Polítics Blogs, News & Views

Per Shawn Bannon | Comentari sobre l'article

Scott,

Estic amb vostè sobre la qüestió de carn de porc, però he de discrepar amb vostè en un parell d'altres assumptes. En primer lloc, en relació amb el dèficit, no es pot afirmar que els americans estan sentint l'impacte quan es considera que les mesures clau de l'economia de la salut són tots excel lents. Només cal mirar el mercat de l'habitatge, que ha estat una onada d'augment dels preus perquè els consumidors tenen els diners per pagar més. Els analistes han estat predient que la bombolla es va trencar durant més d'un any, però encara no. I els amos de casa representen un major percentatge de la nostra població avui que en qualsevol altre moment des que la taxa va ser mesurat per primera vegada. Els preus del gas són el doble del que eren només un parell d'anys enrere, però són tan alt perquè la demanda del mercat és el manteniment d'aquests preus. La gent no està canviant radicalment els seus hàbits de conducció. Només estan pagant més pel gas.

I la salut de l'economia s'ha de - en gran part - a les retallades de taxa impositiva per l'administració Bush i, pel que fa a les empreses, a nivell estatal. Les retallades d'impostos del president Bush va entrar en vigor el 2001, com era previsible, els ingressos fiscals ha pujat - fins i tot a través de la recessió de 2002-2003. Això és just com ho va ser en la dècada de 1960, quan el president Kennedy va reduir les taxes impositives, i en la dècada de 1980, quan el president Reagan va fer el mateix. Les taxes d'impostos baixen. La despesa dels consumidors i la inversió empresarial pujar. Les empreses s'expandeixen, es creen llocs de treball, i augmenta els ingressos fiscals. Aquesta és la raó per Pay As You Go política fiscal no funciona. Que nega els efectes de les inversions de creixement de l'economia. Tipus impositius baixos - en el resultat individual i corporativa - en el creixement econòmic més abundants i majors ingressos fiscals. La història és això. Per contra, els augments en les taxes d'impostos la despesa del consumidor lloc i limitar la capacitat de les empreses a reinvertir els beneficis de manera que creixen les empreses i crear llocs de treball.

És injust parlar de "retallades" en els pressupostos per a l'educació i els programes de prestacions determinades pels "talls" només apareixen en una comparació dels pressupostos de 2005 i 2004. Però l'educació i els pressupostos de Medicare han crescut des que el president Bush va assumir el càrrec el 2001 com a resultat de que cap nen es quedi Enrere i el nou benefici de medicaments receptats per a gent gran. Senador Specter és la forma que fora de la base sobre aquesta qüestió.

No es pot matar a la NASA. També molta innovació nord-americà en els últims 50 anys és el resultat de la investigació de la NASA. Molts dels productes a les nostres llars mai s'hauria creat si no fos per les sol licituds inicials de la ciència que rau en els programes de la NASA. Podem enfocar millor l'abast de la NASA com una forma de contenir els costos? Sí, i podem guanyar una mica de terreny. Però ni una revisió important o un funeral per al programa es traduirà en beneficis a llarg termini per a la nostra economia que pesen més que el cost de l'entrega dels beneficis que hem aconseguit i segueixen obtenint de l'existència de la NASA.

El benestar de les empreses és un terme equivocat, i crec que vostè està buscant en la qüestió de la manera equivocada. Empreses absolutament paguen impostos sobre la renda de la mateixa manera que vostè i jo. Els consumidors tenen la càrrega de les altes taxes d'impost de societats només en el mateix sentit que els nostres patrons passar diners dels impostos a través de nosaltres al govern. Quan se'ls dóna exempcions d'impostos - sovint a traslladar-se a noves ciutats o per a expandir-se en una regió en particular - els governs locals comercials una quantitat limitada d'ingressos fiscals per a la creació d'ocupació i creixement econòmic resultant. Funciona? A vegades sí, de vegades no. Però, és el benestar de les empreses? No, és un risc calculat adoptades pels polítics locals que simplement no sempre la pena.

Finalment, en relació amb els subsidis agrícoles, el punt està ben fet, i millors controls són necessaris. Però la resposta no és un programa de subsidi que només beneficia els agricultors pobres que lluiten per mantenir les seves operacions petites. Sense aquestes subvencions, les grans explotacions que són en realitat la producció d'aliments es tornarà insostenible i / o el preu dels aliments augmentarà dramàticament, afectant greument els pobres. Així, la resposta és un pessic al programa de subvencions que mira simplement a tallar els beneficis per a aquelles persones que posseeixen "granges" que no produeixen més que les pròpies subvencions.

Respondre a aquest comentari específic

Per Scott Bannon | Comentari sobre l'article

Shawn, gràcies pels comentaris. Per ser clar, jo estava resumint el que diversos republicans (en la seva majoria en les carreres de nou impugnada elecció) han declarat en els últims dies abans del meu escrit en relació amb els nord-americans sentint l'impacte ". Haurem d'acordar no estar d'acord en això, però per disminuir molts nord-americans de classe mitjana i la banda està ja tan fermament com es pot aconseguir, així que vaig a estar en línia amb els republicans declaracions.

Pel que fa a retalls de les taxes d'impostos de Bush i la batalla per continuar amb ells, no crec que vaig baixar personalment a cada costat de la qüestió al meu anunci. Els meus comentaris sobre aquest simplement es pretén destacar divisions internes dels partits actuals es produeixen més de qüestions econòmiques.

No estic d'acord que és injust per discutir "retallades" en els pressupostos dels programes només perquè els "talls" només apareixen en una comparació dels pressupostos de 2005 i 2004. Si un cert nivell de despesa per a que qualsevol programa s'ha mantingut durant els últims deu anys o només un, una reducció a que la despesa és per definició un "tall" i per tots els mitjans justos per discutir.

Em quedo amb el teu punt de la NASA i d'acord una mica. Com ja he dit jo sóc un gran fan de la NASA, el Discovery Channel i del tall-vora de les ciències. No obstant això, crec que els avenços del sector privat i les innovacions tenen la capacitat de triomf de recerca finançats pel govern en la majoria de les àrees. Aquest és el més gran (de molts) L'argument favorable per a una societat capitalista, en la meva opinió.

Encara que prefereixo la NASA no morir del tot, és cert que una gran quantitat de diners (milers de milions i milers de milions de dòlars cada any) es gasta en coets per volar estels i 4-Wheeling un robot al voltant de la superfície de Mart. La investigació darrere d'aquests programes és vàlida i honorable, però no com a prioritat, com d'altres programes quan la despesa ha de ser reduït.

