Political Blogs, Nouvelles et opinions

By Shawn Bannon | Reply to article

Scott,

I'm with you on the pork issue, but I've got to take issue with you on a couple of other matters. First of all, regarding the deficit, you can't claim that Americans are feeling the pinch when you consider that key measurements of economic health are all excellent. Just look at the housing market, which has been riding a wave of increasing prices because consumers have the money to pay more. Analysts have been predicting that the price bubble would burst for well over a year, but it hasn't yet. And home owners make up a greater percentage of our population today than at any time since that rate was first measured. Gas prices are twice what they were just a couple of years ago, but they are that high because market demand is sustaining those prices. People aren't dramatically changing their driving habits. They're just paying more for the gas.

And the health of the economy is due — in large part — to tax rate cuts by the Bush administration and, as far as corporations are concerned, at the state level. President Bush's tax cuts went into effect in 2001, and predictably, tax revenue has gone up — even through the 2002-2003 recession. This is just as it was in the early 1960s, when President Kennedy slashed tax rates, and in the 1980s, when President Reagan did the same. Tax rates go down. Consumer spending and business investment go up. Companies expand, jobs are created, and tax revenue increases. This is why pay as you go tax policy doesn't work. It negates the effects of growth investments in the economy. Low tax rates — at the individual and corporate levels — result in more abundant economic growth and increased tax revenues. History bears that out. Conversely, increases in tax rates stall consumer spending and limit the ability of corporations to reinvest profits in ways that grow the businesses and create jobs.

It's unfair to discuss “cuts” in the budgets for education and certain entitlement programs because those “cuts” only appear in a comparison of 2005 and 2004 budgets. But education and Medicare budgets have ballooned since President Bush took office in 2001 as a result of the No Child Left Behind legislation and the new prescription drug benefit for seniors. Senator Specter is way off base on this issue.

Can't kill NASA. Too much American innovation in the last 50 years is a result of NASA research. Too many of the products in our homes would never have been created were it not for initial applications of the underlying science in NASA programs. Could we better focus the scope of NASA as a way of containing costs? Yes, and we might gain some ground. But neither a major overhaul or a funeral for the program will result in long-term benefits for our economy that outweigh the cost of surrendering the benefits we've reaped and will continue to reap from NASA's existence.

Corporate welfare is a misnomer, and I think you're looking at the issue the wrong way. Corporations absolutely do pay taxes on income in the same way you and I do. Consumers bear the burden of high corporate tax rates only in the same sense that our employers pass tax money through us to the government. When they are given tax breaks — often to relocate to new cities or to expand in a particular region — local governments are trading a limited amount of tax revenue for the job creation and resulting economic growth. Does it work? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But is it corporate welfare? No, it's a calculated risk taken by local politicians that simply does not always pay off.

Enfin, concernant les subventions agricoles, ta remarque est bien faite, et de meilleurs contrôles sont nécessaires. Mais la réponse n'est pas un programme de subvention qui ne récompense que ceux des agriculteurs pauvres qui luttent pour maintenir leurs petites interventions. Sans ces subventions, les grandes exploitations qui produisent effectivement aliments deviendront non durables et / ou le prix des aliments augmentera considérablement, affectant gravement les pauvres. Donc, la réponse est un tweak au programme de subvention qui ressemble tout simplement à couper les prestations aux personnes qui possèdent des "fermes" qui ne produisent rien 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 (principalement dans les courses Re attaquée élections) ont déclaré ces derniers jours avant mon écrit relatif aux Américains accusent le coup. Il va falloir se mettre d'accord d'être en désaccord sur ce point, mais pour beaucoup plus faible et les Américains de la classe moyenne de la ceinture est déjà tendu comme elle peut obtenir, donc je vais attendre en ligne avec les déclarations des républicains.

Quant aux baisses de taux d'impôt de M. Bush et la bataille pour les poursuivre, je ne crois pas que je suis descendu personnellement sur chaque côté de la question dans mon annonce. Mes commentaires à ce sujet étaient simplement destinées à mettre en valeur interne de la partie actuelle fractionnements survenus sur des questions économiques.

Je ne partage pas que c'est injuste pour discuter de "coupes" dans les budgets des programmes simplement parce que ces "morceaux" ne figurent que dans une comparaison des budgets 2005 et 2004. Que ce soit un certain niveau de dépenses de chaque programme a été soutenue au cours des dix dernières années ou une seule, une réduction de ces dépenses est par définition une «coupure» et par tous les moyens justes pour en discuter.

