Blogs politiques, Nouvelles et opinions

Par Shawn Bannon | Répondre à l'article

Scott,

Je suis avec vous sur la question du porc, mais je dois exprimer mon désaccord avec vous sur quelques autres questions. Tout d'abord, en ce qui concerne le déficit, vous ne pouvez pas demander que les Américains ressentent les effets si l'on considère que les mesures clés de la santé économique sont tous excellents. Il suffit de regarder le marché du logement, qui a été une vague de hausse des prix car les consommateurs ont l'argent pour payer plus. Les analystes ont prédit que la bulle allait éclater prix pour plus d'un an, mais il n'a pas encore. Et les propriétaires de maison font un plus grand pourcentage de notre population aujourd'hui qu'à aucun autre moment depuis que le taux a été mesuré. Les prix du gaz sont deux fois ce qu'ils étaient seulement il ya quelques années, mais ils sont élevés en raison que la demande du marché est le maintien de ces prix. Les gens ne sont pas radicalement changer leurs habitudes de conduite. Ils sont juste de payer plus pour le gaz.

Et la santé de l'économie est due - en grande partie - des baisses de taux d'impôt par l'administration Bush et, autant que les sociétés sont concernées, au niveau de l'Etat. réductions d'impôts du président Bush est entré en vigueur en 2001, et de façon prévisible, les recettes fiscales ont augmenté - même à travers la récession de 2002-2003. C'est juste comme il était dans le début des années 1960, lorsque le président Kennedy réduit les taux d'imposition, et dans les années 1980, lorsque le président Reagan a fait de même. Les taux d'imposition de descendre. Les dépenses de consommation et les investissements des entreprises augmentent. Entreprises à se développer, des emplois sont créés, et l'augmentation des recettes fiscales. C'est pourquoi pay as you go politique fiscale ne fonctionne pas. Il annule les effets des investissements de croissance dans l'économie. faibles taux d'imposition - le résultat individuel et niveaux de l'entreprise - de la croissance économique plus abondantes et augmentation des recettes fiscales. porte que sur l'histoire. Inversement, l'augmentation des taux d'impôt des dépenses de consommation de décrochage et de limiter la capacité des sociétés à réinvestir leurs bénéfices de manière à la croissance des entreprises et créer des emplois.

C'est injuste pour discuter des "coupes" dans les budgets pour les programmes d'éducation et le droit parce que certaines de ces réductions »n'apparaissent que dans une comparaison des budgets 2005 et 2004. Mais l'éducation et les budgets de Medicare ont explosé depuis que le président Bush a pris ses fonctions en 2001 à la suite de la No Child Left Behind la législation et la prestation de nouvelle prescription de médicaments pour les personnes âgées. Le sénateur Specter est tout à fait farfelu sur cette question.

Ne peut pas tuer la NASA. Trop innovation américaine au cours des 50 dernières années est le résultat de la recherche de la NASA. Trop de produits dans nos maisons n'aurait jamais été créé, il ne sont pas pour les demandes initiales de la science sous-jacente dans les programmes de la NASA. Pourrions-nous mieux cibler le champ d'application de la NASA comme un moyen de limiter les coûts? Oui, et nous pourrions gagner du terrain. Mais ni une révision majeure ou d'un enterrement pour le programme se traduira par des avantages à long terme pour notre économie qui l'emportent sur le coût de la remise des avantages que nous avons récolté et continuera de tirer de l'existence de la NASA.

l'aide aux entreprises est un terme impropre, et je pense que vous êtes à la recherche sur la question dans le mauvais sens. Sociétés absolument pas payer des impôts sur le revenu de la même manière que vous et moi. Les consommateurs portent le fardeau des taux élevés d'imposition des sociétés que dans le même sens que nos employeurs passer l'argent des contribuables à travers nous pour le gouvernement. Quand ils sont donnés des allégements fiscaux - souvent de déménager dans de nouvelles villes ou à se développer dans une région en particulier - les gouvernements locaux se négocient un nombre limité de recettes fiscales pour la création d'emplois et la croissance économique résultant. Est-ce efficace? Parfois oui, parfois non. Mais est-ce bien-être de l'entreprise? Non, c'est un risque calculé prises par les politiciens locaux qui n'existe tout simplement pas toujours payante.

