Bullwinklemoos saidIt's probably not as simple as that; the solution should probably be "better investments" rather than simply "raise taxes" or "cut spending".
Anytime a politician uses the word "investments" it means "more government spending."
Haven't they got enough money? Haven't they proven to us that no matter how much they have, they won't be able to spend, er, uh, "invest" it properly?
How much more evidence do you need? How much MORE do you want to give them?
Besides- I don't know about you or how you live, but personally, I like paying taxes so that I can have public sewers so that I don't have to take a dump in an outhouse.
Is that all you want your taxes to pay for? Then great, you're overpaying by 99% (and by the way, your sewer is paid for not by the Feds, but by your state and local taxes, unless you live on some Federal government reservation somewhere).
Bullwinklemoos saidBesides- if you're the typical conservative that you seem to be, then I have to mention that even Reagan raised taxes eventually.
Yep.... And it was a big mistake of his to go along with the Democrat controlled Congress on that one.
Besides- is it better to invest in schools, which can lead to better jobs in the long run, or is it better to invest in car plants, such as the KIA plant in Georgia, which provide rather blue collar jobs in the short run as well as the long run, but it doesn't provide that much income- especially in a recession where people buy less new cars?
There's that word again... "invest."
Newark NJ public schools get the most "investment" per pupil than any other district in NJ... and they have the absolute worst outcomes per pupil.
"Investment" in education is just code for "growing the bureaucracy" and "lining the pockets of the teacher's union thugs."