Političke Blogs, News & Views

By Shawn Bannon | Odgovori na članak

Scott,

Ja sam s vama u pitanju svinjetine, ali sam dobio da se problem sa te na nekoliko drugih pitanja. Prije svega, s obzirom na deficit, ne možete tvrditi da su Amerikanci osjetiti prikliještiti kada se smatra da je ključna mjerenja ekonomskog zdravlja su sve odlične. Dovoljno je pogledati na stambeno tržište, koji je jahanje val poskupljenja, jer potrošači imaju novca da plate više. Analitičari su predviđanja da bi cijena mjehurića praska za više od godinu dana, ali to još nije. A home vlasnici čine veći postotak naše populacije danas nego u bilo koje vrijeme jer da je tečaj je prvi put izmjerena. Plin cijene su dva puta ono što su bili samo par godina, ali su zato da visoka potražnja na tržištu braneći tim cijenama. Ljudi nisu dramatično mijenjaju svoje vozačke navike. Oni samo plaćate više za plin.

I zdravlje gospodarstvo je zbog - u velikoj mjeri - za porezne stope reže koje Busheva administracija i, koliko je korporacija tiče, na razini države. Predsjednik Bush je smanjiti porez stupila na snagu u 2001, i predvidljivo, poreznih prihoda je otišao gore - čak i kroz recesije 2002-2003. To je kao što je bio u ranim 1960-ih, kada je predsjednik Kennedy spustile porezne stope, te u 1980, kada je predsjednik Reagan učinio isto. Porezne stope silaze. Potrošačke potrošnje i poslovnih ulaganja ići gore. Tvrtke proširiti, radna mjesta su stvorena, i poreznih prihoda povećava. To je razlog zašto platiti kao što ide porezne politike ne radi. Ona negira posljedice rasta ulaganja u gospodarstvo. Niske porezne stope - na individualne i korporativne razine - rezultirati brojniji gospodarskog rasta i povećanja poreznih prihoda. Povijest medvjeda koji van. S druge strane, povećanje stope poreza na štandu potrošačke potrošnje i ograničiti sposobnost korporacije da reinvestirati dobit na način da rastu poduzeća i otvoriti nova radna mjesta.

To je nepošteno kako bi razgovarali o "reže" u proračuna za obrazovanje i određenih prava programe jer su oni "reže" pojavljuju se samo u odnosu na 2005 i 2004 proračune. No, obrazovanja i Medicare proračuna imaju ballooned budući predsjednik Bush preuzeo ured u 2001, kao rezultat No Child Left Behind zakonodavstva i novi lijek koristi za seniore. Senator Specter je put od osnovice po tom pitanju.

Ne mogu ubiti NASA. Previše Američki inovacija u posljednjih 50 godina je rezultat istraživanja NASA. Previše proizvoda u našim domovima nikada ne bi bio stvoren da nije bilo početne primjene predmetnog znanosti u programima NASA. Mogao mi bolje fokusirati opseg NASA kao način koji sadrže troškove? Da, i mi mogli dobiti neke zemlje. No, ni veliki remont ili pogreb za program će rezultirati u dugoročnu korist za naše gospodarstvo koje prevagnuti troškove predaji pogodnosti koje smo požnjevena i nastavit će žeti iz NASA's postojanja.

Korporativna blagostanja je pogrešan naziv, i mislim da ste u potrazi na problem u pogrešnom smjeru. Korporacije apsolutno plaćaju porez na dohodak na isti način vi i ja. Potrošači nositi teret visokih korporativne porezne stope samo u istom smislu da su naši poslodavci prolaze kroz nas porezni novac za vladu. Kad im se porezne olakšice - često da se preseli u nove gradove ili da se prošire u pojedinoj regiji - jedinica lokalne samouprave su trgovanje ograničen iznos poreznih prihoda za stvaranje novih radnih mjesta i rezultat ekonomskog rasta. Does it work? Ponekad da, ponekad ne. No je li korporativni blagostanja? Ne, to je izračunat rizik snimljen od strane lokalnih političara da se jednostavno ne isplati uvijek.