Enfin, en ce qui concerne les subventions agricoles, votre point est bien faite, et de meilleurs contrôles sont nécessaires. Mais le programme de subventions réponse qui n'est pas un ne récompense que ceux des paysans pauvres qui luttent pour maintenir leurs opérations de petite taille. Sans ces subventions, les grandes exploitations qui sont en fait la production de nourriture va devenir insoutenable et / ou le prix des aliments augmentera considérablement, affectant gravement les pauvres. Donc, la réponse est un tweak pour le programme de subventions qui ne porte que de couper les prestations aux personnes qui possèdent des "fermes" qui ne donne pas quelque chose de plus que les subventions elles-mêmes.

Répondre à ce commentaire spécifique

Par Scott Bannon | Répondre à l'article

Shawn, je vous remercie pour les commentaires. Pour être clair, je résume ce que plusieurs républicains (surtout dans les courses de la réélection contestée) ont déclaré ces derniers jours avant mon écrit au sujet des Américains ressentent les effets ». Nous aurons à accepter d'être en désaccord sur ce point, mais pour beaucoup inférieur et moyen Américains de la classe de la ceinture est déjà aussi serré qu'il peut obtenir, donc je vais attendre en ligne avec les républicains «déclarations.

Comme pour les coupes de Bush taux d'imposition et la lutte pour les poursuivre, je ne crois pas que je suis descendu personnellement de chaque côté de la question à mon annonce. Mes commentaires à ce sujet étaient simplement destinées à mettre en évidence actuelle partie des divisions internes se produisant sur les questions économiques.

Je suis en désaccord que c'est injuste pour discuter des "coupes" dans les budgets des programmes simplement parce que ces réductions »n'apparaissent que dans une comparaison des budgets 2005 et 2004. Que ce soit un certain niveau de dépenses pour un programme a été soutenue pendant les dix dernières années ou un seul, une réduction de ces dépenses est, par définition, une «coupure» et par tous les moyens justes pour discuter.

Je avoir votre point de la NASA et plutôt d'accord. Comme je le disais, je suis un grand fan de la NASA, la chaîne Discovery et les sciences de pointe. Pourtant, je crois que les progrès et les innovations du secteur privé ont la capacité d'emporter de recherche financés par le gouvernement dans la plupart des domaines. C'est la plus grande (de nombreux) arguments favorables à une société capitaliste, à mon avis.

Bien que je préfère la NASA n'a pas mourir complètement, il est vrai qu'une grande quantité d'argent (des milliards et des milliards de dollars chaque année) est passé de voler des roquettes sur les comètes et les 4-roue d'un robot sur la surface de Mars. La recherche sous-tend ces programmes est valable et honorable, mais pas comme une priorité que d'autres programmes où les dépenses doivent être réduites.

C'est comme la gestion d'un budget des ménages sur une grande échelle. Si vous ne pouvez pas se permettre de passer à la dernière nouvelle gadget-emballés, mince comme du papier, de projection de cinéma maison système fondé cette année parce que le petit Timmy nécessaires bretelles, alors vous souffrez en regardant Les Simpsons sur ce dépassées de 60 pouces grand écran pour un autre année et de mise à niveau à une date ultérieure.

Peut-être que je ne regarde le bien-être des sociétés du point de vue erroné, mais peut-être pas. Si le propriétaire (s) de Widgets Smith décide qu'il veut un dollar complète par widget marge bénéficiaire a vendu, alors la compréhension qu'ils vont payer environ 47% de leur revenu en impôts signifie qu'ils peuvent le prix de leurs widgets d'avoir un peu plus d'un dollar et une marge bénéficiaire et demi. Le gouvernement reçoit ses 47% et Widgets Smith poches du dollar complète par bidule vendu ce qu'ils voulaient.