Je avoir votre point de la NASA et plutôt d'accord. Comme je l'ai mentionné que je suis un grand fan de la NASA, Discovery Channel et de coupe-sciences de pointe. Néanmoins, je crois que les progrès du secteur privé et les innovations ont la capacité d'emporter de recherche financé par le gouvernement dans la plupart des domaines. C'est le plus important (de nombreux) argument favorable pour une société capitaliste, à mon avis.

Bien que je préfère mourir la NASA ne s'est pas complètement, il est vrai qu'une grande quantité d'argent (des milliards et des milliards de dollars chaque année) sont consacrés à la volée des roquettes sur les comètes et les 4-wheeling un robot autour de la surface de Mars. La recherche de tous ces programmes est valable et honorable, mais pas aussi prioritaires que certains autres programmes lorsque les dépenses doivent être réduites.

C'est comme la gestion d'un budget d'un ménage sur une grande échelle. Si vous ne pouvez pas se permettre de passer à la dernière de nouveaux gadgets-emballés, papier mince, projection fondée système de cinéma maison 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 une autre année et 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'ils veulent un dollar complète par bidule vendu marge bénéficiaire, la compréhension alors qu'ils vont payer environ 47% de leur revenu en impôts signifie qu'ils peuvent le prix de leurs widgets pour avoir un peu plus d'un dollar et un bénéfice moitié marge. Le gouvernement obtient ses 47% et Widgets Smith poches du dollar complète par bidule vendu qu'ils voulaient.

Évidemment, c'est pas tout à fait simpliste, mais là encore dans une certaine mesure il est réellement.

Cela dit, je n'étais pas centré uniquement sur les transactions locales qui offrent des incitations fiscales et les pauses pour les entreprises afin de développer des emplois pour leurs régions. Le problème est au niveau fédéral ainsi masqués et que le porc dans de nombreux cas. Un exemple parfait est un récent projet de loi autoroutes qui détient une somme scandaleuse de porc à base de prestations d'aide sociale 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

I'm not sure of the exact 2005 profits for Wal-Mart, but in 2004 it's listed at $10.3 billion dollars. And while I understand the need to have large businesses located in a community and to work with them to keep them in the community, reports I've seen on this suggest the traffic problems weren't that bad when compared to similar through-fares. Still, taxpayers were forced to shell out $37 million dollars so that Wal-Mart employees could have faster access to their workplace. This is a form of corporate welfare that exists but is often overlooked.

On farm subsidies, this is a tough one. I know limiting it to only a certain percentage could have negative impacts for the entire agricultural industry and burden consumers ultimately. I also know that tons of money is spent each year paying land owners not to use their lands. A quick search on Google will show that often these land owners are Sports or other Entertainment stars or wealthy business owners. Not people who would farm their land anyway, but still the government will pay them to ensure this. It's a tax loop-hole being exploited, it's wasted money and the entire program needs to have a candid and transparent review to ensure the money is being used in the best possible manner to aid the most deserving candidates.

Reply to this specific comment

By Shawn Bannon | Reply to article

Scott,

I'm always glad to enter into debate with you.

Vous avez raison que beaucoup, dans le GOP sont répartis sur les dépenses et les réductions d'impôt. Certains membres de mon parti ont perdu de vue les contraintes budgétaires les électeurs s'attendent à des législateurs républicains. Il ya eu des circonstances atténuantes qui contribuent à la situation actuelle, mais à la fin de la journée, le législateur républicain ne devons faire un meilleur travail de contrôle eux-mêmes quand il s'agit de dépenses.

Cela dit, non, vous ne descendait pas sur un côté ou de l'autre en ce qui concerne les réductions d'impôts de Bush. Et je ne critique pas votre discussion de ces réductions d'impôt. Au contraire, j'ai été détaillant certains des avantages de ces réductions d'impôt pour expliquer pourquoi les pay-as-you-go politique budgétaire, ce qui vous a approuvé, ne fournira pas à l'expansion de notre économie dans la façon que le maintien des réductions d'impôt.

