Make Tax Systems More Progressive

When state governments make it nearly impossible to raise taxes to pay their bills, their creditors apparently get very nervous and increase their costs to borrow money. Both Arizona and California have seen their bond ratings downgraded -- and their borrowing costs likely increasing -- with analysts citing both states' tax limitation rules that require a two-thirds vote of their legislatures to raise taxes as one reason.

The challenge for progressives from this “states rights” movement is not that any of these laws are likely to survive in court, but that conservatives too often get away with claiming to stand for constitutional values without significant challenge from progressives.  The reality is that the right wing has no credibility in promoting their states’ rights arguments and should be challenged more directly.  As this Dispatch will outline, their arguments fail on multiple grounds:

• First, conservative constitutional history is dead wrong.  The progressive vision of collaborative federalism between federal and state governments clearly reflects the “original intent” of the Constitution’s creators  – including those who promoted the Constitutional Amendments enacted throughout our history.
• Second, conservative leaders are constitutional hypocrites, talking about “states rights” even as they support federal laws that restrict state authority in order to protect corporate special interests. 
• Finally, unlike conservatives, progressives practice real respect for state authority by promoting and supporting state innovation and flexibility, a far more compelling practice of federalism than the rigid and false constitutional doctrine promoted by the right wing.

 

This past Tuesday, Maine votersconsidered legislation which would have reformed the state's tax structure and bond measures that will bolster infrastructure investment.By a large margin, Mainers rejected a law passed last June, LD1495, to lower the top income tax rate from 8.5 percent to 6.5 percent for state residents earning less than $250,000 annually by broadening the sales tax to include different services and shifting tax burden to nonresidents by increasing the meals and lodging tax from 7 to 8.5 percent.

As this Dispatch will detail, these votes mirror actions taking place in both conservative and progressive states and localities around the country.  In 2009 and 2010, states have enacted a wide-ranging set of revenue increases to cope with cumulative 2010 and 2011 deficits of approximately $375 billion.  Although revenue forecasts are improving, states are still reeling from historic declines in the past year.

What is remarkable is that the anti-tax movement has racked up such regular failures in the crisis, as even many state leaders previously signing "no taxes" pledges have reneged on them.   Instead, popular demand for new revenue to avert budget cuts has driven legislative movement on progressive tax and budget policy.

Adding to the general public support has been research consistently showing that progressive revenue increases during a downturn is a better alternative to cuts in order to promote growth and protect vulnerable populations suffering during the recession.

Finally, this Dispatch will outline some of the effective messaging and research to demonstrate to voters that progressive measures and tax increases are economically sound and go to the programs they want preserved -- the critical step in the success of revenue campaigns.

Last week, the Massachusetts House unanimously passed the Revenues and Expenditures Transparency Act, H 2972, to create a searchable, online database that details state spending and revenue sources.  Lawmakers also approved an amendment to create greater taxpayer accountability by providing increased transparency around some business tax credits.  As House Chairman of the Joint Committee on Revenue Rep. Jay Kauffman explains, "[p]ublic access to the way we raise and spend money is essential, enabling us to make more-informed decisions for the tax-paying constituents who elect us to serve on their behalf."

The Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) recently released its third quarterly report on the impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).  The report generally confirms what economists across the board have concluded: the Recovery Act has prevented a full economic collapse; generated millions of jobs; boosted national economic performance; and provided sorely needed state fiscal relief.

As states struggle to close budget gaps, it's worth highlighting that due to tax changes at the federal level, most middle income families are paying a far smaller percentage of their income in federal taxes than they did a few years ago.  So while states should concentrate revenue increases on those who can most afford it, there is greater capacity among middle income families to absorb some tax increases due to the lower federal tax burden.

PSN has noted in previous Dispatches, these credits are costly, favor out-of-state workers, offer minimal to no returns, do not create permanent jobs, and place an excessive burden on taxpayers in a time of economic uncertainty.  The Massachusetts Department of Revenue recently determined that in twelve states that administer a film tax credit, the return is extremely meager-- finding that states were only getting back "$.0.07 to $.0.28 per dollar of tax credit granted."

How are Arizona's right-wing legislators responding to the state's most severe fiscal crisis since the Great Depression?

Massive corporate income tax cuts, of course.

Last Tuesday, Oregonians overwhelmingly approved two ballot initiatives that ratified legislative action last year to increase high-end personal income and corporate taxes.  The failure of the anti-tax movement in Oregon is one more in a long stream of right-wing initiatives rejected by voters at the ballot box.  In fact, progressive revenue generation as part of a balanced approach to addressing state deficits has been popular with both voters and legislatures for years.  This Dispatch will provide both the facts and messages to debunk opposition to smart revenue options, while outlining a few of the best revenue approaches to filling budget holes.