
Originally Posted by
Bunty
Probably most Republican state legislators want to pass on the responsibility for safer schools on to the school boards who will get voters to vote on bonds to pay for the cost of making all local schools safe from tornadoes. But I wonder how easy that will be for towns that have been gradually losing population and fading away? Since nothing much was done, other than tax incentives offered for storm shelters after the 1999 & 2003 Moore tornadoes, while Democrats dominated both sides of the State Capitol, why expect Republicans to do more?
Republicans want to make state government smaller. And so by cutting income taxes and replacing them with nothing, it will act to restrict how much state government can grow, along with its ability to respond to sudden infrastructure needs. (So I hope civil engineers feel that the huge dams in the state don't need major fixing for decades longer.) Also the Republican aversion to borrowing doesn't help matters, especially while bond rates are low.
Smaller government should mean release from needless regulations based on nothing but nonsense, such as those based on alcohol. It should also mean fewer obstructions to a life based on freedom and liberty. Making government smaller shouldn't have to mean reducing its ability to respond to serious infrastructure needs as they arise.
I wonder how big of a state disaster is required before substantial withdraws are allowed to be made from the state rainy day fund?
Bookmarks