Konačno, u pogledu poljoprivrednih subvencija, Vaše točka je dobro napravljena, i bolje kontrole su potrebne. Ali odgovor nije subvencije program koji nagrađuje samo one siromašne farmere koji se bore za očuvanje svojeg malog operacija. Bez tih subvencija, velike farme koje su zapravo proizvodnju hrana će postati neodrživ i / ili cijena hrane će rasti drastično, ozbiljno utječu na siromašne. Dakle, odgovor je ugađanje to subvencije program koji jednostavno izgleda da izrezati pogodnosti za one koji posjeduju "farmi" koje ne dajte se išta više od subvencija sebe.

Odgovori na ovaj komentar specifične

By Scott Bannon | Odgovori na članak

Shawn, hvala vam za komentare. Da bude jasno, bio sam ono što sažima nekoliko republikanaca (uglavnom u osporavani reizbor utrka) su izjavili u posljednjih nekoliko dana prije moje pisanje o Amerikanaca 'osjetiti prikliještiti'. Mi ćemo se složiti da se ne slažem na ovaj, ali za mnoge niže i srednje klase Amerikanaca, pojas je već kao zbijeno kao što mogu dobiti, tako da ću stajati u redu s republikancima izjave.

Kao što je za Bushovu smanjuje stopa poreza i borbu da ih i dalje, ne vjerujem da sam sišao osobno na obje strane pitanje u moje posting. Moj komentare na ovo jednostavno nisu trebali istaknuti trenutnu unutar stranke dijeli se javljaju oko gospodarskih pitanja.

Ne slažem se da je to nepošteno razgovarati "reže" u proračunima programa samo zato što oni "reže" pojavljuju se samo u odnosu na 2005 i 2004 proračune. Bilo određenu razinu potrošnje za bilo koji program je pretrpio u posljednjih deset godina ili samo jedan, smanjenje potrošnje koja je po definiciji "rez", a svim sredstvima kako bi raspravljali o fer.

JA dobiti svoju točku na NASA i slažem nešto. Kao što sam spomenuo Ja sam veliki obožavatelj NASA, Discovery Channel i rezanje-rub znanosti. Ipak, vjerujem da je privatni sektor napredak i inovacije imaju mogućnost da Vlada financira Trump istraživanja u većini područja. Ovo je najveća (od mnogih) povoljnih argument za kapitalističkom društvu, po mom mišljenju.

Iako bih radije NASA nije umrla u potpunosti, to je istina da je veliki iznos novca (milijarde i milijarde dolara svake godine) je proveo letjeti rakete u kometima i 4-Wheeling robot oko površine Marsa. Istraživanje iza tih programa je valjan i časno, ali ne kao prioritet kao neke druge programe, kada potrošnja mora smanjiti.

To je kao vođenje kućnog budžeta na grander razmjera. Ako ne možete priuštiti to ažurirati na najnoviji novi gadget-upakiran, papir-tanka, koje se zasniva sustav kućnog kina ove godine, jer je potrebno malo Timmy aparatića, onda pate kroz promatranje Simpsoni na tom zastarjele 60 inča velik zaslon za drugi godine i nadogradnju na kasnije vrijeme.

Možda ja to gledati na korporativne socijalne skrbi iz perspektive krivu, ali možda ne. Ako je vlasnik (ci) na Smitha Sprave odluči žele puni dolar po widget prodao profitna marža, zatim razumijevanje da će platiti oko 47% svojih prihoda u poreze znači da oni mogu svoju cijenu widgets imati nešto više od dolar i margin dvatine dobit. Vlada dobiva to je 47% i Smith's Sprave džepove pune dolar po widget prodana su htjeli.

Očito to nije dosta da jednostavna, ali onda opet do neke mjere to zaista je.

To je rekao, nisam bila usmjerena samo na lokalne vlasti ponudama koje nude porezne poticaje i pauze poduzećima kako bi rasli radna mjesta za njihove regije. Problem je na saveznom nivou, kao i maskirani u svinjetine u mnogim slučajevima. Savršen primjer je nedavno autoceste Billa koja ima pretjeran iznos od svinjskog bazi korporativnog davanja kao što su isplate 37 milijuna dolara za proširenje jednu cestu u Arkansasu koja je glavna pristupna točka za sjedište Wal-Mart Stores Inc

Im 'ne siguran o točnom dobit za 2005 Wal-Mart, ali u 2004 je na popisu na 10,3 milijarde dolara dolara. I dok Razumijem potrebu da imaju velike tvrtke koje se nalazi u zajednici i da rade s njima da ih držati u zajednici, izvješća sam vidio na ovom upućuju prometni problemi nisu bili tako loši u usporedbi sa sličnim putem-cijene. Ipak, porezni obveznici su bili prisiljeni izvući od 37 milijuna dolara dolara, tako da Wal-Mart zaposlenici mogli imati brži pristup radnom mjestu. To je oblik korporativnog davanja koja postoji, ali je često previdi.