És com la gestió d'un pressupost de les llars a una escala major. Si no pots permetre el luxe d'actualitzar l'últim gadget nou embalat, paper prim, sistema de projecció de cinema a casa aquest any, perquè el petit Timmy necessita claus, llavors vostè pateix veient a través d'Els Simpson en què 60 polzades obsoletes gran pantalla d'una altra any i l'actualització en un moment posterior.

Potser es veuen en el benestar de l'empresa des del punt de vista equivocat, però potser no. Si el propietari (s) de Ginys Smith decideix que vol un dòlar per cada widget complet el marge de benefici venut, llavors l'enteniment que haurà de pagar el 47% dels seus ingressos en impostos vol dir que el preu dels seus reproductors poden tenir una mica més d'un dòlar i un marge de benefici mitjà. El govern obté és 47% i Reproductors de Smith les butxaques dels giny complet per cada dòlar venut que volien.

Òbviament, no és tan simplista, però després una altra vegada fins a cert punt, el que realment és.

Dit això, no es va centrar exclusivament en ofertes dels governs locals que ofereixen incentius fiscals a les empreses i les pauses per créixer llocs de treball per a les seves regions. El problema és a nivell federal, així com carn de porc i emmascarats en molts casos. Un exemple perfecte és un recent projecte de llei de Carreteres que té una quantitat escandalosa de carn de porc basat en pagaments de benestar corporatiu, com $ 37 milions per ampliar un sol camí a Arkansas que és el principal punt d'accés a la seu de Wal-Mart Stores Inc

No estic segur exactament de 2005 els beneficis de Wal-Mart, però el 2004 és que figuren en 10,3 milions de dòlars. I encara que entenc la necessitat que les grans empreses situades en una comunitat i treballar amb ells per mantenir-los en la comunitat, els informes que he vist en aquest suggereixen els problemes de trànsit no eren tan dolents en comparació amb similar a través de tarifes. No obstant això, els contribuents es van veure obligats a desemborsar $ 37 milions de dòlars per tal que empleats de Wal-Mart podria tenir un accés més ràpid al seu lloc de treball. Aquesta és una forma de benestar corporatiu que existeix, però és sovint passat per alt.

Sobre els subsidis agrícoles, això és una pregunta difícil. Sé que limitar a només un percentatge determinat podria tenir efectes negatius per al sector agrari en el seu conjunt i la càrrega dels consumidors en última instància. També sé que tones de diners que es gasta cada any el pagament no propietaris de terres a utilitzar les seves terres. Una cerca ràpida a Google mostra que sovint aquests propietaris de la terra són els esports i altres estrelles de l'entreteniment o els propietaris de negocis rics. No és gent que conrear la seva terra de totes maneres, però el govern els pagarà per assegurar això. És un bucle d'impostos forat s'explota, són diners perdut i tot el programa ha de tenir un examen franc i transparent per garantir que els diners s'està utilitzant de la millor manera possible per ajudar els candidats més meritoris.

Respondre a aquest comentari específic

Per Shawn Bannon | Comentari sobre l'article

Scott,

Sempre me n'alegro d'entrar en debat amb vostè.

Tens raó que molts dels republicans estan dividits sobre la despesa i les retallades d'impostos. Alguns en el meu partit hem perdut de vista de la moderació fiscal electors esperen dels legisladors republicans. Hi ha hagut algunes circumstàncies atenuants que contribueixen a la situació actual, però al final del dia, els legisladors republicans han de fer un millor treball de control de si mateixos quan es tracta de gastar.

Dit això, no, no va baixar en un costat o l'altre en relació amb les retallades fiscals de Bush. I jo no estava criticant la discussió de les retallades d'impostos. Més aviat, es detallen alguns dels beneficis de les retallades d'impostos per explicar per què "pay-as-you-go la política pressupostària, que vostès van aprovar, no es preveu l'expansió de la nostra economia en la forma en que el manteniment de les retallades d'impostos.

No hi ha res dolent amb alguns dèficit de despeses - fins i tot una gran quantitat de despesa deficitari - si l'economia creix amb fermesa suficient per pagar el dèficit que resulta en una quantitat raonable de temps. La proporció entre el dèficit i el PIB és molt més important que el nivell de dèficit real. Per tant, pot augmentar els préstecs per pagar coses importants com la guerra contra el terrorisme, una ampliació limitada de Medicare, reorganització de la nostra política nacional d'educació, millores d'infraestructura, etc, però els legisladors han de saber on és el límit entre el usos dels nostres impostos de dòlars són prudents i necessàries i les que només generen capital polític. Pay-as-you-go la política pressupostària no funciona (és excepcionalment dolent en un moment de crisi), no és necessari i - de fet - retarda el potencial de creixement de l'economia. Però això no significa que els republicans haurien de sentir-se lliures per executar el compte, tampoc.

Ara, a només davant alguns dels punts que va fer en la seva resposta als meus comentaris:

És injust parlar de retallades a l'educació i els pressupostos de Medicare com vostè ha descuidat, ja que per posar-les en context. Es presenten en la seva obra original com indicatiu de negligència administrativa - mira les retallades a aquests importants projectes, mentre que altres, menys importants o projectes de carn de porc són totalment finançat. Això és el injust en la discussió de les retallades. Els fons dedicats a l'educació i Medicare han augmentat enormement des que el president Bush va assumir el càrrec, en gran part en resposta a les necessitats creades per la nova legislació i la millora de les prestacions. Mentre que els sistemes d'ensenyament adaptat a les noves normes i la infraestructura de Medicare va ser creat per donar compte d'aquests canvis, més diners era necessari. No obstant això, el mateix nivell de despesa no cal ara que els programes estan en marxa i funcionant, pel que és totalment apropiat per reduir aquests pressupostos.

Penseu en un petit negoci - una botiga de maquinari, potser. La botiga dels costos és un èxit moderat, i les despeses indirectes generalment van de $ 1 milió a l'any. (Això és només un exemple, no tinc idea del que les despeses generals reals d'explotació d'una ferreteria seria.) Així que, després de 10 anys en el negoci, el propietari decideix obrir una segona botiga a la ciutat. En aquest any, les seves despeses d'explotació es va als núvols. S'ha de construir o renovar un edifici, compra d'inventaris, contractar personal, etc Segurament li va costar $ 5 milions per obtenir la seva botiga en marxa, i llavors tindrà grans despeses associades al funcionament de la segona botiga d'un nombre d'anys fins que arribi a ser una part de la comunitat i l'economia local com la seva primera botiga. Amb el temps, però, el cost d'executar la segona botiga ha de ser aproximadament el mateix que el cost d'executar la primera. Així, cinc anys després de la línia, les seves despeses generals són potser $ 2,5 milions per a la operació combinada. Ara, el seu pressupost de despeses ha disminuït, any rere any des de la segona botiga va obrir per primera vegada, però això no vol dir que està descuidant el negoci, l'emmagatzematge de mercaderies de menys qualitat o engany als seus clients.