Évidemment, il n'est pas si simpliste, mais là encore dans une certaine mesure, il est vraiment.

Cela dit, je n'étais pas centré uniquement sur les transactions locales qui offrent des incitations fiscales et des pauses pour les entreprises afin de développer des emplois pour leurs régions. Le problème est au niveau fédéral ainsi que le porc et masqués dans de nombreux cas. Un exemple parfait est un projet de loi récemment routes qui détient un montant scandaleux de base de porc des prestations sociales des entreprises telles que 37 millions de dollars pour élargir une route unique dans l'Arkansas qui est le principal point d'accès au siège de Wal-Mart Stores Inc

Je ne suis pas sûr de l'édition 2005 exacte des profits pour Wal-Mart, mais en 2004 elle est présente à 10,3 milliards de dollars. Et même si je comprends la nécessité de disposer de grandes entreprises situées dans une communauté et de travailler avec eux pour les maintenir dans la communauté, les rapports que j'ai vu sur ce suggèrent les problèmes de circulation ne sont pas si mauvais par rapport aux mêmes tarifs de transit. Pourtant, les contribuables ont dû débourser 37 millions de dollars afin que les employés de Wal-Mart pourrait avoir accès plus rapidement à leur lieu de travail. C'est une forme de bien-être des sociétés qui existe, mais est souvent négligé.

Sur les subventions agricoles, c'est une question difficile. Je sais que de le limiter à seulement un certain pourcentage pourrait avoir des répercussions négatives pour l'ensemble du secteur agricole et les consommateurs charge en fin de compte. Je sais aussi que des tonnes d'argent est dépensé chaque année en payant les propriétaires fonciers à ne pas utiliser leurs terres. Une recherche rapide sur Google montrent que souvent, ces propriétaires sont des sports ou d'autres étoiles de divertissement ou les propriétaires d'entreprises prospères. Peu de gens qui cultivent leur terre de toute façon, mais toujours le gouvernement leur accordera à cet effet. C'est une boucle d'impôt trou est exploité, c'est de l'argent gaspillé et l'ensemble du programme doit avoir un regard franc et transparent pour assurer que l'argent est utilisé de la meilleure manière possible pour aider les candidats les plus méritants.

Répondre à ce commentaire spécifique

Par Shawn Bannon | Répondre à l'article

Scott,

Je suis toujours heureux d'entrer en débat avec vous.

Vous avez raison que beaucoup dans le GOP sont divisés sur les dépenses et les réductions d'impôt. Certains membres de mon parti ont perdu de vue les électeurs attendent de la rigueur budgétaire législateurs républicains. Il ya eu des circonstances atténuantes qui contribuent à la situation actuelle, mais à la fin de la journée, les législateurs républicains ne doivent faire un meilleur travail de se contrôler quand il s'agit de dépenses.

Cela dit, non, tu n'es pas venu vers le bas sur un côté ou de l'autre en ce qui concerne les réductions d'impôts de Bush. Et je ne critique pas la discussion de ces réductions d'impôt. Au contraire, j'étais en détail quelques-uns des avantages de ces réductions d'impôt pour expliquer pourquoi pay-as-you-go politique budgétaire, ce qui vous a approuvé, ne permettra pas à l'expansion de notre économie dans la voie que le maintien des réductions d'impôt.