Na poljoprivrednih subvencija, ovo je tvrd jedan. Znam da ograničavaju na samo određeni postotak može imati negativne učinke za cijelu poljoprivrednu industriju i teret potrošača u konačnici. Ja također znam da tona novca se troši svake godine plaćaju vlasnicima zemljišta da ne koriste svoje zemlje. Brzo pretraživanje na Google će pokazati da se često ti vlasnici zemljišta ili druge Sport Zabava zvijezda i bogatih poduzetnika. Ne ljudi koji bi farmi njihove zemlje u svakom slučaju, ali još uvijek vlada će ih platiti kako bi se osiguralo ovo. To je porez loop-hole se iskorištava, to je izgubiti novac, a cijeli program treba imati iskren i transparentan pregled kako bi se osiguralo novac je bitak iskorišten na najbolji mogući način za pomoć najzaslužnijih kandidata.

Odgovori na ovaj komentar specifične

By Shawn Bannon | Odgovori na članak

Scott,

Ja sam uvijek rado ući u raspravu s tobom.

U pravu si da su mnogi u GOP su podijeljeni glede potrošnje i smanjenja poreza. Neki u moje stranke su izgubili iz vida fiskalne suzdržanost birača i očekuje od republikanski zakonodavci. Bilo je nekih olakotne okolnosti doprinose na trenutnu situaciju, ali na kraju dana, republikanski zakonodavci morate napraviti bolji posao od sebe kontrole kada je u pitanju trošenje.

Poslije rečenog da, ne, nije došao na jednu ili drugu stranu u vezi Bush smanjenja poreza. A ja ne kritizirati svoje raspravu tih smanjenja poreza. Umjesto toga, bio sam detaljno neke od prednosti tih smanjenja poreza kako bi objasnio zašto pay-as-you-go proračunske politike, koju potvrđeni, neće dati za širenje naše gospodarstvo na način da je održavanje će se smanjiti porez.

Ima je ništa izvrnut sa nekim deficit potrošnje - čak i mnogo deficita potrošnje - ako ekonomija raste zdravo dovoljno platiti dolje rezultat deficita u razumnom vremenu. Omjer deficita u BDP-u je daleko važnija od stvarnog deficita razini. Dakle, možete povećati zaduživanje platiti za važne stvari kao što su rat protiv terorizma, ograničeno širenje Medicare, prestrojavanje naše nacionalne obrazovne politike, infrastrukturne poboljšanjima, itd. No, zakonodavci trebaju znati gdje je linija između onoga što koristi naših poreznih dolara su nužne i razborite i onih koji samo stvoriti politički kapital. Pay-as-you-go proračunske politike ne radi (to je iznimno loše u vrijeme krize), nije nužno i - zapravo - zatezanje potencijal rasta gospodarstva. Ali to ne znači da republikancima trebaju slobodno trčati gore na karticu, bilo.

Sada, samo da riješi neke od točaka koje ste napravili u svom odgovoru na moje komentare:

To je nepošteno razgovarati posjekotine na obrazovanje i Medicare proračuna kao što ste jer ste zanemario da ih stavi u kontekst. Oni su prikazani u svoj originalni komad je indikativno administrativnih zanemarivanja - pogled na smanjenje tih važnih projekata, dok druge, manje važne ili svinjetina projekti su u potpunosti financira. To je ono što je nepravedno o raspravu o cuts. Sredstava posvećena obrazovanju i Medicare povećao neizmjerno budući predsjednik Bush preuzeo dužnost, u velikoj mjeri kao odgovor na potrebu created by novih zakona i poboljšanje pogodnosti. Iako su školski sustav prilagođavati novim standardima i Medicare infrastruktura je stvoren na račun za te promjene, više novca je potrebno. Ali, ta ista razina potrošnje nije potrebno sada kada programi su gore i trčanje, pa je sasvim primjereno za smanjenje tih proračuna.