El mateix passa amb la despesa pública. Massa sovint, pensem que la reducció dels fons dedicats a un programa en especial significa un deteriorament automàtic de la qualitat d'aquest programa. I la gent com el senador Specter per combatre el finançament continuada en el mateix nivell o augment del finançament - abocar diners dels contribuents que no estiguin sent utilitzats efectivament - el que significa que hem de tallar en altres llocs, acceptar un dèficit pressupostari superior o augmentar els impostos. Podem debatre sobre finançament de l'educació d'un altre temps, però vessant diners a les aules no és - a llarg termini - la resposta al problema de l'educació dels Estats Units.

Quant a la NASA, potser només fan falta arribar a un acord en desacord, perquè crec que vostè estigui 100 per cent - OK, potser només el 95 per cent - malament aquí. Com vaig escriure ahir a la nit, sí, estic d'acord que algunes prioritats dels projectes i les despeses que siguin necessàries, però en realitat diria que els administradors de la NASA han fet un treball encomiable en aquest sentit en els darrers anys. S'han adaptat els seus plans per a l'exploració espacial de manera significativa a la llum del pressupost i de seguretat.

La investigació de la NASA és essencial, que estimula la innovació en el sector privat que no passaria el contrari, perquè el cost seria prohibitiu per als líders empresarials responsables als inversors. Això és similar a la legació que moltes persones fan a favor dels fons federals per a la investigació amb cèl lules mare. Deixant de banda els beneficis per als nostres programes de defensa, els beneficis de la investigació de la NASA en la vida quotidiana - incloent, però molts més important que els articles de luxe com televisors de pantalla gran - són massa per al sacrifici.

Pregunta-li a qualsevol que hagi sobreviscut a una malaltia potencialment mortal a causa de la millora de la comprensió mèdica basada en la ciència de la NASA. Pregunti a un amputat que pot executar avui a causa d'una cama artificial dissenyat utilitzant els metalls i els conceptes d'enginyeria desenvolupat per primera vegada per a l'aplicació de la NASA. Pregunti-li a algú la família va escapar d'una casa remolc a Oklahoma just abans d'un tornado va assolar de l'important que era que té un 14-minute warning a causa del temps millorar els sistemes de seguiment i una comprensió enriquida del clima basat en la investigació de la NASA. Fa unes poques generacions, no hauria tingut coneixement que un tornado, fins que vaig escoltar a través d'extracció de les cases dels seus veïns. Pregunti a la jove que va salvar la vida quan ella era capaç de marcar la policia amb el seu telèfon mòbil des del maleter del cotxe del seu segrestador de la importància de que el telèfon i la tecnologia de posicionament global, la policia va utilitzar per trobar-la. Aquesta és la NASA. No es tracta de super-duper televisors de pantalla gran, tan bé com estan. M'agradaria recomanar que vostè fes un cop d'ull a la vida a la porció de la Terra de la NASA lloc web per a penes una mica d'informació sobre les moltes formes importants de la NASA és fer del món un lloc millor. Vostè ho pot trobar en http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/features/index.html.

Per descomptat, això no significa que ha d'atorgar un pressupost de recerca de la NASA il limitada o que no hauria d'haver controls adequats al lloc per veure els teus despeses, però mai estarà d'acord que la despesa de la NASA és similar als projectes de carn de porc per motius polítics que es el veritable flagell en el nostre pressupost.

Commutació de temes, em temo que també han d'estar en desacord amb el benestar de la seva "empresa" argument. La seva empresa giny no pot apujar els preus per crear els seus marges desitjats per a una sèrie de raons, tots els quals són un testimoni de la bellesa del capitalisme. En poques paraules, només poden cobrar el que el mercat pot suportar. Si augmenten els preus i els consumidors segueixen comprant els seus productes, a continuació, que cobraven molt poc per començar. Si augmenten els preus i els consumidors opten per deixar de comprar els seus reproductors, la companyia baixar els seus preus o, en la seva percepció d'oportunitats, un competidor emprenedors van a intervenir i vendre un producte comparable per a un 75-marge de beneficis cent. Al final del dia, la física de la competència inherent al capitalisme dicta que els productes es vendran a un preu que el mercat pot suportar, de manera que el capitalisme és bo per als consumidors.

Pel que fa a l'exemple de Wal-Mart, que no és "benestar corporatiu", i ni tan sols pot ser carn de porc. Wal-Mart ha crescut d'una organització petita en una de les més grans del món. Té, en molts aspectes, superat a casa, per dir-ho. Ara bé, es podia moure. Això és probablement el que vostè o jo ho faria si es va superar les nostres cases. Però els polítics que representen als ciutadans d'Arkansas entendre l'immens valor per als seus electors i per a l'economia del seu estat inherent al manteniment de dret de Wal-Mart, on es troba. Si l'ampliació d'una carretera millora el flux de trànsit i també beneficia a l'economia de manera de fer la ubicació en un lloc més adequat per a Wal-Mart per continuar el seu funcionament, és totalment apropiat per al finançament d'aquest projecte per ser inclòs en una llei de pressupostos de carreteres.

Wal-Mart els beneficis no tenen res a veure amb aquest argument. No són els més directament responsables de pagar pel manteniment de les carreteres al voltant de la seu del que els impostos individuals dels contribuents són responsables de pagar per al manteniment dels carrers en què vivim. Sí, els seus guanys eren enormes. Però també ho era la seva càrrega fiscal. Aquesta despesa va ser de carn de porc - un legislador llançar un os a una empresa de tornada a casa? Potser. Això depèn de si el projecte era realment necessari per millorar el flux de trànsit i mantenir la seu de Wal-Mart. Ni vostè ni jo tenim l'educació o el coneixement profund de les dades relatives a aquest lloc per determinar si procedeix o no el projecte de carretera era necessari. Però fins i tot si no fos - encara que fos de carn de porc - que encara no era "benestar corporatiu."

Com vaig escriure ahir a la nit, "benestar corporatiu" és un nom inadequat. En general, en realitat no existeix sinó en la ment dels liberals que no volen creure que és sempre un bon motiu per utilitzar diners dels impostos d'una manera que beneficiï a les grans corporacions. Un podria argumentar que els rescats del govern determinats, com el suport que el govern va donar a les companyies aèries després de l'11 de setembre van ser "benestar corporatiu." Però aquests són molt rares ocasions i no el que la majoria de la gent vol dir quan utilitzen el terme.

