Politic Blogs, News & Vizualizari

De Shawn Bannon | Răspundeţi la articol

Scott,

Eu sunt cu tine cu privire la problema carne de porc, dar l-am luat pentru a lua aspect cu tine pe o pereche de alte probleme. În primul rând, în ceea ce priveşte deficitul, nu poti pretinde că americanii sunt senzaţie de priză atunci când consideră că măsurătorile-cheie de sănătate economice sunt toate excelente. Uită-te la piaţa imobiliară, care a fost de echitatie un val de majorarea preţurilor, deoarece consumatorii au bani să plătească mai mult. Analistii au fost estimarea că bula de preţ ar fi de spargere pentru mai bine de un an, dar încă nu. Şi proprietarii de acasă alcătuiesc un procent mai mare din populaţia noastră astăzi decât în orice moment, din moment ce această rată a fost pentru prima măsurată. Preţurile gazelor naturale sunt ceea ce de două ori acestea au fost doar o pereche de ani în urmă, dar ele sunt asa de mare, deoarece cererea de pe piaţă este de susţinere a acestor preţuri. Oamenii nu sunt în mod dramatic schimbarea obiceiurilor lor de conducere. Ei plătiţi doar mai mult pentru gaze.

Iar starea de sănătate a economiei se datorează - în mare parte - de a reduce rata de impozitare de administraţia Bush şi, în măsura în care corporaţiile sunt în cauză, la nivel de stat. Reduceri de impozite preşedintelui Bush a intrat în vigoare în 2001, şi previzibil, venituri fiscale a crescut - chiar si prin intermediul recesiune 2002-2003. Acest lucru este la fel cum a fost la începutul anilor 1960, când preşedintele Kennedy slashed ratelor de impozitare, precum şi în anii 1980, când preşedintele Reagan a făcut acelaşi lucru. Ratele de impozitare merge în jos. Cheltuielilor de consum şi de afaceri de investiţii du-te sus. Companiile extinde, de locuri de muncă sunt create, precum şi creşterea veniturilor fiscale. Acesta este motivul pentru pay-as-you go politica fiscală nu funcţionează. El neagă efectele de creştere a investiţiilor în economie. Ratelor de impozitare Low - la nivel individual şi la nivel corporativ - rezultat mai abundente creşterii economice şi a veniturilor fiscale a crescut. Istorie urşi că afară. În schimb, creşterea ratelor de impozitare a cheltuielilor de consum şi stand limita capacitatea corporaţiilor să reinvestească profiturile în moduri care cresc întreprinderilor şi a crea locuri de muncă.

Este nedrept pentru a discuta despre "bucăţi", în bugetele pentru programe de educaţie şi dreptul anumitor pentru că aceste bucăţi de "" apar doar într-o comparaţie între 2005 şi 2004 a bugetelor. Dar, de educaţie şi bugetele Medicare-au umflat de la preşedintele Bush a început mandatul în 2001 ca urmare a copilului nr Left Behind a legislaţiei şi, în beneficiul reţetă nouă de droguri pentru persoanele în vârstă. Senatorul spectru este modul off de bază pe această temă.

Nu pot ucide NASA. Prea multă inovaţie americane în ultimii 50 de ani este un rezultat de cercetare NASA. Prea multe dintre produsele în casele noastre nu ar fi fost nu s-au creat-o pentru cererile iniţiale ale ştiinţei care stau la baza în programe de NASA. Putem concentreze mai bine domeniul de aplicare al NASA ca o modalitate de a conţine costurile? Da, şi noi ar putea să câştige unele teren. Dar nici o revizuire majoră sau o înmormântare pentru programul va duce la beneficii pe termen lung pentru economia noastră că mai importante decât costul de predare a beneficiilor care le-am cules şi va continua să se bucure de existenţa de la NASA.

Bunăstării Corporate este un termen impropriu, şi cred că vă uitaţi la problema în mod greşit. Corporaţii absolut plătesc impozite pe venit în acelaşi mod, tu si eu fac. Consumatorii revine sarcina de a ridicate rate de impozit pe profit numai în acelaşi sens ca angajatorii nostru trece de bani fiscale prin intermediul nostru la guvern. Atunci când sunt acordate facilităţi fiscale - de multe ori să se mute în oraşe noi sau să se extindă într-o anumită regiune - guvernele locale sunt o sumă limitată de comercializare a veniturilor fiscale pentru crearea de locuri de muncă şi care rezultă creşterea economică. Does it work? Uneori da, uneori nu. Dar este de bunăstare corporative? Nu, e un risc calculat luate de politicienii locali care pur şi simplu nu plăteşte întotdeauna off.