Razmislite o male tvrtke - željezarija, možda. Namirnicama je umjereno uspješna, i režijskih troškova općenito pokrenuti oko milijun dolara godišnje. (To je samo jedan primjer, a ja nemam pojma što stvarne materijalne troškove za rad hardvera dućan će biti.) Dakle, nakon 10 godina u poslu, vlasnik odlučuje otvoriti drugi pohraniti na drugi kraj grada. U toj godini, njegov operativni troškovi će poletjeti uvis. On je o izgradnji ili renoviranje zgrade, kupnja inventara, zaposliti osoblje, itd. To bi moglo koštati ga je 5 milijuna dolara da bi dobili svoje priče gore i trčanje, i tada ćete imati veće troškove povezane s prikazivanjem druge priče za nekoliko godina dok ne postane toliko dio zajednice i lokalne ekonomije kao svoj prvi dućan. S vremenom, međutim, cijene pokrenuti drugi dućan bi trebao biti otprilike isto kao i troškovi za pokretanje prve. Dakle, pet godina niz linija, opći troškovi su mu možda i 2,5 milijuna dolara za kombinirane operacije. Sada, njegov nadzemni proračuna je smanjen, odnosu na prethodnu godinu od druge priče prvi otvoren, ali to ne znači da je zanemarujući poslovanja, čarape niže kvalitete robe ili varanje svojim klijentima.

Isto vrijedi i za državne potrošnje. Prečesto mislimo da je smanjenje sredstava namijenjen određenom programa znači automatsko pogoršanja u kvaliteti tog programa. A ljudi kao senator Specter boriti za nastavak financiranja na istom stupnju ili povećana sredstva - ulijevanja poreznih dolara kojima se ne koriste efikasno - što znači da moramo rezati drugdje, prihvatiti veći proračunski manjak i podići poreze. Možemo raspravu obrazovanju financiranja drugo vrijeme, ali više novca zalivši na učionica nije - dugoročno - odgovor na America's obrazovanje problem.

NASA tiče, možda mi samo treba da se slažete da se ne slažem, jer mislim da ste 100 posto - U redu, možda samo 95 posto - u redu. Kao što sam napisao sinoć, da, slažem se da neki reprioritization projekata i rashoda može biti potrebno, ali ja zaista smatram da su NASA administratorima učinio hvale vrijedan posao u tom pogledu u posljednjih nekoliko godina. Oni su prilagođeni svojim planovima za istraživanja svemira je značajno u svjetlu proračuna i sigurnosne probleme.

Istraživanja NASA je bitna, ona ostruge inovacija u privatnom sektoru da se neće dogoditi, jer u suprotnom troškovi biti previsoki, poslovne vođe odgovorni investitorima. Ovo je sličan argument mnogi ljudi čine u korist saveznih sredstava za istraživanja matičnih stanica. Ostavljajući po pogodnosti za naše obrambene programe, koristi od istraživanja NASA našem svakodnevnom životu - uključujući, ali mnogi daleko važnija od luksuznih stvari poput big-screen TV - previše žrtvovati.

Samo pitajte bilo tko tko je ikada preživio život opasna bolest zbog boljeg razumijevanja na osnovi medicinske znanosti NASA. Pitajte amputirati tko može pokrenuti danas zbog umjetne noge načiniti pomoću metale i inženjerski koncepti prvotno razvila NASA za primjenu. Pitajte nekoga čija je obitelj pobjegla prikolicu domu u Oklahoma neposredno prije tornado pogodio koliko je važno što su dobili 14-minute upozorenja zbog poboljšane vremenske sustave za praćenje i obogaćuje razumijevanje klime na temelju istraživanja NASA. Nekoliko generacija prije, ne bi znao o tome tornada dok ih čuo da izvrsno putem svojih susjeda 'domove. Pitajte mlada žena čiji je život spašen kada je bio u mogućnosti to nazvati policiju sa svojim mobitelom iz prtljažniku njezina automobila otmičar o važnosti tog telefona i globalno pozicioniranje tehnologija koristi za policiju je pronašli. To je NASA. Ovdje nije riječ o naj-naj-velikim zaslon TVs, tako lijepo kao što su oni. Preporučio bih Vam da provjerite Život na Zemlji dio NASA web site za samo malo informacija o mnogim važnim načina NASA je stvaranje svijeta boljim mjestom. Možete ga pronaći na http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/features/index.html .

