I'm always amazed how conservatives fight the local top down strategies but advocate for them at the national level. I believe progressives consistently want make sure that the environmental standards are up to par but don't really mind if tax incentives are used to lure businesses to our community. On the national front, progressives don't mind the tax breaks for corporations as long as it doesn't take away from the safety net .The moderates will take a little bit of both and will generally come down on both sides, as long it's feasible. Yes,I know liberals and progressives are also all over the map but they have never claimed to have one standard.
I'm glad our newspaper explained tax abatements even they only presented the favorable side. That's really the only way you can explain tax abatements because you can't really explain the negatives without knowing all the details. I realize we have built in incentives for companies to come to our community, such as the barge canal, new schools, close proximity to Corpus Christi, Houston and San Antonio, good hospitals, and a good four year university. Tax abatements at the local level are much like the federal deduction for start up costs. It's basically, "we will make the company's transition cheaper today for tomorrow's tax dollars." Is it a necessary component in order to lure a large industry? I think it's the cost of doing business that has been accepted for a long time. Companies use it for leverage between competing municipals and competitors realize its part of the bidding process. From what I've read and understand from the local conservatives, they think it's an unnecessary cost because they want a distinctive wall of separation between the private and public entities. They don't think that our city or county should be picking winners and losers because that's the root of crony capitalism. That's a good argument but it comes down to a level of trust. For more on abatements, be sure to check out today's editorial here.
Not to dwell on city politics because I don't know the players per say but it was interesting to see where a conservative councilman said that legal funding should not be about politics. He went on to say "But if this project isn't properly funded, the public can expect one of two things to occur. Either the defense of the permit will fail because it wasn't given the funds to succeed, or they will get part way through the fight and have to return to Council for additional funding." That's what confuses me, at the national level the Republicans are doing exactly what the councilman who call himself a conservative, is complaining about. At the federal level, conservatives don't want to pass President Obama's job proposals but they blame him for high unemployment. Can you see where I’m coming from?
These are just two issues but I'm sure there are more, where the consistency is not there. Usually fiscal conservatives usually want a total free market but they know that's virtually impossible, so they resist joint ventures or anything else that will make government look competent. We can't have a total free market as long as we have the Federal Reserve which is capable of manipulating our economy by increasing our knowing interest. Lately, I've seen the Republican Party going back to its libertarian roots by insisting on austerity methods only. There's an argument that some will say is not true because Romney was chosen to lead the party. Is Romney really leading or will he be the puppet of Grover Norquist and Paul Ryan?
I’m not saying that the local conservatives are right or wrong; I just want to know if I’m judging them correctly.I kind of like the local use of the word "conservative" because it appears to be policy over ideology.