Unfair Ideas Rule Again

Maria Kozdroy

Blog #9

10-1-14

 

Disclaimer: This blog is to be used for class discussion and as a reading based response.

 

Unfair Ideas Rule Again

            How would you feel if government raised taxes by 5%?  I know I would not be too happy.  According to Woodhouse and his “merely illustrative” ideas of how to steer democracy to a more economically-based one, he clearly states that it is infeasible, and only possible if regulations continue to be imposed upon business profitability, including business executives’ behavior, and creative innovation.  I disagree with Woodhouse’s ideas of how to transform the government that many love and adapted to a more economical one, even though he outright states that his ideas are impossible.  In this paper, I will argue how Woodhouse’s present ideas are not favorable to the public, like myself, and other measures that can be taken to make them more welcoming to the public, yet still have the same level of impossibility to them.

            First of all, Woodhouse proposes that tax money should be used to subsidize the costs of government corporations performing research on changing the environment.  Does he really think this will work without increasing taxes?  In my home state of Connecticut, in July 2011, the general sales and use tax rate rose from 6.00% to 6.35% (ct.gov).  Recently I looked at a receipt of a purchase from Walmart in Troy, New York to notice I was taxed 8.00% on my purchase.  Connecticut may soon bump the tax rate up to that of New York’s.  According to Woodhouse tax money shall be distributed differently; however, this proposal would take away from the highly, already functioning economies.  Connecticut may raise taxes to equate to those of NY in a progressively increasing manner.  Yet if this tax raise does not happen, and the percentage of the tax money is distributed on the spot to environmental research, then many outbreaks will probably take place.  Woodhouse tries very hard to propose this idea, yet it would drastically change the economy rather than help it.  Society has been trying to find a good balance between taxes and the overall economy, and to mix it up entirely is not a pleasant idea.  Therefore, the government should focus less on environmental research and more on implementation directly.

            In addition to this radical idea to increase the productivity of government funded research, he mentions yet another “unfair” proposal: auction the right to innovate.  This proposal goes right alongside his previous idea because it will allow those working for government to be funded by government, having these individuals have a better chance to earn the right to innovate.  This does not make any sense—government will fund government, to receive the government funds again.  Yet, Woodhouse mentions how representation is needed.  What representation is apparent when those with government funded jobs have the say in everything?

I outright think Woodhouse’s proposals are very absurd.  Even though he knows they are both infeasible, he should still make them sound appealing to all individuals, especially all citizens who pay taxes.  In the article, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, the two authors of the article state, “Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence,” (Page and Gilens).  This quote sums up why Woodhouse’s proposals are as ridiculous as they are.  It is already known the corruption between the economy and government, and Woodhouse seems to just contribute to it more.

 

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens by Benjamin I. Page and Martin Gilens

Woodhouse STS text, Chapter 8

http://www.ct.gov/drs/cwp/view.asp?A=1514&Q=480936