Il n'y a rien de mal à certains de déficit budgétaire - même beaucoup de déficit budgétaire - si l'économie croît vigoureusement assez pour rembourser les déficits résultant dans un laps de temps raisonnable. Le ratio du déficit au PIB est beaucoup plus important que le niveau du déficit réel. Ainsi, vous pouvez accroître les emprunts à payer pour des choses importantes comme la guerre contre le terrorisme, un développement limité de l'assurance-maladie, le réalignement de notre politique nationale d'éducation, l'amélioration des infrastructures, etc, mais les législateurs ont besoin de savoir où la ligne entre ce qui est utilise de nos impôts dollars sont prudentes et nécessaires et ceux qui ne créer du capital politique. Pay-as-you-go politique budgétaire ne fonctionne pas (il est exceptionnellement défavorables en cette période de crise), n'est pas nécessaire et - en fait - freine le potentiel de croissance de l'économie. Mais cela ne signifie pas républicains doivent se sentir libres de faire tourner jusqu'à l'onglet, soit.

Maintenant, à peine répondre à certains des points que vous avez fait dans votre réponse à mes commentaires:

Il est injuste de discuter de réductions à l'éducation et les budgets de Medicare comme vous l'avez fait vous avez négligé de les mettre en contexte. Ils sont présentés dans votre pièce d'origine comme une indication de la négligence administrative - regardez les coupures de ces projets importants tandis que d'autres, les projets de moindre importance ou de porc sont entièrement financés. C'est ce qui est injuste au sujet de votre discussion sur les coupes. Les fonds consacrés à l'éducation et de l'assurance-maladie ont augmenté considérablement depuis que le président Bush a pris ses fonctions, en grande partie en réponse aux besoins créés par la nouvelle législation et l'amélioration des prestations. Bien que les systèmes scolaires adaptés aux nouvelles normes et l'infrastructure d'assurance-maladie a été créé pour tenir compte de ces changements, plus d'argent était nécessaire. Mais, ce même niveau de dépenses n'est pas nécessaire maintenant que les programmes sont mis en place, il est donc tout à fait approprié pour réduire ces budgets.

Pensez à une petite entreprise - un magasin de matériel, peut-être. Le magasin est un succès mitigé, et les frais généraux sont généralement d'environ 1 million de dollars par an. (C'est juste un exemple, je n'ai aucune idée de ce que les frais généraux réels pour exploiter un magasin de matériel serait.) Donc, après 10 ans d'activité, le propriétaire décide d'ouvrir un deuxième magasin à travers la ville. Cette année-là, ses coûts d'exploitation vont monter en flèche. Il doit construire ou de rénover un bâtiment, l'achat d'inventaire, embaucher du personnel, etc Il pourrait lui coûter 5 millions de dollars pour obtenir son magasin en marche, et puis il faudra une hausse des dépenses associées à l'exécution du deuxième magasin pour un certain nombre d'années jusqu'à ce qu'il devienne autant partie de la communauté et l'économie locale que son premier magasin. Avec le temps, cependant, le coût de fonctionnement du deuxième magasin devrait être d'environ le même que le coût de fonctionnement du premier. Ainsi, après cinq ans de la ligne, ses frais généraux sont peut-être 2,5 millions $ pour l'opération combinée. Maintenant, son budget des frais généraux a diminué, d'année en année depuis le deuxième magasin a ouvert ses portes, mais cela ne veut pas dire qu'il néglige l'entreprise, le stockage de marchandises de qualité inférieure ou de la tricherie de ses clients.

Va de même pour les dépenses du gouvernement. Trop souvent, nous pensons que les fonds consacrés à la réduction d'un programme particulier signifie une dégradation automatique de la qualité de ce programme. Et les gens comme le sénateur Specter lutte pour la poursuite du financement au même niveau ou de l'augmentation du financement - l'argent des contribuables versant où ils ne sont pas utilisées de manière efficace - ce qui signifie que nous devons réduire ailleurs, accepter une augmentation du déficit budgétaire ou augmenter les impôts. Nous pouvons débattre de financement de l'éducation d'un autre temps, mais verser plus d'argent dans les salles de classe n'est pas - à long terme - la réponse au problème de l'éducation de l'Amérique.