En general, les paraules "benestar corporatiu" és utilitzat per persones que neguen la superioritat del capitalisme a altres sistemes econòmics. Aquestes són persones que creuen que tot ha de ser igual i que ningú hauria de tenir tot el que consideren "massa", mentre que altres van sense. Aquestes són persones que creuen en els drets en lloc de l'autosuficiència, sinó que creuen que el paper del govern és proveir el suport en lloc d'oportunitats. Ells pensen que Wal-Mart i altres empreses d'èxit són intrínsecament dolents. I han inventat el terme "benestar corporatiu", perquè no crec que les organitzacions exitoses han de ser satisfetes de cap manera o forma pel nostre govern. Aquesta és la seva plataforma malgrat el fet que organitzacions com Wal-Mart, crear llocs de treball, impulsar el creixement econòmic i contribuir a les comunitats en què està ubicada. Aquests liberals són realment tenir-dels-rics-i-donar-a-els-socialistes pobres, que prefereixen enderrocar els que tenen èxit de dir als que no són per fer més de les seves oportunitats.

Ara, no crec que sóc cruel o insensible. Nosaltres, com a poble ha de ser compassiu. Hem de tenir cura d'aquells que són veritablement desfavorits. Però hem de fer més que com a veïns i menys com els contribuents. Hem de fer que a través de les donacions que fem a les nostres esglésies o marxes de recaptació de fons als nostres companys de feina. Hem de donar més del nostre temps com a voluntaris. Hem d'encoratjar al nostre govern per a finançar la capacitació d'ocupació per a aquells que volen fer una vida millor per a ells i els seus éssers estimats. Tenim que estan darrere de l'ajuda del govern que ofereix a les persones una mà, no una mà. Però hem de s'aixequen contra qualsevol intent de penalitzar a aquells que han estat pròspers perquè "no és just" que hi ha altres que no s'han adonat del seu potencial. I això és el que els liberals / socialistes - les persones que argumenten en contra de qualsevol ús dels dòlars d'impostos que beneficien a una empresa (independentment dels beneficis resultants per a la comunitat i l'economia) - L'objectiu de fer. No crec que ets un d'ells, així que teniu la possibilitat de reconsiderar aquesta qüestió i l'ús del terme "benestar corporatiu."

Respondre a aquest comentari específic

Per Scott Bannon | Comentari sobre l'article

Shawn, content que vaig poder esperó que in M'agrada l'esquena civil i quartes.

Jo no aprova el "pay-as-you-go la política pressupostària. Em il.lustrar com la més significativa-i no-moviment realitzat recentment pels demòcrates per mirar de controlar la despesa a Washington. Les meves disculpes si no era evident en el meu article.

No estem en desacord sobre els perills del "pay-as-you-go normes, que són restrictives i que afecten profundament a la nació. Probablement no estan d'acord en què una mesura provisional dràstica seria apropiat per inculcar, però ho deixo com una diferència filosòfica sobre on traçar la línia pressupostària de la mort.

A la NASA, com he reconegut ja, entenc el seu punt i no totalment d'acord. No obstant això, el balanç d'un pressupost nacional és un treball dur. Hi ha una quantitat finita per a tots i prendre decisions difícils s'han de fer. El fons és prioritats. Sí, la NASA ha fet (i segueix fent) una tremenda contribució per enriquir la vida de les persones.

No less important though, to an equal or greater amount of the American population is food, shelter, medicine and education to ensure future generations have the skills to continue developing new and greater technologies.

While high above many other money-pit projects and certainly towering over the mountain of pork waste, NASA still falls below many essential programs and services in priority as well, my original point was that when we begin cutting these – NASA must come ahead in the chopping block line.

Considerem que el benestar de l'empresa des de diferents perspectives, probablement hauríem de deixar aquesta en això. Ni en aquest article ni mai en la conversa que he dit un All-una oposició total a dòlars dels impostos es beneficien de negocis. Hi ha àrees importants i nombrosos, en què l'assistència del govern a les empreses és vital, per a les empreses tant per a l'individu i la comunitat. Immediatament després d'11 de setembre 2001, quan la indústria de l'aviació havia rebut un fort cop dels atacs que no s'oposava a la llibertat sota fiança inicial de cap manera, encara que jo creia que algunes disposicions de reestructuració de la indústria, el model hauria estat prudent adjuntar. Jo es va oposar a la llibertat sota fiança posterior a terme peticions perquè em sembla (des del meu limitat coneixement extern i la perspectiva) que la indústria en els problemes operacionals en el seu conjunt té un enorme (la majoria dels que existien abans de 9 / 11) i encara ha de fer-los front de manera eficaç . L'assistència inicial va ser d'un merescut la mà en marxa, les sol licituds posteriors van ser de la mà proverbial-outs en la meva opinió.

Mai no he proposat sancionar un comerç o indústria que fa bé per si mateix. Vaig a oferir els meus articles anteriors aquí a PBNV.com sobre la indústria del petroli com a exemples. M'oposo a qualsevol intent d'aprovar els impostos especials sobre l'èxit.

Vaig a estar darrere de la meva exemple, Wal-Mart. Era realment el benestar de les empreses? Això depèn de com es defineixi el benestar suposo. I define it as government assistance to be used for sustaining and improving one's self (or corporation). Wal-Mart specifically benefited (improved) from this project, so it falls within that definition from my perspective. It's likely that if the road were in a busy commercial area and the widening had benefited a number of businesses instead of just one I would feel differently, that doesn't seem the case from what I found.

As for listing Wal-Mart's profits, it wasn't to suggest that they should have somehow been responsible for paying to widen the roadway themselves, it was to illustrate that there were however, probably more deserving places for that money to go. Assuming that the road widening wasn't immediately essential as reporting suggests.

I don't want to continue on this track much further for fear that some reader may believe I'm just “another liberal attacking Wal-Mart”. I've defended that company in the past against such attacks and only used them as an example here because the example and facts were the first available in a quick search. If similar findings regarding another business had been first I would have used them instead. I almost feel a need to email Lee Scott with a mia coppa.

To go off-topic from the original article here for just a moment, I don't think you are cruel or callous, but I believe it's wrong to make blanket implications that suggest a negative equation of liberals with socialists.

First of all, socialism itself isn't inherently evil as some would believe. It's a system, no more or less, and any evil examples that can be cited–I say can be attributed to the people working the system and not the system itself. The same is true of monarchies, democracies and republics through history. As evidence I offer that socialism has worked well for Catholics and other organized religions for many generations now. At least as well as any system has for other groupings.