În sfârşit, în ceea ce priveşte subvenţiile agricole, punctul dvs. este bine făcute, mai bine şi controalele sunt necesare. Dar răspunsul isnt 'un program de subvenţie care recompensează numai agricultorii săraci care luptă pentru a menţine operaţiunile lor mici. Fără aceste subvenţii, fermele mari care produc alimente de fapt, va deveni nesustenabile şi / sau preţul alimentelor va creşte în mod dramatic, care afectează grav pe cei săraci. Deci, răspunsul este un tweak la programul de subvenţie arată că, pur şi simplu pentru a taia beneficii pentru acei oameni care propriul "ferme" care nu dau nimic mai mult decât subvenţii în sine.

Răspundeţi la acest comentariu specifice de

Prin Scott Bannon | Răspundeţi la articol

Shawn, vă mulţumesc pentru comentarii. Pentru a fi clar, am fost rezumarea ceea ce republicanii mai multe (mai ales în re atacat-curse electorale) au declarat, în ultimele zile înainte de scrisul meu în ceea ce priveşte americanilor "sentimentul pinch". Va trebui să fie de acord în dezacord privind acest lucru, dar pentru mai mulţi americani şi clasa de mijloc centură este deja îngrămădiţi ca se poate obtine, asa ca voi sta în conformitate cu declaraţiile republicani ".

În ceea ce priveşte reducerile lui Bush rata de impozitare şi de luptă a le putea continua, nu cred că am venit personal pe fiecare parte a problemei, în comentariul meu. Comentariile mele de pe acest au fost pur şi simplu, destinate să evidenţieze partid curente interne splitări care apar peste probleme economice.

Nu sunt de acord că este nedrept, pentru a discuta "bucăţi", în bugetele de programe doar pentru că aceste bucăţi de "" apar doar într-o comparaţie între 2005 şi 2004 a bugetelor. Fie că un anumit nivel al cheltuielilor pentru orice program a fost sustinut in ultimii zece ani sau numai unul, o reducere a cheltuielilor care este, prin definiţie, o tăietură "şi, prin toate mijloacele corecte pentru a discuta.

I a lua punctul de pe NASA şi oarecum de acord. După cum am menţionat eu sunt un mare fan al NASA, Discovery Channel şi tăierea-stiinte margine. Totuşi, cred că avansurile din sectorul privat şi inovaţii au capacitatea de a trâmbiţa de cercetare finantate de guvern în cele mai multe domenii. Acesta este cel mai mare (de multe) argument favorabil pentru o societate capitalistă, în opinia mea.

În timp ce aş prefera la NASA nu a murit complet, este adevărat că o sumă mare de bani (miliarde şi miliarde de dolari în fiecare an) este în curs de cheltuit pentru a zbura rachete în comete şi 4-Wheeling un robot in jurul suprafaţa planetei Marte. De cercetare în spatele acestor programe este valabil şi onorabil, dar nu la fel de prioritare, astfel cum unele programe alte cheltuieli atunci când trebuie să fie reduse.

E ca si cum gestionarea unui buget de uz casnic pe o scară de măreţ. Dacă nu vă puteţi permite să faceţi upgrade la cea mai recentă nou gadget-ambalate, pe hârtie subţire, de proiecţie pe sistem home theater în acest an, deoarece Timmy putin nevoie de bretele, apoi atunci tu suferi prin vizionarea The Simpsons cu privire la acest depăşit 60 inch mare-ecran pentru o altă an şi de upgrade la un moment mai târziu.

Poate ca eu te uita la bunăstare corporative din punctul de vedere greşit, dar nu poate. În cazul în care proprietarul (e) de fleacuri Smith a decide care doresc un dolar pe deplin widget-marja de profit a vândut, apoi înţelegerea pe care le veţi plăti aproximativ 47% din veniturile lor din impozite înseamnă că pot widget preţul lor de a avea un pic peste un dolar şi o marjă de jumătate de profit. Guvernului devine este de 47% şi Widgets lui Smith buzunarele dolarul complet vândut pe widget-au vrut.

Evident este că nu destul de simplist, dar apoi din nou într-o oarecare măsură este cu adevărat.