En ce qui concerne la NASA, peut-être nous suffit de pas être d'accord, parce que je pense que vous êtes à 100 pour cent - OK, peut-être juste 95 pour cent - ne va pas ici. Comme je l'ai écrit hier soir, oui, je suis d'accord que certains redéfinition des priorités des projets et des dépenses peut être nécessaire, mais je fait valoir que les administrateurs de la NASA ont fait un travail louable dans ce domaine ces dernières années. Ils ont ajusté leurs plans pour l'exploration spatiale de manière significative à la lumière du budget et des problèmes de sécurité.

recherche de la NASA est essentiel: il stimule l'innovation dans le secteur privé qui ne se ferait pas autrement, car le coût serait prohibitif pour les chefs d'entreprise responsables pour les investisseurs. Ceci est similaire à l'argument de gens font en faveur du financement fédéral pour la recherche sur les cellules souches. Mettant de côté les avantages à nos programmes de défense, les avantages de la recherche de la NASA à notre vie quotidienne - y compris, mais pour beaucoup, bien plus important que les articles de luxe comme des télévisions à grand écran - sont trop nombreux pour le sacrifice.

Il suffit de demander quiconque a déjà survécu à une maladie mortelle en raison de l'amélioration des connaissances médicales fondées sur la science de la NASA. Demandez à un amputé qui peut fonctionner aujourd'hui à cause d'une jambe artificielle conçu en utilisant des métaux et des concepts d'ingénierie d'abord développé pour l'application de la NASA. Demandez à quelqu'un dont la famille a échappé à une maison mobile dans l'Oklahoma, juste avant une tornade a frappé combien il était important qu'ils ont obtenu un avertissement de 14 minutes en raison de conditions météorologiques améliorées des systèmes de suivi et une compréhension enrichie de l'climatique basée sur la recherche de la NASA. Il ya quelques générations, ils n'auraient pas dû connaître cette tornade jusqu'à ce qu'ils entendu déchirant les maisons de leurs voisins. Demandez à la jeune femme dont la vie a été sauvée quand elle était en mesure de composer avec la police son téléphone portable dans le coffre de la voiture de son ravisseur sur l'importance de ce téléphone et la technologie de positionnement global de la police utilisée pour la retrouver. C'est la NASA. Il ne s'agit pas de super-duper téléviseurs à grand écran, aussi agréable comme elles sont. Je vous recommandons de vérifier sur la vie sur Terre partie du site Web de la NASA pour un tout petit peu d'informations sur les nombreuses façons importantes de la NASA est de rendre le monde un meilleur endroit. Vous pouvez le trouver à http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/features/index.html .

Bien sûr, cela ne signifie pas que nous devrions accorder la NASA un budget de recherche illimitée ou qu'il ne devrait pas être des contrôles appropriés en place pour examiner leurs dépenses, mais je n'accepterai jamais que les dépenses de la NASA est semblable à des projets de porc politiquement motivés qui sont le vrai fléau sur notre budget.

Commutation sujets, je crains aussi d'être en désaccord avec votre "bien-être des sociétés" argument. Votre entreprise widget ne peut pas augmenter les prix pour créer ses marges souhaitées pour un certain nombre de raisons, qui sont un témoignage de la beauté du capitalisme. En d'autres termes, ils ne peuvent facturer ce que le marché peut supporter. Si elles augmenter les prix et les consommateurs continuent d'acheter leurs produits, alors qu'ils étaient de charge trop peu pour commencer. Si elles augmenter les prix et les consommateurs à choisir de cesser d'acheter leurs widgets, l'entreprise réduira ses prix ou, possibilité de détection, un concurrent d'entreprise sera pas dans et vendre un produit comparable à une marge bénéficiaire de 75 cents. À la fin de la journée, la physique de la concurrence inhérente au capitalisme exigent que les produits seront vendus à un prix que le marché peut supporter, c'est pourquoi le capitalisme est bon pour les consommateurs.

