do better, the “greed is good” mantra only serves to disconnect us from any urge to act or change.
Monday, 25 Apr, 2011 at 3:57 pm
guys don’t troll rate this because the guy disagrees
maybe for the racial stuff which I won’t dignify
but not for the disagreement- be like Emocrat and explain WHY he is wrong!
William Timberman [New]
Monday, 25 Apr, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Life is short Travis. In my opinion, logicfan is beyond the reach of explanation. My thumbs down wasn’t a troll rating, I was just saving myself a little time.
If the keepers want the thumbs down reserved for those who are trying to throw a spanner into the works, rather than just making fools of themselves, you have a point, and I missed a definition somewhere. Thumbs up, thumbs down to me means approval or disapproval. Maybe I should go read the FAQ or something.
Meanwhile, my intention was to signify disapproval without wasting any time on an unrewarding task. Whether logicfan is or isn’t a troll is difficult to determine on the basis of so little evidence. That he’s not worth arguing with is far clearer, at least to me.
logicfan [New]
Tuesday, 26 Apr, 2011 at 6:18 am
Please see the lively discussion on reddit for verification that I am in fact not a troll and there are lots of liberal and open-minded people who agree with me.
Also, please read the paper I posted.
Also, please look up the definition of an internet troll.
Tim [New]
Monday, 25 Apr, 2011 at 4:55 pm
I’d also point out that low taxes for the wealthiest are profoundly unfair and immoral. You can’t create wealth without courts to enforce legal contracts and that includes paying for judges, clerks, court officers, stenographers, janitors, and everything and everyone that makes court houses run. Then you also need running water and sewer systems. And roads to get people to work. And you’d have no gasoline without taxpayer funded research. Nor would you an educated workforce. Nor a police force or fire department to keep your house from burning down.
Taxpayers can’t pay for all those key bits of infrastructure that make up for civilization without significant contributions from the wealthiest who, to be honest, can’t tell the difference between having a million left over after taxes and five million left over after taxes. At some point, you can’t possibly spend or enjoy the amounts of money some people have. It would be better spent repaying taxpayers (by keeping taxes low, you know, by funding education not solely through property taxes) and creating jobs by rebuilding infrastructure so everyone in society can have a shot at keeping some money by making a living wage, never mind so we can create wealth in the future.
No, we appear have a truly selfish wealthy class in this country. They refuse to pay anything near what is needed to replenish what got them their wealth (the infrastructure) and they sure as hell are going to impoverish everyone else to squeeze out every last dollar they can from the economy. See union busting, NAFTA, offshoring jobs, endless mergers (which always destroy jobs but enrich senior managers).
Not to get personal, but it takes a sick puppy to defend the excessive wealth in this country. Especially when 45,000 or so Americans die every year for the crime of not being able to afford health care.
William Timberman [New]
Monday, 25 Apr, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Some writer’s block. Glad to see you back, and feisty as ever. When I was five or six years old, I liked Baltimore, probably because my Mom used to do her Christmas shopping at Hecht’s, and brought me along so that I could look at the window displays with her. And, of course, the toys.
As I remember, she had a little metal charge card, like a dog tag, that she kept in a red leather case, and it always took her several minutes to dig it out of her purse, while the cashier tried his best to keep from drumming his fingernails on the counter. Our first real living room furniture came from Hecht’s, as did my first sled — although I in my innocence thought that a fat man in a red suit had brought it.
The next time I saw Baltimore, it was in The Wire. Kinda sums up for me what’s happened to our country since I was a first-grader. I don’t mind so much that the myths of my childhood have been debunked, but it does bother me that we don’t think enough of what those myths promised to even try to make them real. We could start with freedom and justice for all, for example. That has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? Even now, even with everything we’ve learned since we were six.
SpitBall [New]
Tuesday, 26 Apr, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Aside: Is a thumbs down the same as a troll rating?
Ain’t it more like Siskel & Ebert? Like/Dislike; Agree/Disagree? TR is, like, so last blog site!
Are logicfan and Emocrat talking about the same level of government/taxation? President wannabee Tim Pawlenty, until recently my Governor, plays this same tax shell game when he claims not to have raised taxes during the time he was in office and degrading Minnesota’s infrastructure and educational system. He is almost correct at the State level (as long as you continue to believe that “fees” are not “taxes” by another name), but check the county and local level property taxes and you’ll find where the bills came due.
logicfan seems to be arguing that lowering (business) taxes in a particular city/county or other region, may pull in new businesses and tax-payers from other competing regions. Problem is, these are generally short-term attractions, as those folks that are always seeking lower taxes (and labor costs) are not reliable citizens. It rapidly becomes a race to the bottom. I’d rather not become like TX or AR, thank you very much.
David [New]
Tuesday, 26 Apr, 2011 at 2:17 pm
That’s a good question about the thumbs down. My not very well formed thought it that if a rating doesn’t lead to a comment being hidden, then its more of a like / dislike than a TR. But I’m interested to hear what others think.
Tuesday, 26 Apr, 2011 at 4:06 pm
I’m going to follow up on this, maybe tonight, about what a complete fucking moron (no offense to anyone but really) you’d have to be to take a mortgage in this day and age if you have the option to rent. There’s virtually nothing but risk involved at this stage of the game, especially if you’re young or make less than like $100k a year.
Tim [New]
Tuesday, 26 Apr, 2011 at 6:51 pm
This would be a very good topic, Travis. Home ownership only works when the rest of the economy is fair and not gamed. When mortgages are collateralized and treated like financial instruments to trade and hedge, it’s no longer about buying a home as a long term investment. It’s also about how to avoid being ripped off by asset bubbles.