Asta a spus, nu am fost concentrat exclusiv pe oferte publice locale, care oferă stimulente fiscale şi pauze pentru a companiilor în scopul de a creste locuri de muncă pentru regiunile lor. Problema este la nivel federal, precum şi a mascat fi carnea de porc, în multe cazuri. Un exemplu perfect este o Autostrazi recent Bill, care deţine o sumă de scandalos de carne de porc pe bază de plăţi a bunăstării corporative, cum ar fi 37 milioane dolari pentru a extinde un singur drum în Arkansas, care este principalul punct de acces la sediul central al Wal-Mart Stores Inc

Nu sunt sigur de exact 2005 profituri pentru Wal-Mart, dar în 2004 este listata la 10.3 miliarde dolari de dolari. Şi în timp ce am înţeles necesitatea de a dispune companiilor mari situat într-o comunitate şi să lucreze cu ei pentru a le ţine în comunitate, rapoarte l-am văzut pe acest sugerează probleme de trafic nu au fost aşa de rău în comparaţie cu similară, prin-tarife. Totuşi, contribuabilii au fost obligaţi de a plăti 37 milioane dolari de dolari, astfel încât angajaţii Wal-Mart ar putea avea acces mai rapid la locul de muncă. Aceasta este o forma de bunăstare corporative care există, dar este adesea trecute cu vederea.

Cu privire la subvenţii agricole, aceasta este una dificila. Stiu ca se limita doar la doar un anumit procent ar putea avea efecte negative pentru întreaga industrie agricole şi sarcina consumatorilor în cele din urmă. Eu, de asemenea, ştiu că de tone de bani sunt cheltuite în fiecare an de plăţi nu proprietari de terenuri pentru a utiliza terenurile lor. O cautare rapida pe Google va arăta că, deseori, aceste sunt proprietari de terenuri sportive sau alte stele Divertisment sau proprietarii de afaceri bogati. Nu oameni care s-ar ferma pământul lor, oricum, dar încă guvernul va plăti pentru a le asigura acest lucru. Este o buclă de impozit-hole a fi exploatate, este risipit de bani şi întregul program are nevoie de o revizuire sincer şi transparent pentru a asigura bani este utilizat în cel mai bun mod posibil pentru a ajuta candidaţii cei mai merituoşi.

Răspundeţi la acest comentariu specifice de

De Shawn Bannon | Răspundeţi la articol

Scott,

Eu sunt mereu bucuros să intre în dezbatere cu tine.

Ai dreptate că multe din GOP sunt împărţite în materie de cheltuieli şi de reduceri fiscale. Unii în partidul meu şi-au pierdut din vedere de reţinere fiscale alegătorii aşteaptă de la legislatori republicane. Au fost anumite circumstanţe atenuante care contribuie la situaţia actuală, dar la sfârşitul zilei, legislatorii republican nu au de a face o treabă mai bună de a controla ei înşişi atunci când vine vorba de cheltuieli.

Having said that, nu, nu aţi venit în jos pe o parte sau alta cu privire la reducerea taxelor şi impozitelor Bush. Şi eu nu am fost critica discuţie de către dvs. a acestor reduceri fiscale. Mai degrabă, am fost detaliind unele dintre beneficiile acestor reduceri de impozite pentru a explica de ce pay-as-you-go "politicii bugetare, care a aprobat, nu va oferi pentru extinderea economiei noastre în felul în care menţinerea reduceri fiscale va.

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.

Think about a small business – a hardware store, maybe. The store is moderately successful, and overhead costs generally run about $1 million a year. (That's just an example; I have no idea what the actual overhead costs to operate a hardware store would be.) So, after 10 years in business, the owner decides to open a second store across town. In that year, his operating costs are going to skyrocket. He has to construct or renovate a building, purchase inventory, hire staff, etc. It might cost him $5 million to get his store up and running, and then he'll have higher expenses associated with running the second store for a number of years until it becomes as much a part of the community and local economy as his first store. In time, though, the cost to run the second store should be about the same as the cost to run the first. So, five years down the line, his overhead costs are maybe $2.5 million for the combined operation. Now, his overhead budget has decreased, year over year since the second store first opened, but that doesn't mean he's neglecting the business, stocking lower-quality merchandise or cheating his customers.

The same goes for government spending. Too often, we think that reducing funds dedicated to a particular program means an automatic deterioration in the quality of that program. And people like Senator Specter fight for continued funding at the same levels or increased funding – pouring tax dollars where they aren't being used effectively – which means we have to cut elsewhere, accept a higher budget deficit or raise taxes. We can debate education funding another time, but pouring more money into classrooms is not – long term – the answer to America's education problem.