Quant à l'exemple de Wal-Mart, qui n'est pas «le bien-être des sociétés, et peut-être même pas de porc. Wal-Mart est passée d'une petite organisation dans l'un des plus importants au monde. Il a, à bien des égards, étroit dans ses locaux, pour ainsi dire. Maintenant, il pouvait se déplacer. C'est probablement ce que vous ou que je ferais si nous outgrew nos maisons. Mais les hommes politiques qui représentent les citoyens de l'Arkansas à comprendre l'immense valeur à leurs électeurs et à l'économie de leur état inhérent à garder le droit de Wal-Mart où il est. Si l'élargissement d'une route améliore la circulation et bénéficie également de l'économie par le biais de rendre l'endroit un lieu plus approprié pour Wal-Mart de continuer son exploitation, il est tout à fait approprié pour le financement de ce projet à inclure dans un projet de loi de crédits route.

profits de Wal-Mart n'ont rien à voir avec cet argument. Ils ne sont plus directement responsable de payer pour l'entretien des routes autour de leur siège social que nous, les contribuables individuels sont responsables de payer pour l'entretien des rues sur lequel nous vivons. Oui, leurs bénéfices sont énormes. Mais si c'était leur fardeau fiscal. Etait-ce de porc dépenses - un législateur jeter un os à un retour à la maison entreprise? Peut-être. Cela dépend de si oui ou non le projet est vraiment nécessaire pour améliorer la circulation et de maintenir le siège de Wal-Mart il. Ni vous ni moi n'avons d'éducation ou de la connaissance en profondeur des renseignements concernant cet emplacement afin de déterminer si oui ou non le projet routier a été nécessaire. Mais même si ce n'était pas - même si elle a été de porc - ce n'était pas encore «bien-être social."

Comme je l'ai écrit hier soir, "le bien-être des entreprises" est un terme impropre. En gros, il n'existe pas réellement, sauf dans l'esprit des libéraux qui ne veulent pas de croire qu'il existe toujours une bonne raison d'utiliser l'argent des contribuables d'une manière qui bénéficierait de grandes sociétés. On pourrait faire valoir que les rachats de certains gouvernements, tels que le soutien que le gouvernement a donné les compagnies aériennes après le 11 Septembre, ont été «bien-être social." Mais ce sont de très rares occasions et pas ce que la plupart des gens veulent dire quand ils utilisent le terme.

Habituellement, l'expression «le bien-être des sociétés» est utilisé par des personnes qui nient la supériorité du capitalisme à d'autres systèmes économiques. Ce sont des gens qui croient que tout doit être égaux et que personne ne devrait jamais avoir tout ce qu'ils considèrent comme «trop» tandis que d'autres s'en passer. Ce sont des gens qui croient dans les droits à la place de l'autonomie, à leur avis le rôle du gouvernement est de fournir des moyens de subsistance au lieu d'occasion. Ils pensent que Wal-Mart et d'autres entreprises qui réussissent sont foncièrement mauvais. Et ils ont inventé le terme «bien-être des sociétés», parce qu'ils ne croient pas que les organisations qui réussissent doivent être satisfaites en aucune manière, la forme ou la forme de notre gouvernement. Il s'agit de leur plate-forme en dépit du fait que des organisations comme Wal-Mart de créer des emplois, alimentent la croissance économique et de contribuer à des communautés dans lesquelles ils se trouvent. Ces libéraux sont vraiment prendre les socialistes-de-la-riche-et-donner-à-pauvres-qui préfèrent abattre ceux qui ont réussi à dire à ceux qui ne sont pas à prendre davantage leurs possibilités.