There is nothing wrong with some deficit spending – even a lot of deficit spending – if the economy grows robustly enough to pay down the resulting deficits in a reasonable amount of time. The ratio of the deficit to GDP is far more important than the actual deficit level. So, you can increase borrowing to pay for important things like the war on terrorism, a limited expansion of Medicare, realignment of our national education policy, infrastructure improvements, etc. But legislators need to know where the line is between what uses of our tax dollars are prudent and necessary and those that only create political capital. Pay-as-you-go budgetary policy doesn't work (it is exceptionally bad in a time of crisis), isn't necessary and – in fact – retards the growth potential of the economy. But that doesn't mean Republicans should feel free to run up the tab, either.

Now, to just address some of the points you made in your response to my comments:

It is unfair to discuss cuts to the education and Medicare budgets as you have because you neglected to put them into context. They are presented in your original piece as indicative of administrative neglect – look at the cuts to these important projects while other, less-important or pork projects are fully funded. That's what's unfair about your discussion of the cuts. The funds dedicated to education and Medicare have increased vastly since President Bush took office, largely in response to need created by new legislation and enhancement of benefits. While school systems adjusted to new standards and Medicare infrastructure was created to account for these changes, more money was necessary. But, that same level of spending isn't necessary now that the programs are up and running, so it is entirely appropriate to reduce these budgets.

Pensez à une petite entreprise - une quincaillerie, peut-être. Les coûts de la boutique est un succès modéré, 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 effectivement à 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 a pour construire ou rénover un bâtiment, d'achat des stocks, embaucher du personnel, etc On pourrait lui coûter 5 millions de dollars pour obtenir son magasin en place et fonctionne, et puis il y avoir des frais plus élevés associés à l'exécution du second magasin pour un certain nombre d'années jusqu'à ce qu'il devienne aussi bien partie de la communauté et l'économie locale comme son premier magasin. Avec le temps, cependant, le coût de fonctionnement du deuxième magasin devrait être environ le même que le coût de fonctionnement du premier. Ainsi, cinq ans plus tard, ses frais généraux sont peut-être 2,5 millions de dollars pour l'opération combinée. Maintenant, son budget des frais généraux a diminué, d'année en année depuis le deuxième magasin a ouvert, mais cela ne signifie pas qu'il soit pour autant négliger l'entreprise, le stockage des marchandises de qualité inférieure ou de la tricherie de ses clients.

La même chose vaut pour les dépenses publiques. Trop souvent, nous pensons que les fonds consacrés à la réduction d'un programme particulier: 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 d'un financement accru - verser l'argent des contribuables là où ils ne sont pas utilisées de manière efficace - ce qui signifie que l'on doit couper ailleurs, accepter une hausse du déficit budgétaire ou augmenter les impôts. Nous pouvons débattre de financement de l'éducation d'un autre temps, mais versant plus d'argent dans les classes 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 n'avons pas besoin juste d'accepter d'être en désaccord, car je pense que vous êtes à 100 pour cent - OK, peut-être seulement 95 pour cent - ne va pas. Comme je l'ai écrit hier soir, oui, je suis d'accord que certains établissement de nouvelles priorités des projets et des dépenses en mai est nécessaire, mais je voudrais réellement prétendre 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 en fonction du budget et des problèmes de sécurité.

NASA recherche est essentielle, elle stimule l'innovation dans le secteur privé qui autrement n'auraient pas lieu parce que 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 de recherche sur les cellules souches. Mettant de côté les avantages pour nos programmes de défense, les avantages de la recherche de la NASA à notre vie quotidienne - y compris, mais un grand nombre beaucoup plus important que les articles de luxe comme des téléviseurs à grand écran - sont trop nombreuses à sacrifier.

Suffit de demander à quiconque a déjà survécu à une maladie mortelle en raison des connaissances médicales amélioré basé sur des données scientifiques de la NASA. Demandez à un amputé qui peut fonctionner aujourd'hui en raison d'une jambe artificielle conçus à l'aide 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 une période de 14 minute à cause d'alerte aux intempéries améliorée des systèmes de suivi et d'une compréhension enrichie du climat fondé sur la recherche de la NASA. Il ya quelques générations, ils n'auraient pas connu cette tornade jusqu'à ce qu'ils entendirent de sévir dans les maisons de leurs voisins. Demandez à la jeune femme dont la vie a été sauvée quand elle était en mesure de composer la police avec son téléphone portable dans le coffre de la voiture de son ravisseur à l'importance de ce téléphone et la technologie de positionnement global de la police utilisée pour la retrouver. Il s'agit de la NASA. Ce n'est pas sur les super-grands téléviseurs à écran duper, aussi beau comme elles sont. Je vous recommandons de vérifier la Vie de la Terre sur la partie du site Web de la NASA pour un tout petit peu de renseignements sur les nombreuses manières 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 illimité ou qu'il ne devrait y avoir des contrôles appropriés en place pour revoir leurs dépenses, mais je n'accepterai pas que les dépenses de la NASA est comparable à des projets de porc qui sont politiquement motivées le vrai fléau sur notre budget.