Beyond that, there are arguable traits of socialism woven into the founding fabric of our nation. Our Declaration of Independence defines government as being responsible for (and limited to) the security and happiness(read as wellbeing) of the citizens it serves. A collective entity from the population created to handle that which privately or individually can't be accomplished for the common good and rights of all. Basically, it's “everyone, by means of the government, making sure that everyone has at-least this”, with 'this' being the rights we agree upon as sacred to all. That is a moderate usage of true socialistic ideology and was a brilliant application by men who wore knickers and wigs in my opinion.

This doesn't mean to suggest I'd prefer a full or even necessarily more socialist tendency in America, it means that I believe there were trace elements of socialism implied by our founding fathers with an understanding that they could help to achieve the forming of a more perfect union. Sort of a 'too much of anything is bad, but in moderation may be healthy and beneficial' approach.

I often hear conservatives add negative connotations to 'entitlement' programs and noted it in your reply as well. The very fact that the terminology was shifted from social programs to 'entitlements' suggests that a change in public perceptions was desired by those who would oppose them being tax-based and government run. But, as a liberal I see these programs (when structured and managed reasonably) as the government doing half of it's assigned duty–ensuring the wellbeing of the citizens it serves.

Can these programs become wayward albatrosses? Yes, that's why they need to be well formed and have transparent oversights. But, just because they can be corrupted doesn't mean they are by nature corrupt or deserving of any generally negative light being cast upon them.

In viewing government as an entity of the public (as I do), I also see these programs as “taking care of our neighbors”–as you say we ought to. Conversely, when conservatives attack or propose cuts to 'entitlement' programs (with that negative tone attached) while pork and other non-essential wasted spending climbs higher and higher out of control; I view this as government trying to shirk half of it's responsibility while the greedy few fatten their pockets.

There's a gap in our perspectives and beliefs on many issues. That's both okay and good, it keeps me thinking and I hope does the same for you.

Perhaps we can come to a happy agreement on one thing here though; if pork waste were eliminated we could both have all that we wanted and believed was right provided for by government, in addition to further tax rate cuts for all…

Respondre a aquest comentari específic

By Shawn Bannon | Reply to article

Scott,

Sorry I misread you on pay-as-you-go. I read that portion of your original post as an expression of disappointment that the Dems' effort on that front had failed. A simple matter of miscommunication that I'm glad we've cleared up.

I hope you won't be offended when I say that I think your position on NASA is simply short-sighted. I understand your point about priorities, but you're suggesting that we not adjust the bloated budgets of certain programs until we've slashed the NASA budget because you believe the needs those programs aim to meet are more important than the advances in technology and understanding that result from NASA's efforts. The fact is that it is possible – and a growing number of studies (at least the studies not sponsored by the teachers' unions) suggest – that money is not the problem with our education system and that dumping more money into public education without dramatic reform at the state and local levels is as effective as burning that money. So, where is the federal tax dollar better spent? The issue isn't whether education or the health of senior citizens is more important than NASA research. The issue is how effectively money dedicated to each is used to actually serve those causes. And that is where I think you and many others are missing the boat.

Briefly, regarding “corporate welfare” and Wal-Mart, when you write that Wal-Mart, because of its huge profits, is maybe not as “deserving” as some other causes, you are – in effect – suggesting that government support be denied this tax-paying organization because of its success. I would argue the opposite, that this project was particularly important to the people of Arkansas specifically because Wal-Mart has been so successful. When Wal-Mart does well, jobs are created, tax dollars are generated, and more money is funneled into the community through corporate and employee charitable contributions. You call it “corporate welfare” because you see Wal-Mart as the primary beneficiary. I say it's an infrastructure improvement project that demonstrably supports the economy as well as the local community. I don't think you're a crazy liberal attacking Wal-Mart, but I do think your definition of “corporate welfare” does align more closely than you realize with the views of socialist liberals and that you may be too quick to call government support of businesses like Wal-Mart “corporate welfare” when it is anything but.

Now, speaking of socialist liberals, I didn't equate liberals with socialists. I talked about a specific group of liberals who are also socialists. I do think most liberals have socialist leanings, but that doesn't make all liberals socialists.

Concerning socialism, it is an economic system of bondage and oppression that suppresses innovation, discourages extraordinary effort and has no method for rewarding achievement. It is a gear without teeth, constantly spinning without ever advancing the machine. It has no mechanism by which to adjust to market influences, is easily corrupted and rejects liberty. Because it is so vastly inferior to capitalism, it is doomed to failure.

Socialism does not work well for organized religion. It works, to some degree, among the clergy, but not among the laity. Still, history shows us that socialism has not always worked even among the clergy; the history of the Catholic Church is rife with stories of corruption and abuses of power. Inquisition, anyone? That doesn't make the Catholic Church, as an institution, evil – not at all. But it does demonstrate that socialism is only moderately sustainable even among a limited populace composed of clergy that have given over their worldly desires and committed to one unifying set of beliefs.

I think you're wrong to associate threads of community and union built into our Declaration of Independence with socialism. The Founding Fathers were absolute capitalists, and they worked very hard in the drafting of that document to define only the loosest of formal ties between the colonies so as to preserve the rights of self-determination inherent to individuals and each colony. They set out to limit the role of the federal government to the greatest possible extent, and they explicitly called for the consent of the governed – something no self-respecting socialist would ever do.

You are mistaken when you write that the Declaration proclaims the government's responsibility “for the safety and happiness of the citizens it serves.” What the Declaration says is that the citizenry has the right to form a government “most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” This is a very different thing and a far cry from socialism. It means that the people are responsible for their own safety and happiness but that they have the right to design governmental mechanisms that give them the best opportunity – individually or collectively – to ensure their own safety and happiness. It doesn't preclude them from banning together as neighbors to help the downtrodden, but it also doesn't require them to do so.

You wrote that the Founding Fathers were calling for “a collective entity from the population created to handle that which privately or individually can't be accomplished for the common good and rights of all. Basically, it's 'everyone, by means of the government, making sure that everyone has at-least this,' with 'this' being the rights we agree upon as sacred to all.” That is incorrect. They were declaring their independence from an oppressor who denied them rights that they believed were inalienable, and they were staking claim to their rights as free men to determine for themselves what form of government would offer them – individually and collectively – the best opportunity to realize their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They weren't writing that the government is responsible for granting you these rights; they were writing that the government doesn't have the authority to take these God-given rights away from you. This may seem like a mild distinction to you, but it is the difference between socialism and liberty. It is the difference between communism and capitalism. And it is all the difference in the world.

If you're looking for the introduction of socialism in our political-economic systems, the only place to start is with The New Deal. And that's also where we might begin our discussion of entitlements. The New Deal was a short-sighted answer to the failed economic policies that led to the Great Depression. The result was a bloated bureaucracy and future taxpayer liabilities that we would not be able to afford in the long-term because of the changing demographics of a nation that had long since begun to shift from agrarian economics to manufacturing and industry. Additional entitlement programs enacted under Lyndon Johnson's Great Society plan, while well-intentioned, exacerbated the problem.

