The left are claiming that the Democrats took such a beating in the 2014 elections because evil white folks just despise our (half) black President. Well maybe, just maybe, there could be other reasons. From Forbes:
2014 Showed How Much Taxes Matter
By Patrick Gleason | November 6, 2014
Remember when the New York Times, Bloomberg, MSNBC, and everyone else said that Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback was going to lose reelection because he cut taxes too much? That was funny. Not only did that not happen, Republicans will soon occupy the governors’ mansions in deep blue states like Massachusetts, Illinois, and even Maryland thanks to Democrat tax hikes.
Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, who was oddly endorsed by non-Illinois resident and Duke basketball coach Mike Kryzyzsewski, suffered a shocking loss to Republican opponent Bruce Rauner on Tuesday. How did Quinn lose in blue Illinois, home of President Obama? He enacted the largest tax increase in state history after assuming office in 2011, raising the personal income tax rate from 3 to 5 percent, and ratcheting up the corporate rate from 7 percent to 8.25 percent.
In Maryland, who will soon have a Republican governor in a state where Democrats have a 56 to 27 percent voter registration advantage over Republicans, Governor-elect Larry Hogan ran against the tax hiking, big spending ways of incumbent Gov. Martin O’Malley (D). During the eight years that O’Malley was governor, he signed into law 40 tax increases.
Gov. O’Malley wants to paint himself as a moderate, but in reality he’s such a liberal ideologue that he even raised taxes on rain. Yes, rain. O’Malley and his failed would-be successor subscribe to the “soak the rich” policy approach. That didn’t work out too well for Gov. O’Malley. Gov. O’Malley’s income tax increases reduced the job-creating capacity of thousands of Maryland small businesses who file under the individual income tax system. A year after Gov. O’Malley signed into law a “millionaires” tax hike, the roster of Maryland millionaires dropped by a third. O’Malley comically still sees himself as a presidential contender.
There’s a good deal more at the link.
In a comment on a previous thread, I noted this article from the Philadelphia Daily News:
Merchants say cigarette tax is a business-killer
By Solomon Leach & Regina Medina, Daily News Staff | Posted: November 10, 2014
The shelves of Ray Martinez’s West Philadelphia corner store are stocked full of unopened cigarette packs.
Martinez said he’s had trouble selling them since the city’s $2 cigarette tax to help public schools went into effect Oct. 1. Sales are down about 80 percent, he said, essentially killing the business.
“Right now we’re not making no money at the corner stores,” said Martinez, who owns Ray’s Food Market on Girard Avenue near 54th Street. “The stores right here in West Philly, we’re like three to five minutes away from City Line [Avenue] and Delaware County, and people, they’re going just across the street to get the cigarettes for $6 instead of getting them from us for $9.”
A pack of Newports that cost $6.35 six weeks ago in Martinez’s store is now $9.05. A carton is now almost $88, up from about $64.
“It’s really bad right now. We’re in real bad shape,” he said, adding that the decrease in cigarette sales has had a ripple effect on the rest of his business. He has let go of four employees in the past month. “Now it’s just me, my wife and my sister.”
Martinez isn’t alone. Other store owners and distributors in the city said they have seen a dramatic drop in revenue since the tax was added, causing them to wonder what the collateral damage will be on their livelihoods.
To the economically ignorant leftist this is SOP. They don’t understand that when a person goes to the “corner store” for a pack of smokes he may also buy an ice cream, a bottle of ketchup, toilet paper or a bag of chips and a soda. So the tax on cigarettes becomes a reason not to buy the rest of these items and ultimately will ruin the business.
It’s not like we hadn’t known what would happen in advance:
As for the proposed, but as yet not approved, $2.00 per pack cigarette tax, your Editor really doesn’t care whether it is passed or not. The tax would be collected only in Philadelphia, meaning that city residents anywhere close to the county lines1 who buy cigarettes will simply cross into the suburban counties to buy their cancer sticks. At $2.00 a pack, or $20.00 a carton, the trip is economically worthwhile. The Editor does not live in Philadelphia, nor does he smoke, so the tax doesn’t affect his family or him in the slightest. And, quite frankly, it puts the onus for increased spending on Philadelphia schools on Philadelphia residents, where it ought to be. Of course, poorer people tend to smoke in greater percentages than do the well-to-do, so this new tax, if approved, will fall more heavily on poorer people, and Democrats, so it’s kind of humorous to see the Democrats urging it on. And if the tax reduces cigarette consumption in Philadelphia, the anticipated revenues will not be realized, and the school district will come back, begging for more money. With the Democrats, with the educational bureaucracy, that’s simply a given. It won’t actually help anything, but when has that ever stopped the left from wanting to spend more tax dollars?
One of the most basic concepts in economics, as in the first week coursework in Economics 101, is that economic actors are assumed to take decisions in their own best economic interest, that they will take decisions to maximize their own economic return. In actual practice, it isn’t so neat: many other things can go into economic decisions, including time, habit, personal likes and dislikes, and even which side of the street on which a business happens to be. But, other factors aside, economic self-interest is a pulling force which influences some economic decisions.
And that is why we have noted that states which seek to increase taxes, like California and Illinois, wind up losing corporations and people and jobs. There are many other considerations, the most obvious being that a person might not have the economic mobility to move to a lower tax state and have the same income, or that an owner’s business is location specific, but, in the end, costs and benefits are part of the equation, and pull some people and companies to move.
What the 2014 election results indicate is that even in the solidly blue states, the voters want to see economic success, personal economic success, and just because they may be politically liberal doesn’t meant that all of them will continue to vote for policies which harm them economically.