Commutation sujets, je crains que je dois aussi en désaccord avec votre "bien-être des entreprises" argument. Votre entreprise widget ne peut pas simplement soulever des prix pour créer ses marges souhaitées pour un certain nombre de raisons, qui sont tous un témoignage de la beauté du capitalisme. Plus simplement, ils ne peuvent facturer ce que le marché peut supporter. Si elles augmenter les prix et les consommateurs continuent à acheter leurs produits, alors qu'ils étaient de charge trop peu pour commencer. Si elles augmenter les prix et les consommateurs choisissent de cesser d'acheter leurs widgets, la société va baisser ses prix ou, possibilité de détection, un concurrent entreprenant vont intervenir et de vendre un produit comparable pour une marge bénéficiaire de 75 cent. À la fin de la journée, la physique de la concurrence inhérente au capitalisme dictent que les marchandises seront vendues uniquement 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 "assistanat aux entreprises», mai et il ne sera même pas de porc. Wal-Mart est passée d'une petite organisation dans l'une des plus grandes du monde. Il a, à maints égards, trop grande pour son domicile, pour ainsi dire. Maintenant, il pouvait se déplacer. C'est probablement ce que vous ou que je ferais si l'on devenu trop grand pour nos maisons. Mais les politiciens qui représentent les citoyens de l'Arkansas à comprendre l'immense valeur à leurs électeurs et à l'économie de leur État inhérent à Wal-Mart de maintien de droit où il est. Si l'élargissement d'une route améliore la circulation et profite également à l'économie par la façon de rendre l'endroit un lieu plus approprié pour Wal-Mart de poursuivre son opération, il est tout à fait approprié pour le financement de ce projet à inclure dans un projet de loi autoroute crédits.

Wal-Mart profits n'ont rien à voir avec cet argument. Ils ne sont plus directement responsables de payer pour l'entretien des routes autour de leur siège que nous, en tant imposition individuelle des contribuables doivent payer pour l'entretien de la rue sur laquelle nous vivons. Oui, leurs bénéfices ont été énormes. Mais si c'était leur fardeau fiscal. Etait-ce porc dépenses - Un député de jeter un os à une compagnie à la maison? Peut-être. Cela dépend si oui ou non le projet était vraiment nécessaire d'améliorer la circulation et maintenir le Wal-Mart siège. Ni vous, ni moi n'avons l'éducation ou la connaissance approfondie des détails concernant cet endroit pour déterminer si oui ou non le projet routier a été nécessaire. Mais même si ce n'était pas - même si elle avait du porc - il n'était pas encore «bien-être des sociétés."

Comme je l'ai écrit hier soir, "le bien-être social» est un terme mal approprié. 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 l'argument que les rachats de certains gouvernements, tels que le soutien que le gouvernement a accordé aux compagnies aériennes après le Septembre 11, ont été «bien-être des sociétés." Mais ce sont de très rares occasions et pas ce que la plupart des gens entendent quand ils utilisent le terme.

Usually, the phrase “corporate welfare” is used by people who deny the superiority of capitalism to other economic systems. These are people who believe that everything should be equal and that nobody should ever have whatever they consider to be “too much” while others go without. These are people who believe in entitlements instead of self-reliance; they believe the role of the government is to provide sustenance instead of opportunity. They think Wal-Mart and other successful companies are inherently evil. And they've invented the term “corporate welfare” because they don't believe that successful organizations should be catered to in any way, shape or form by our government. This is their platform despite the fact that organizations like Wal-Mart create jobs, fuel economic growth and contribute to the communities in which they're located. These liberals are really take-from-the-rich-and-give-to-the-poor socialists who would rather tear down those who are successful than tell those who are not to make more of their opportunities.