These programs became entitlements when people began to depend on them even before they needed them. When people began planning during their working years for the Social Security income they would have during their retirement, Social Security became an entitlement. It was not intended at its inception to play the role in retirees' lives that it does today. Medicare was not supposed to become a senior citizen's only means of securing medical treatment. The original designers, in their short-sightedness, did not adequately plan for the aging of our population and increased life expectancies. And so, we are struggling under the mounting weight of social programs that will soon buckle our knees unless these programs are dramatically reinvented in ways that better align them with America's brand of capitalism and strip away the ties to socialism.

At the end of the day, I think the biggest difference between your views and mine is that you think government should provide for us while I think government should get out of the way so we can provide for ourselves and each other. This is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals assume that the poor, the weak and the lost would be left for dead if it were up to conservatives because we wouldn't have nearly the degree of government-provided services that exist today. I disagree because I believe that our capacity for achievement and prosperity is matched only by our generosity and the strength of our communities. The proof? According to the Catalogue for Philanthropy, 28 of the 29 most generous states, defined by the average per capita charitable deduction (how much each person gives to charity), are red states – states that voted for Bush in 04, states where conservatives have the strongest foothold. That's not to say that liberals aren't at all charitable, just that they (as a group) give less to charity because they assume the government will take care of our neighbors' ills. And it's another indication of liberals' desire to shed personal responsibility.

Respondre a aquest comentari específic

By Scott Bannon | Reply to article

Shawn, just a few quick points to clarify. I said there were probably more deserving places for that money to go with regards to the road widening for Wal-Mart. I'd have to twist it like a pretzel to infer “Wal-Mart doesn't deserve assistance because of it's success” from that statement.

I said there were 'better' or more deserving uses for the money. That doesn't translate into Wal-Mart is not deserving of assistance, only was less deserving at that point and under the circumstances.

Your points on socialism with specific examples of failure and corruption are accurate, but as I suggested can be linked directly to the people working the system.

I don't believe socialism is a better method, I was simply stating that it is a concept, like all forms of government, and inherently neutral. Any success or failure, good or evil that comes of it's application is a result of the people within, not the system itself.

You appear to have taken high exception with my suggesting that our founding fathers embraced trace aspects of socialistic ideology. I understand that, a lot of people (conservative and liberals alike) tend to do so. Perhaps it's a lack of emotional attachment to any specific ideology–capitalism, socialism, communism, Any'isms– that prevents me from reacting the same. I have thoughts on what's good and bad about each of these concepts, but no emotional connections to any of them.

Still, to borrow certain elements from any system which would further our ultimate goals seemed 'ahead of their time' to me and was stated in praise of their design.

We simply comprehend the Declaration of Independence differently. This is a long standing wedge in conservative vs. liberal perspectives. Conservatives seem content to reduce government to a corporate sponsor (you yourself have argued in favor and defense of corporate aid from government) with military might.

Liberals (myself included), tend to believe that falls short of the full intention which also includes the ensuring of individuals' wellbeing.

I get that from this line (expanding your own example to add the appropriate context): “..to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them [the governed] shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

When happiness is read as it's synonym, wellbeing, which I believe was the intention since I doubt our founding fathers felt government should pay for cable or lap dances (though if they really wanted to keep me happy or get my vote…)–and interpreting “organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect” as “building a government designed to cause or make so”, then it's clear that ensuring and protecting the wellbeing of citizens [the governed] was indeed intended.

That idea is further supported within the preamble of the constitution as well, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

I don't actually think government should provide all for us, I think we should provide for each other when the needs and means exist. As you say, take care of our neighbors. I just happen to believe the best tool for this is government in many instances due to resources and access. Smaller groups and charities are perfectly suited to certain needs, though often more inclined or predisposed to discriminate upon who receives their support. Government is better suited (by design) to others.

Respondre a aquest comentari específic

By Shawn Bannon | Reply to article

Scott,

You're still using Wal-Mart's success as a way of determining whether or not it deserves government aid. By assigning a negative “deserve” factor based on Wal-Mart's success – by deciding that someone else is more deserving because you think Wal-Mart has been successful enough that it doesn't deserve aid as much as another taxpayer – you have, indeed, assessed a penalty for that success. Having said that, because the highway improvement project in question is an infrastructure improvement that benefits the local and state economy and, in turn, Wal-Mart, it's like Clint Eastwood said in Unforgiven: “Deserve's got nothing to do with it.” One of the responsibilities of our elected representatives is to make the best decisions they can about how to use tax dollars to bring about the greatest benefit to we the governed. You can, from 1,000 miles away, second-guess the need for this road work in Arkansas, but Wal-Mart's success has nothing to do with whether or not the project should have been funded in the manner that you suggest.

Now, regarding your thoughts on socialism, it doesn't fail because of the people in the system. It fails because it was an ill-devised system to begin with. It isn't inherently neutral, as you suggest, because it aims from the outset to take from those who prosper. It retards the socio-economic advancement of those who are ambitious or entrepreneurial while rewarding those whose contributions or productivity are minimal. Intended to transcend human nature, it instead grates against those who are subjugated by the system, destroying souls and breeding corruption.

I do take exception to your argument concerning the Founding Fathers because I am troubled by such a fundamental misunderstanding of our founding documents. More than that, I am troubled by the idea that you – or any American born in this land of opportunity – claim to have no emotional attachment to the system of values that has made the United States the greatest country in the world. No other country offers its citizens as much opportunity. No other economic system has created as much wealth for a people as has American capitalism. Nowhere else in the world would we consider people who carry cell phones and wear Nike shoes to be living in poverty. But here in America, you can drive through the poorest neighborhood at night, and you'll see nearly every apartment window lit by the glow of a color television. Sure, there are poor who struggle here in the United States. There are hard-working Americans who find it difficult to put food on the table for their families. But where else in the world would those same people have the opportunities that they have here to lift themselves above their struggles?

This country, which has provided more opportunity for prosperity than any other, has given you, me and millions of others the chance to make our dreams a reality. But you have no emotional attachment to our particular brands of government, community and commerce? Sadly, too many liberals feel this way. And if conservatives accuse liberals of not being patriots, it's because of this lack of love of country, not because you or people far more liberal than you are critical of the government's policies.

Speaking of conservatives, your assertion that conservatives want to “reduce government to a corporate sponsor,” couldn't be more wrong. And what I've argued is that it is wholly appropriate for government to make infrastructure improvements and other tax-funded investments – with the consent of the governed through the actions of their elected representatives. These government actions are intended to effect the safety and happiness of the governed by creating opportunities for greater prosperity. That is 100 percent in line with the language in our founding documents.

