<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Arizona Needs a Firm Spending Limit, not Higher Taxes</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/11/24/arizona-needs-a-firm-spending-limit-not-higher-taxes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/11/24/arizona-needs-a-firm-spending-limit-not-higher-taxes/</link>
	<description>Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:41:24 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mickey G</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/11/24/arizona-needs-a-firm-spending-limit-not-higher-taxes/comment-page-1/#comment-75225</link>
		<dc:creator>Mickey G</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:28:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/11/24/arizona-needs-a-firm-spending-limit-not-higher-taxes/#comment-75225</guid>
		<description>The Roman Circus lives.  Government sells their votes to the group offering either the largest number of votes or the most money.  We are moving toward the need for a new American Revolution to reinstate the original principles of the constitution and take government out of everyday lives.

Arizona&#039;s issues are a microcosm of the national woes and can only be solved by smaller government performing only its constitutionally determined duties.

Maybe the revolution could start with law suits against every government law that circumvents federal or state constitutions.  That would bring most federal laws into litigation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Roman Circus lives.  Government sells their votes to the group offering either the largest number of votes or the most money.  We are moving toward the need for a new American Revolution to reinstate the original principles of the constitution and take government out of everyday lives.</p>
<p>Arizona&#039;s issues are a microcosm of the national woes and can only be solved by smaller government performing only its constitutionally determined duties.</p>
<p>Maybe the revolution could start with law suits against every government law that circumvents federal or state constitutions.  That would bring most federal laws into litigation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sedonaman</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/11/24/arizona-needs-a-firm-spending-limit-not-higher-taxes/comment-page-1/#comment-75199</link>
		<dc:creator>sedonaman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:59:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/11/24/arizona-needs-a-firm-spending-limit-not-higher-taxes/#comment-75199</guid>
		<description>&quot;In years of robust economic growth, state taxes have higher-than-average yields. The state government then uses high tax revenues in boom years to ratchet up spending to unsustainably high levels.&quot;

This is what got California into trouble. When revenues came rolling in during &#039;90s boom years, Democrats under Gov. Gray Davis passed new spending on programs that required continuous funding thereafter rather than those that required only a one-time expenditure. Then came the bust, and Davis paid the price.

&quot;...academic economists need to look up from their models for a few moments and observe how politicians actually behave.&quot;

Here again we can look at California as a recent example. When the federal government offered the state $2B to help it  out of its debt, CA&#039;s politicians resurrected $2B &lt;i&gt;new&lt;/i&gt; spending on programs shelved because of the crisis. Since government always spends more than it takes in, needless to say, the amount ultimately spent probably would have ended up being &lt;i&gt;more&lt;/i&gt; than $2B after all was said and done.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#034;In years of robust economic growth, state taxes have higher-than-average yields. The state government then uses high tax revenues in boom years to ratchet up spending to unsustainably high levels.&#034;</p>
<p>This is what got California into trouble. When revenues came rolling in during &#039;90s boom years, Democrats under Gov. Gray Davis passed new spending on programs that required continuous funding thereafter rather than those that required only a one-time expenditure. Then came the bust, and Davis paid the price.</p>
<p>&#034;&#8230;academic economists need to look up from their models for a few moments and observe how politicians actually behave.&#034;</p>
<p>Here again we can look at California as a recent example. When the federal government offered the state $2B to help it  out of its debt, CA&#039;s politicians resurrected $2B <i>new</i> spending on programs shelved because of the crisis. Since government always spends more than it takes in, needless to say, the amount ultimately spent probably would have ended up being <i>more</i> than $2B after all was said and done.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