Now, don't think me cruel or callous. We as a people ought to be compassionate. We ought to take care of those who are truly disadvantaged. But we ought to do that more as neighbors and less as taxpayers. We ought to do that through the donations we make to our churches or our coworkers' fundraising walkathons. We ought to give more of our own time as volunteers. We ought to encourage our government to fund job-skills training for those who want to make a better life for themselves and their loved ones. We ought to stand behind government aid that offers people a hand up, not a hand out. But we should rise up against any effort to penalize those who have been prosperous because “it isn't fair” that there are others who have not realized their potential. And that's what liberals/socialists – the people who argue against any use of tax dollars that would benefit a corporation (regardless of the resulting benefit to the community and the economy) – aim to do. I don't believe you're one of them, so I'd encourage you to rethink this issue and use of the term “corporate welfare.”

Reply to this specific comment

By Scott Bannon | Reply to article

Shawn, glad I could goad you in. I enjoy our civil back and forths.

Je ne cautionne pas le pay-as-you-go politique budgétaire. Je l'ai désigné comme étant la plus significative et a échoué-move faites récemment par les démocrates à l'adresse de contrôle des dépenses à Washington. Mes excuses si ce n'était pas évident dans mon article.

Nous ne récusons pas sur les dangers de la pay-as-you-go », elles sont restrictives et ayant un impact profondément à la nation. Nous ne nous sommes pas d'accord sur le moment où une mesure palliative drastique serait approprié d'inculquer, mais je vais le laisser comme une différence philosophique sur le savoir où tracer la ligne budgétaire de la mort.

Sur la NASA, comme je l'ai déjà concédé, je comprends votre point et ne pas être en désaccord sans réserve. Toutefois, l'équilibre du budget national est un travail dur. 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) une énorme contribution à enrichir la vie des gens.

Non moins important cependant, à un montant égal ou supérieur de la population américaine est la nourriture, abris, des médicaments et l'éducation pour que les générations futures aient les compétences nécessaires pour poursuivre le développement de technologies nouvelles et plus grande.

Tout en haut au-dessus de l'argent de nombreux autres projets de puits et certainement dominant la montagne de déchets de porc, de la NASA est encore en dessous de nombreux programmes et services essentiels en priorité aussi bien, mon point de départ était que lorsque nous commençons à couper ces - La NASA doit venir se présentent sous la couper la ligne de bloc.

Nous considérons que le bien-être des sociétés à partir de perspectives différentes, nous devrions probablement laisser à celui-là. Ni dans cet article, ni jamais dans une conversation que j'ai déclaré une toute toute opposition à l'argent des contribuables bénéficiant d'affaires. Il ya des domaines importants et de nombreux cas où l'aide gouvernementale aux entreprises est essentielle, tant pour l'entreprise individuelle et la collectivité. Droit après le 11 Septembre 2001, quand l'industrie aérienne avait pris un grand coup contre les attaques je ne s'oppose pas à la caution initiale en aucune façon, bien que je pensais que certains industrie stipulations de restructuration modèle aurait été judicieux de joindre. Je ne s'oppose en liberté sous caution après-out demandes parce que je me sens (à partir de mes connaissances limitées outsider et perspective) que l'industrie dans son ensemble dispose d'énormes problèmes de fonctionnement (dont la plupart existaient avant 9 / 11) et n'a pas encore de les résoudre d'une manière efficace . L'assistance initiale était méritée à la main, les demandes ultérieures ont été pour la main proverbiale-out à mon avis.

Je n'ai jamais proposé de pénaliser une entreprise ou une industrie qui fait bien pour elle-même. Je vais offrir mes précédents articles ici sur PBNV.com concernant l'industrie pétrolière que d'exemples. Je suis opposé à tout effort visant à adopter des taxes spéciales sur le succès.

Je me mettrai derrière mon Wal-Mart par exemple. Etait-ce réellement le bien-être des sociétés? Cela dépend de comment on définit le bien-être, je suppose. Je le définis comme une aide gouvernementale à être utilisé pour le maintien et l'amélioration de soi-même (ou société). Wal-Mart spécifiquement bénéficié (améliorée) de ce projet, de sorte qu'elle entre dans cette définition de mon point de vue. Il est probable que si la route se trouvaient dans un quartier commerçant et animé, l'élargissement a bénéficié d'un certain nombre d'entreprises au lieu d'un seul je voudrais sentir différemment, cela ne semble pas le cas d'après ce que j'ai trouvé.