Your substitution of “wellbeing” for “happiness” is a mistake. Jefferson, Adams and the other signers of the Declaration absolutely meant “happiness” in that government should make it possible for you as a citizen to gain employment, own land and accumulate wealth. They were talking about “happiness,” and they wrote “happiness.”

You are trying to rewrite the Declaration to fit your agenda by interpreting plain English that only requires interpretation if you are trying to change the meaning. The reason Jefferson didn't write about a government “designed to cause or make so” the safety and happiness of the citizenry is because that isn't what was intended. The Founding Fathers were adamant that all responsibility and authority remained with the governed, for whom the government is but a tool used to bring about the greatest likelihood of safety and happiness. The language you quoted from the Constitution is all about national security. It has nothing to do with making sure the sick receive taxpayer-funded healthcare or that senior citizens are guaranteed an income in their retirement.

Lastly, regarding your belief that the government is the best channel by which to provide support to those in need, I'm afraid you have it backwards, and we will likely always disagree on that. With few exceptions, government programs represent the most inefficient and ineffective means of delivering social services to our citizens. Bloated administrative organizations waste money. Layers of bureaucracy waste time. Consider that the American Red Cross is far better at mobilizing and providing for the wellbeing of citizens in the wake of a disaster than federal, state and local agencies. Consider that children in private schools score significantly higher on standardized tests than public school students despite the fact that the cost to educate a student in most private schools is about half of what taxpayers pay per student in nearby public schools. Liberals don't seem to mind this inefficiency and waste. In fact, they seem to think that the more you feed the beast, the more it will accomplish. But the evidence doesn't support that.

The simple fact is that private agencies are better organized, better focused, better connected to those they serve and, as a result, better able to provide the support required by our neighbors in need. We should do more to encourage a transfer of responsibility back to individuals and those private organizations, fighting discrimination where it occurs on a case-by-case basis instead of assuming a culture of discrimination. That charge, in my experience, tends to be tossed around too indiscriminately by liberals who simply don't agree with the values espoused by many of those private organizations. Perhaps, instead of pushing for more tax money dedicated to inefficient, ineffective and wasteful government agencies, liberals should dedicate themselves to making a more direct contribution to the wellbeing of those in need by getting involved themselves.

Respondre a aquest comentari específic

By Scott Bannon | Reply to article

Shawn, my stating that Wal-Mart was perhaps less deserving in that situation came not from any negative weight placed upon their success, but rather from more demanding needs in other areas. Their success, despite any rush hour traffic problems to date, is evidence that perhaps areas like education–where Arkansas constantly brings up the rear–had a greater need under the circumstances at that point in time. When faced with more needs than there is funding to supply, one must prioritize. I'm not prioritizing against Wal-Mart or any business/program in some bottom-up chopping block approach, but rather from top-down to assess the most demanding. Yes, I do believe that assistance should always go to the most needy to do the most overall good. We'll have to agree to just disagree from that point.

It's wrong to equate a lack of love for capitalism to a lack of patriotism or love for country. My reasons for loving America may differ from yours or anyone else's, but that in no way suggests I love my country any less–just as I don't feel you are any less of a patriot for your reasons.

Capitalism is an economic–or socioeconomic–system, it is not the underlying values of our nation which I do hold emotional connections with. Perhaps you misread my previous comments on this. My lack of attachment is to the structure, not true values such as freedom, compassion, accountability, charity, tolerance and so on. These are the sort of values that exist in America and with which I am most proud of. This doesn't mean that I feel financial opportunities and prosperity aren't of value, nor do I feel anyone who views them as higher values is less patriotic than myself.

We don't all need to hold the same perspectives or reasons in order to share an equal love for our country, and shame on those conservatives you spoke of who believe or would suggest otherwise.

My comments regarding socialism in no way placed a negative light on capitalism. You can argue that one [socialism] isn't all/inherently bad without saying the other [capitalism] isn't better. It isn't an either-or option to me.

I don't believe I'm trying to rewrite the Declaration, I believe it is a fundamental and understandable difference in comprehension that exists between conservatives and liberals. If I were to comprehend it more verbatim as you suggest, then I believe I've been missing some government sponsored lap-dances for quite a long time now and will be writing my republican senators about this tonight.

You're correct that programs and ideas such as national health-care or social security weren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The 'general Welfare' of we the people was, and you can interpret that to apply only to security, however the definition of welfare is a) Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being and b) Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.

Nowhere in there is security or safety mentioned. If I must read the Declaration verbatim and without interpretation then I insist the same of the Constitution. Knowing that the needs and wants of society would evolve with time, the Constitution formed a foundation for future generations to meet them without the founding fathers having to specifically name them individually from some crystal ball.

Why is it that when government makes “infrastructure improvements and other tax-funded investments” that primarily or most directly benefit business it's appropriate and “with the consent of the governed through the actions of their elected representatives”, but when government makes social improvements and other tax-funded investments with the same consent of the governed through the actions of their same elected representatives it's an unfair 'entitlement' of the few paid for by the many?

Again, I have absolutely no objections to government assisting business to become more prosperous–in fact I believe that's a basic responsibility of government. However, that same responsibility exists to the general populace as well and my only objections are when the balance tilts disproportionately.

I agree and said so previously, that private charities are often the best suited outlets for some social needs. Some others, such as the social security program require more oversight and control than could be accomplished with privatization, in my opinion. This doesn't mean I think things have been well managed as is, simply that I believe the best opportunity exists within government management of some programs and that having these fall under government administration is Constitutional.

Respondre a aquest comentari específic

By Shawn Bannon | Reply to article

Scott,

You may not think you've assessed Wal-Mart a penalty for its success, but in your original piece, you clearly drew a line between Wal-Mart's profits and whether or not a particular highway improvement project should be funded. Now, having thought more about that, you may not feel that is the way to approach the issue, but I do think your original presentation of the matter is indicative of how many on the left look at similar issues, and it is important to address that mistake.

Having said that, I have to dispute your argument that the politicians have not appropriately prioritized their use of tax dollars because they're funding a highway project while the Arkansas education system continues to fail the children in the state's public schools.

In Arkansas, only 26 percent of 8th graders are proficient or better in reading, and only 22 percent are proficient or better in math. Those numbers are abysmal. So, when you consider that Arkansas taxpayers pay $6,774 per student per year to send their children to school, if you didn't know any better you might think that moving money from the highway project that benefited Wal-Mart to the education budget would be wise. But consider that Alaska, the state that spends the most – $16,665 per student – can boast proficiency ratings of just 27 percent and 29 percent for reading and writing, respectively. Is Alaska an anomaly? No. In the District of Columbia, which spends $16,344 per student, those numbers are just 12 percent and 7 percent. And nationwide, the state-by-state averages are just 29 percent and 28 percent. The problem is with education policy, not education budgets. And without dramatic reform, dumping taxpayer dollars into education is not likely to have near the same positive effect on the state of Arkansas as infrastructure improvements like the highway project we've been discussing in this thread of posts.