Naravno, to ne znači da se odobri NASA neograničen proračuna za istraživanje ili da ne bi trebalo biti odgovarajuće kontrole na mjestu da pregleda njihove potrošnje, ali nikada nisam će se složiti da je NASA potrošnje je srodan na politički motivirane svinjetine projekte koji su pravi pošasti na naš proračun.

Uključivanje subjekata, Im 'uplašen JA isto tako morati slagati sa svojim "korporativnim blagostanja" argument. Vaša tvrtka widget ne samo može podići cijene za stvaranje svojih željeni margina za nekoliko razloga, a svi su zavjet na ljepotu kapitalizma. Jednostavno rečeno, samo oni mogu naplatiti ono što će se tržište medvjeda. Ako oni povećavaju cijene i potrošači i dalje kupuju njihove proizvode, a zatim su punjenja premalo za početak sa. Ako oni povećavaju cijene i potrošači odlučite zaustaviti kupnjom njihovih clanci, tvrtka će niža cijena ili, osjetivši priliku, poduzetni natjecatelj će korak u i prodati proizvod za usporedive 75-cent marža. Na kraju dana, fizika natjecanje inherentne kapitalizmu diktira da će roba biti prodana samo po cijeni na tržištu može podnijeti, što je razlog zašto je kapitalizam dobar za potrošače.

Kao i za Wal-Mart, primjerice, da nije "korporativnim blagostanja," i to čak ne treba svinjetine. Wal-Mart se razvio od male organizacije u jednu od najvećih svjetskih. To je, na mnogo načina, prerasla svoj dom, da tako kažemo. Sada, to bi moglo premjestiti. To je vjerojatno ono što vas ili ću napraviti ako mi je prerasla u naše domove. No, političari koji zastupaju građani Arkansas razumjeti goleme vrijednosti s njihovim sastojaka i gospodarstvo svoje države inherentnu u skladu Wal-Mart točno tamo gdje je. Ako proširenje ceste poboljšava protok prometa i prednosti gospodarstva putem izrade lokaciji više prikladan mjesto za Wal-Mart da nastavi svoj rad, sasvim je prikladno za financiranje tog projekta koji će biti uvršteni u zakon autoceste sredstava.

Wal-Mart je dobit ništa za napraviti sa ovaj argument. Oni nisu ništa više izravno odgovoran za plaćanje za održavanje prometnica oko njihovih zapovjedništava nego što smo kao pojedinačne porezne obveznike su odgovorne za plaćanje održavanja ulica na kojoj živimo. Da, njihova dobit je ogromna. Ali, tako da je njihova poreznog opterećenja. Je li ovaj izdatak svinjetine - zakonodavac bacanje kosti za dom tvrtku natrag? Možda. To ovisi o tome hoće li ili ne projekt je stvarno potrebno poboljšati protok prometa i držati Wal-Mart sjedište. Ni vi ni ja sam obrazovanje ili in-dubina znanje o detaljima u vezi ove lokacije kako bi se utvrdilo da li ili ne cestovni projekt je potrebno. Ali čak i ako to nije - čak i ako je svinjsko - to još uvijek nije "korporativnim blagostanja."

Kao što sam napisao sinoć, "korporativno socijalne skrbi" je pogrešan naziv. Uglavnom, ona ne zaista postoje, osim u mislima liberala koji ne žele vjerovati da je sve dobar razlog za korištenje poreznih dolara na način koji će imati koristi velike korporacije. Moglo bi se napraviti argument da vlada određena bailouts, kao što su podrška vladi dao kompanijama nakon 11. rujna, bili su "korporativnog davanja." No, to su vrlo rijetkim slučajevima, a ne ono što većina ljudi misle kada koriste termin.

Obično, fraza "korporativnog davanja" se koristi od strane ljudi koji poriču superiornosti kapitalizma na druge gospodarske sustave. To su ljudi koji vjeruju da sve što bi trebali biti jednaki i da nitko nikada ne bi trebao imati sve što smatraju da se "previše", dok drugi idu van. To su ljudi koji vjeruju u prava umjesto samostalnost, oni vjeruju da uloga države je osigurati hranu, umjesto mogućnost. Oni misle Wal-Mart i druge uspješne tvrtke u svojoj biti zla. I oni 'je izumio termin "korporativnog davanja", jer oni ne vjeruju da uspješna organizacija mora biti catered za na bilo koji način, oblik ili formu od strane naše vlade. To je njihova platforma, unatoč činjenici da organizacije kao što su Wal-Mart stvoriti nova radna mjesta, goriva, gospodarski rast i pridonijeti zajednici u kojoj smo smješteni. Ovi su stvarno uzeti liberali-od--bogat-i-daj-to-the-siromašnih socijalista koji bi radije rušiti oni koji su uspješni od onih koji govore da ne bi više svoje mogućnosti.