Comme la mise en vente de Wal-Mart bénéfices, il a été de ne pas suggérer qu'ils doivent avoir en quelque sorte été responsable du paiement d'élargir la chaussée eux, il s'agissait d'illustrer qu'il y avait cependant des endroits probablement plus méritants pour que l'argent à faire. En supposant que l'élargissement de la route n'a pas été immédiatement essentiel que les rapports suggère.

Je ne veux pas continuer sur cette voie beaucoup plus loin, de peur que quelque lecteur mai à croire que je suis juste "un autre libéral attaquer Wal-Mart". J'ai défendu cette société dans le passé contre de telles attaques et ne s'en servaient comme exemple parce que l'exemple et les faits ont été les premières disponibles dans une recherche rapide. Si les mêmes constatations relatives à une autre entreprise avait été la première, je les aurais utilisés à la place. Je me sens presque une nécessité de courriel Lee Scott un coppa mia.

Faire du hors-sujet de l'article original ici pour juste un moment, je ne pense pas que vous êtes cruels ou insensibles, mais je crois que c'est mal de faire implications couverture, qui suggèrent une équation négative des libéraux avec les socialistes.

Tout d'abord, le socialisme lui-même n'est pas un mal en soi comme certains voudraient le croire. C'est un système, ni plus ni moins, et tout mauvais exemples, on peut citer, je dis peut être attribuée à des personnes travaillant au système et non le système lui-même. La même chose est vraie des monarchies, des démocraties et des républiques de l'histoire. Comme preuve je vous offre que le socialisme a bien fonctionné pour les catholiques et les autres religions organisées depuis de nombreuses générations maintenant. Au moins aussi bien que n'importe quel système a pour d'autres groupements.

Au-delà, il ya des traits défendable du socialisme dans le tissu fondateurs de notre nation. Notre Déclaration d'indépendance définit le gouvernement comme étant responsable de (et limité à) la sécurité et de bonheur (lire comme le bien-être) des citoyens qu'il dessert. Une entité collective de la population créée pour gérer ce qui en privé ou à titre individuel ne peut pas être accomplie pour le bien commun et les droits de tous. Fondamentalement, c'est «tout le monde, par le biais du gouvernement, en s'assurant que chacun a au-moins, cette", avec "ce" étant le droit nous sommes d'accord comme sacré pour tous. C'est un usage modéré de l'idéologie du socialisme véritable et était une demande brillante par des hommes qui portaient des culottes et des perruques à mon avis.

Cela ne veut pas dire je préfère une pension complète ou même nécessairement plus socialiste tendance en Amérique, cela signifie que je crois qu'il y avait des oligo-éléments du socialisme sous-entendus par nos pères fondateurs de comprendre qu'ils peuvent aider à atteindre la formation de une union plus parfaite. Une sorte de «trop de quelque chose est mauvais, mais avec modération mai être saine et bénéfique» approche.

J'entends souvent les conservateurs ajoutent une connotation négative de «droit» des programmes et il a noté dans votre réponse aussi. Le fait même que la terminologie a été décalé de programmes sociaux aux «droits» laisse entendre qu'un changement dans la perception du public a été voulue par ceux qui voudraient s'y opposer sont fondées sur l'impôt et géré par le gouvernement. Mais, en tant que libéral, je vois ces programmes (si la structure et la gestion raisonnable) que le gouvernement fait la moitié de sa attribué de droits garantissant le bien-être des citoyens qu'il dessert.

Est ce que ces programmes deviennent albatros capricieuse? Oui, c'est pourquoi ils ont besoin d'être bien formés et ont oublis transparente. Mais, juste parce qu'ils peuvent être corrompu ne signifie pas qu'ils sont par nature corrompue ou méritant de toute lumière généralement négative être jeté sur eux.

En voyant le gouvernement comme une entité du public (comme moi), je vois aussi ces programmes comme «prendre soin de nos voisins», comme vous dites que nous devrions. Inversement, lorsque les conservateurs attaque ou de proposer des réductions sur 'droit' des programmes (à ce ton négatif rattaché), tandis que le porc et d'autres dépenses essentielles gaspillée monte plus haut et plus hors de contrôle; Je considère que c'est le gouvernement cherche à se dérober à la moitié de sa responsabilité, tout en les quelques gourmands engraisser leurs poches.

Il ya une lacune dans nos points de vue et convictions sur de nombreuses questions. C'est à la fois bien et bon, elle garde m'a fait réfléchir et j'espère que fait la même chose pour vous.