Now, I don't want to turn this into a discussion of your patriotism, but I think it is reasonable to question an American's love of the US if rejects any or all of the most basic principles upon which this nation has been built. You wrote a few nights ago that you have no emotional attachment to any ideology. In your most recent post, you wrote that you have no attachment to structure but that you are proud of values – freedom, compassion, accountability, etc. So you like, maybe even love, certain characteristics that make you feel good, but those things are not unique to the United States. You would find some measure of all of those qualities in Canada, the UK and elsewhere in the Western world. What makes the United States different from any other country in the world are our particular structures – our brand of capitalism, our form of representative democracy, the ties between and the borders that separate our states, our systems of laws and justice. If you don't embrace those structures – if you think they are artificial and somehow unimportant – I don't see any shame in asking whether what you love is the United States of America or Western culture in a broader sense.

As far as socialism is concerned, you can strip away everything I've written about the superiority of capitalism, and my argument that socialism is inherently oppressive and doomed to failure because it contradicts human nature still hold.

Now, I don't get this comment you've made (twice) that the establishment by the people of a system of government that creates the greatest likelihood of your safety and happiness somehow equates to government-sponsored lap dances. This is not a guarantee that the government will ensure either your safety or your happiness – whatever happiness means to you. This is simply a proclamation that the governed have the authority to decide for themselves what forms of government and commerce will provide the best opportunities by which they can realize their safety and happiness. In the United States, the governed have chosen to create a unique composite of republicanism and capitalism that have resulted in opportunities for prosperity greater than those experienced by any nation elsewhere in the world. And that prosperity pays for layered measures of security intended to offer the highest possible likelihood of our continued safety. If you are reading the Declaration to mean anything other than this, you should go back and read the writings of some of the men involved in the process of drafting and debating the document in the weeks prior to July 1776.

Concerning the Constitution, the definition you offer for the word welfare is a modern definition, which has changed dramatically with the advent of certain social programs in the 20th century. The word welfare had absolutely nothing to do with financial or other aid provided by the government when the Constitution was drafted. As for health, happiness and good fortune, the language of the Constitution is to promote – not to provide, but to promote – the general welfare. There is absolutely no contradiction between this promotion of the general welfare of the people and what I've written about the creation of government structures designed to bring about the best opportunity for its citizens to prosper.

You've attempted to catch me in a contradiction by insisting upon a strict reading of the Constitution, in essence suggesting that I was guilty of the same kind of rewriting or interpretation that you have done with the Declaration. But there you are wrong. I wrote of security as a concept that summarizes the language in the preamble to the Constitution because it was expedient for me to do so in a commentary that was already very long. But I could have used the verbatim language from the Constitution about insuring domestic tranquility and providing for the common defense, and my point would have been exactly the same and every bit as accurate. The difference between our points of view isn'ta matter of interpretation; it's the difference between what our founding documents say and what you'd like them to say.

Now, on to your question about entitlements. I never wrote that entitlement programs created with the consent of the governed are unfair. You are attempting to lump big business with conservatives against the little guy and liberals, I think, but you've got it wrong. Conservatives don't have a problem with entitlements because they're unfair. We have a problem with entitlement programs because they are bad, ill-fated policy that either ultimately keep down the people they're intended to lift up or turn into financial liabilities that – long-term –the country cannot afford.

Unlike you, I do object to government using my tax dollars in order to make businesses more prosperous. However – and this is crucial – I do support tax-funded investments that make the community more prosperous. In other words, I don't favor giving Wal-Mart $25 million in tax dollars so that the company can simply put more inventory on the shelves. But I would support a $25 million tax-funded infrastructure project that enabled Wal-Mart to open a store or two because the result would be the creation of new jobs, secondary business expansion as a result of increased traffic to the Wal-Mart site, increased tax dollar generation through retail sales and wages, etc. This investment is not designed to make Wal-Mart more prosperous. Wal-Mart's increased prosperity is simply a happy byproduct. But the government has no responsibility to ensure Wal-Mart's prosperity or that of any individual taxpayer. Still, individual taxpayers do reap the benefits of opportunities created when government wisely invests tax dollars to make a region more welcoming to businesses like Wal-Mart.

Finally, regarding Social Security, you would be hard pressed to find a program more illustrative of the points I've made in this posting and previously about entitlement programs. Social Security has been poorly managed with little or no care given to the changing demographics that have nearly doomed it to collapse. With every passing year, the gap between the assets available to pay our current liabilities and the assets we'll need to pay our future liabilities increases dramatically. It is happening at an alarming rate, but because we as a nation have come to expect benefits at a certain age that will afford us a certain level of income – because we have adopted a sense of entitlement – and because seniors make up such a significant block of the voting public, liberal politicians have been able to prey on the fears of retirees and those approaching retirement to the point that conservative politicians will not take the difficult but necessary steps to correct the program's major problems. Sooner or later, Americans are going to have to come to grips with the reality that an increase in the retirement age in line with longer life expectancy and a significantly slower rate of benefit increases – if not benefit reductions – will be necessary just to maintain the solvency of the program for a period of time. Then, if we still refuse to change the way we think about retirement security, dramatic tax increases will be necessary to avoid a complete Social Security meltdown. You may not like the idea of Social Security privatization, in any form, for any number of reasons. But you can bet that if we don't institute some form of mandated private retirement savings similar to President Bush's proposed personal investment accounts – if we don't make a large-scale shift from Social Security in its current form to a system for retirement security built on personal savings – a lot of Americans alive today will never see a dime of Social Security benefits regardless of how long they live.

When it was introduced, Social Security was not intended to become the primary source of a person's income after retirement. It was meant to encourage retirement planning and savings, and it was an attempt to help those who couldn't put even the most meager meal on the table. Those were desperate times, and the intentions were honorable. But, as always happens with government programs that spend taxpayer money, Social Security became a political football and spiraled out of control. If you, as a politician, fought to have benefits increased, you looked like a hero to your senior constituents. Never mind the future consequences of that increase. If the administration of the program is inefficient and wasteful, who even knows? And who is going to care enough to fix it? After all, those are tax dollars being wasted, not real dollars. Private institutions do not operate like that, but government organizations too often do. That is why Social Security was an ill-fated program from the day it was conceived. That is why entitlement programs, as a rule, are bad long-term public policy.

Respondre a aquest comentari específic