Sada, ne mislim da mi je okrutno ili bešćutan. Mi kao ljudi treba biti suosjećajan. Mi treba da se brine o onima koji su istinski ugrožene. Ali mi treba da učini da se više kao susjedi, a manje kao porezni obveznici. Mi treba da učini da se kroz donacije ćemo učiniti da naše crkve i našeg suradnika 'fundraising walkathons. Trebali bi više našeg vremena kao volonteri. Mi treba da potičemo vladu da financira posao-trening vještina za one koji žele napraviti bolji život za sebe i svoje najmilije. Mi treba da stoje iza socijalnom pomoći ljudima koji nudi ruku gore, a ne izdati. Ali mi bi trebali ustati protiv ikakvog napora da kazni one koji su bili napredna jer to "nije fer", da ima drugih koji nisu ostvarili svoje potencijale. I to je ono što liberali / socijalista - ljudi koji tvrde protiv bilo koje korištenje poreznih dolara koji bi korist korporacija (bez obzira na rezultat u korist zajednice i gospodarstva) - cilj učiniti. Ne vjerujem da si ti jedan od njih, pa sam Vam savjetujemo da ponovno razmotri ovo pitanje i upotreba izraza "korporativnog davanja."

Odgovori na ovaj komentar specifične

By Scott Bannon | Odgovori na članak

Shawn, drago mi možete li potaknuti u. uživam naših građanskih leđa i forths.

Nisam prihvatiti pay-as-you-go proračunske politike. Ja ga ilustrira kao single najznačajnijih-a nije-potez u zadnje vrijeme od strane demokrata na adresu izvan kontrole potrošnje u Washingtonu. Moje isprike ako to nije jasno vidljivo u mom članku.

Mi ne slagati se na opasnosti od pay-as-you-go pravila, oni su restriktivne i duboko utječu na narod. Mi vjerojatno ne slagati se na drastičnu, kada privremeno sredstvo mjere bi bilo prikladno usaditi, ali ja ću ga ostaviti kao filozofska razlika o tome gdje povući liniju proračunskog smrti.

Na NASA-e, kao što sam već priznao, ja razumijem tvoj point i ne se ne slažem. Međutim, balansiranje državnog proračuna je težak posao. Tu je konačan iznos ići okolo i teške odluke mora biti donesena. Dno crta je prioritete. Da, NASA je napravila (i dalje čine) ogroman doprinos obogatiti živote ljudi.

Ne manje važno, iako, na jednak ili veći iznos američke populacije je hrana, sklonište, lijekova i obrazovanja kako bi se osiguralo buduće generacije imaju vještine nastaviti razvoj novih tehnologija i veća.

Dok se visoko iznad mnogih drugih novca pit projekte i sigurno strši iznad planine od svinjskog otpada, NASA još uvijek padne ispod mnoge bitne programe i usluge u prioritet, kao, moj originalni point je bio da kad smo počeli rezanje tih - NASA moraju doći naprijed u cijepanje bloka linija.

Vidjeli smo korporativnog davanja iz različitih perspektiva, mi vjerojatno bi trebao napustiti ovaj neki u to. Ni u ovom članku, niti ikada u razgovoru sam izjavio all-out protivljenje poreznih dolara u korist poslovanja. Značajne su i brojna područja u kojima vlada pomoći poslovnim vitalne je važnosti, kako za individualne poslovne i zajednice. Odmah nakon 11. rujna 2001, kada je zrakoplovna industrija je uzeo veliki udarac iz napada nisam protive početne otklonski out na bilo koji način, iako sam mislio neki industrijski model restrukturiranja odredbama bi bilo pametno da priložite. 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. The proof? According to the Catalogue for Philanthropy, 28 of the 29 most generous states, defined by the average per capita charitable deduction (how much each person gives to charity), are red states – states that voted for Bush in 04, states where conservatives have the strongest foothold. That's not to say that liberals aren't at all charitable, just that they (as a group) give less to charity because they assume the government will take care of our neighbors' ills. And it's another indication of liberals' desire to shed personal responsibility.

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