I appreciate Dan Baker's response to my message from last week.  I don't
want to get into a protracted series of replies and counter-replies on
the campus list, so I'll just make a couple of points and then leave
this for him and/or others to debate if they choose to.  (I have papers
to grade :)

> I respectively disagree with him if he
> indicates we don't have a revenue problem.
>
> August
> collections were up 2.8%, September collections were down 1.45% and October
> collections were down 12.71%. September 11 was a big factor in this ...

But only a transient one, not anything permanent that would justify a
permanent change such as adding a state income tax.

> we
> should all remember that currently economists are saying we've been in a
> mild recession since last March.

True.  My point is that when I experience a "personal recession" (move,
get laid off, have unexpected expenses, whatever) I have to implement
cutbacks in my spending.  I don't think it is unreasonable to ask
government to do the same ... to tighten its belt in the face of
decreased revenues.  I think that is a better alternative than taking
more money away from the citizens who are already experiencing the
effects of a recession themselves.  And make no mistake about it, that
is what "tax reform" is all about ... raising *more money* from you and
me.  If "tax reform" were going to be revenue-neutral we wouldn't be
having this discussion.  Just remember, there is no "money fairy" and
you can't tax your way out of a recession.

> If one compares the cost for TennCare in Tennessee to the cost
> for Medicaid in the SLC States, TennCare in 2001 cost about $200
> million more.

Try about a billion.  From 1994 through 2000, TennCare's costs rose
about 59% versus 23% for the rest of the states.  If TennCare's costs
had simply grown at the rate of the Medicaid national average since
1994, the state budget would have been almost $1 billion lower in 2000.
(Source:  Moore and Vedder,  "The Case Against a Tennessee Income Tax"
which you can find on-line at
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-053es.html )  Maybe the Medicaid
costs in just the SLC states rose somewhat more than the national
average, but not enough to account for an $800 million difference.

Whatever the actual figure (nobody knows for sure since we are basing
the estimates on other states), I don't think we should take more money
from the taxpayers until and unless we fix the spending problems.  Many
others apparently agree ... if the people of Tennessee thought the
government was spending their existing tax dollars wisely, there
probably wouldn't be so much resistance to paying more.  Until that
happens, there will be huge resistance to any kind of "tax reform" that
gives Nashville more of our money to play with.  And I will be part of
that resistance.

Signing off to grade those papers now,

Joe Dumas