Peut-être que nous pouvons arriver à un accord sur une chose heureuse ici, quoique, si les déchets de viande de porc ont été éliminés nous pourrions aussi bien avoir tout ce que nous voulions et croyait droit prévu par le gouvernement, en plus de nouvelles baisses de taux d'impôt pour tous ...

Répondre à ce commentaire spécifique

Par Shawn Bannon | Répondre à l'article

Scott,

Désolé je vous ai mal lu en pay-as-you-go. J'ai lu cette partie de votre message original comme une expression de déception que les efforts du Dems »sur ce plan avait échoué. Une simple question de manque de communication que je suis heureux que nous avons éclairci.

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.

Le socialisme ne fonctionne pas bien pour la religion organisée. Il fonctionne, dans une certaine mesure, parmi le clergé, mais pas chez les laïcs. Pourtant, l'histoire nous montre que le socialisme n'a pas toujours fonctionné, même parmi le clergé, l'histoire de l'Eglise catholique est omniprésente avec des histoires de corruption et d'abus de pouvoir. Inquisition, anyone? Cela ne fait pas l'Église catholique, en tant qu'institution, le mal - pas du tout. Mais il ne démontre que le socialisme n'est que modérément durable, même parmi une population limitée composée de membres du clergé qui ont donné de leurs désirs temporels et s'est engagé à unifier un ensemble de croyances.

Je pense que vous avez tort de threads associés de la Communauté et l'Union intégré dans notre Déclaration d'indépendance avec le socialisme. Les pères fondateurs étaient absolus capitalistes, et ils ont travaillé très dur dans la rédaction de ce document ne définir que les plus lâches de liens formels entre les colonies de manière à préserver les droits de l'auto-détermination inhérente aux individus et chaque colonie. Elles ont pour but de limiter le rôle du gouvernement fédéral dans la mesure du possible, et ils ont explicitement réclamé le consentement des gouvernés - ce qu'aucun socialiste qui se respecte ne jamais faire.

Vous vous trompez lorsque vous écrivez que la Déclaration proclame la responsabilité du gouvernement »pour la sécurité et le bonheur des citoyens qu'il dessert." Ce que la Déclaration dit est que les citoyens ont le droit de former un gouvernement «très probablement pour effet de leur sûreté et le bonheur . "C'est une chose très différente et bien loin du socialisme. Cela signifie que les gens sont responsables de leur propre sécurité et le bonheur, mais qu'ils ont le droit de concevoir les mécanismes gouvernementaux qui leur donnent la meilleure occasion - individuellement ou collectivement - pour garantir leur sécurité et leur bonheur. Elle ne les empêche pas d'interdiction des relations de voisinage afin d'aider les opprimés, mais il n'exige pas non plus à le faire.

Vous avez écrit que les Pères fondateurs étaient appelant à "une entité collective de la population créée pour gérer ce qui en privé ou à titre individuel ne peut pas être accomplie pour le bien commun et les droits de tous. Fondamentalement, c'est «tout le monde, par le biais du gouvernement, en s'assurant que chacun a au-moins ce,« avec »cet« être les droits nous sommes d'accord comme sacré pour tous. "Ceci est inexact. Ils ont déclaré leur indépendance par rapport à un oppresseur qui les a privé des droits que leur avis, étaient inaliénables, et ils étaient jalonnement de claims à leurs droits que les hommes libres de déterminer eux-mêmes quelle forme de gouvernement ne leur offrirait - individuellement et collectivement - la meilleure occasion de réaliser leurs droits à la vie, la liberté et la poursuite du bonheur. Ils écrivaient pas que le gouvernement est responsable de vous accorder ces droits, ils ont écrit que le gouvernement n'a pas le pouvoir de prendre ces droits donnés par Dieu loin de vous. Cette mai sembler une différence d'intensité légère à vous, mais c'est la différence entre le socialisme et la liberté. C'est la différence entre le communisme et le capitalisme. Et c'est toute la différence dans le monde.

Si vous cherchez de l'introduction du socialisme dans nos systèmes politico-économiques, le seul endroit pour commencer est avec le New Deal. Et c'est aussi là où nous pourrions commencer notre discussion sur les droits. Le New Deal a été une réponse à courte vue pour l'échec de certaines politiques économiques qui ont conduit à la Grande Dépression. 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.

Ces programmes sont devenus des droits lorsque l'on commença à dépendre d'eux avant même qu'ils en avaient besoin. 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