Maintenant, ne me croyez pas cruel ou inhumain. Nous en tant que peuple doit faire preuve de compassion. Nous devons prendre soin de ceux qui sont vraiment défavorisées. Mais nous devons faire plus en tant que voisins et moins en tant que contribuables. Nous devrions faire que grâce aux dons que nous faisons pour nos églises ou de collecte de fonds marchethons nos collègues ». Nous devons donner plus de notre temps comme bénévoles. Nous devons encourager notre gouvernement à financer des emplois-formation professionnelle pour ceux qui veulent faire une vie meilleure pour eux-mêmes et leurs proches. Nous devons tenir derrière l'aide du gouvernement qui offre aux gens un coup de main, pas une main sur. Mais il faut s'élever contre tout effort visant à pénaliser ceux qui ont été prospère parce que «ce n'est pas juste" qu'il y en a d'autres qui n'ont pas réalisé leur potentiel. Et c'est ce que les libéraux / socialistes - les personnes qui s'opposent à toute utilisation de l'argent des contribuables qui bénéficieraient d'une société (quel que soit le profit qui en résulte pour la collectivité et l'économie) - visent à faire. Je ne crois pas que vous êtes l'un d'entre eux, alors je vous encourage à repenser cette question et de l'utilisation du terme «bien-être social."

Répondre à ce commentaire spécifique

Par Scott Bannon | Répondre à l'article

Shawn, je suis content pourriez-vous aiguillon j'aime po le dos civile et forths.

Je ne cautionne pas le pay-as-you-go la politique budgétaire. Je l'ai désigné comme étant la plus significative et n'a pas récemment fait passer-par les démocrates pour faire face à des dépenses de contrôle de Washington. Mes excuses si cela n'était pas clairement dans mon article.

Nous ne sommes pas en désaccord sur les dangers de la pay-as-you-go », elles sont restrictives et profondément lourde de conséquences pour la nation. Nous n'avons probablement pas d'accord sur le moment où une mesure provisoire drastique serait opportun d'instaurer, mais je vais le laisser comme une différence de philosophie de l'endroit où tracer la ligne budgétaire de la mort.

Sur la NASA, comme je l'ai déjà concédé, je comprends votre point de vue et ne sont pas entièrement en désaccord. Cependant, l'équilibrage d'un budget national est un travail difficile. Il ya une quantité finie pour tout le monde et les choix difficiles doivent être prises. En bout de ligne des priorités. Oui, la NASA a fait (et continue de faire) d'immenses contributions à enrichir la vie des gens.

Aucun montant moins important que, pour un montant égal ou supérieur de la population américaine est la nourriture, le logement, la médecine et l'éducation pour assurer les générations futures aient les compétences nécessaires pour poursuivre le développement de nouvelles technologies et une plus grande.

Bien au-dessus de nombreux projets de l'argent à ciel autres et certainement domine la montagne de déchets de viande de porc, la NASA est encore en dessous de nombreux programmes et services essentiels en priorité ainsi, mon point de départ était que quand on commence la coupe de ces - La NASA doit venir avant dans le hacher la ligne de bloc.

Nous estimons que le bien-être des sociétés de différents points de vue, nous devrions probablement laisser ce que. Ni dans le présent article ni jamais dans la conversation que j'ai dit une opposition tous azimuts de l'argent des contribuables au bénéfice des entreprises. Il ya des domaines importants et de nombreux cas où l'aide gouvernementale aux entreprises est essentiel, pour les affaires et la communauté. Right after September 11th, 2001, when the airline industry had taken a huge blow from the attacks I didn't oppose the initial bail-out in any way, though I thought some industry-model restructuring stipulations would have been wise to attach. I did oppose subsequent bail-out requests because I feel (from my limited outsider knowledge and perspective) that the industry as a whole has huge operational problems (most of which existed pre 9/11) and has yet to address them in an efficient manner. The initial assistance was a deserved hand-up, subsequent requests were for the proverbial hand-outs in my opinion.

I have never proposed penalizing a business or industry which does well for itself. I'll offer my previous articles here on PBNV.com regarding the oil industry as examples. I oppose any effort to enact special taxes on success.

I'll stand behind my Wal-Mart example. Was it really corporate welfare? That depends upon how you define welfare I suppose. 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…

Reply to this specific comment

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. La preuve? 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.

Reply to this specific comment

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.

Reply to this specific comment

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.

Reply to this specific comment

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.

Reply to this specific comment

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.

Reply to this specific comment