Regarding NASA, maybe we do just need to agree to disagree, because I think you're 100 percent – OK, maybe just 95 percent – wrong here. As I wrote last night, yes, I agree that some reprioritization of projects and expenditures may be necessary, but I would actually argue that NASA administrators have done a laudable job in this regard in recent years. They have adjusted their plans for space exploration significantly in light of budget and safety concerns.

NASA research is essential; it spurs innovation in the private sector that would not happen otherwise because the cost would be prohibitive to business leaders accountable to investors. This is similar to the argument many people make in favor of federal funding for stem-cell research. Setting aside the benefits to our defense programs, the benefits of NASA research to our everyday lives – including, but many far more important than luxury items like big-screen TVs – are too many to sacrifice.

Just ask oricine care a supravieţuit vreodată un pun viaţa în pericol, din cauza bolii mai bună înţelegere medicale bazate pe ştiinţă NASA. Intreaba un Amputaţi care poate rula astăzi, din cauza unui picior artificiale proiectate folosind metale şi concepte de inginerie dezvoltat pentru prima oară de aplicare a NASA. Intreaba cineva a cărei familie a scăpat de o locuinţă remorcă în Oklahoma chiar înainte de o tornada a lovit cât de important este că au primit un avertisment de 14 minute din cauza vremea sa îmbunătăţit sisteme de urmărire şi o înţelegere a îmbogăţit climatice bazate pe cercetare NASA. Câteva generaţii în urmă, ei nu ar fi ştiut despre faptul că Tornado până când acestea auzit-o grozav, prin casele vecinilor lor ". Intrebati de tanara femeie a cărei viaţă a fost salvat atunci când ea a fost în măsură să formaţi de poliţie cu telefonul mobil de la portbagaj de masina abductor ei, despre importanţa pe care telefonul si tehnologia Global Positioning poliţia folosite pentru a găsi-o ei. Acest lucru este NASA. Nu este vorba despre super-televizoarele cu ecran mare, ca frumos aşa cum sunt. Aş recomandăm să verificaţi vieţii pe Pământ porţiune a site-ului web al NASA pentru doar un pic de informaţii despre mai multe moduri de important NASA este de a face lumea un loc mai bun. Puteţi găsi-o la http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/features/index.html.

Desigur, aceasta nu înseamnă că ar trebui să acorde NASA, un buget nelimitat de cercetare sau că nu ar trebui să fie controale adecvate, în loc de a revizui cheltuielile lor, dar eu niciodată nu vor fi de acord că cheltuielile NASA este înrudită cu motivate politic proiectele de carne de porc, care sunt flagel real pe bugetul nostru.

Trecerea de subiecţi, ma tem ca am, de asemenea, trebuie să nu sunt de acord cu bunăstarea ta "corporate" argument. Firma ta widget-ului nu se poate ridica doar preţurile de a crea marjele de dorit pentru o serie de motive, toate acestea sunt o marturie a frumusetea capitalismului. Pune-pur şi simplu, ele pot percepe doar ceea ce piaţa se va purta. În cazul în care a mări preţurile şi consumatorii continuă să cumpere produsele lor, apoi au fost de tarifare prea puţin pentru a începe cu. Dacă ei a mări preţurile şi consumatorii aleg să nu mai cumpere widget-uri lor, compania va reduce preţurile sau, posibilitatea de detecţie, un concurent întreprinzători va pas într-şi vinde un produs comparabil pentru o de 75 de cenţi marjă de profit. La sfârşitul zilei, fizica a concurenţei inerente la capitalism dicta că bunurile vor fi vândute doar la un preţ pe piaţa poate suporta, motiv pentru care capitalismul este bun pentru consumatori.

As for the Wal-Mart example, that is not “corporate welfare,” and it may not even be pork. Wal-Mart has grown from a small organization into one of the world's largest. It has, in many ways, outgrown its home, so to speak. Now, it could move. That's probably what you or I would do if we outgrew our homes. But the politicians who represent the citizens of Arkansas understand the immense value to their constituents and to the economy of their state inherent in keeping Wal-Mart right where it is. If widening a road improves traffic flow and also benefits the economy by way of making the location a more suitable place for Wal-Mart to continue its operation, it is entirely appropriate for the funding of that project to be included in a highway appropriations bill.

Wal-Mart profits have nothing to do with this argument. They aren't any more directly responsible to pay for the upkeep of the roads around their headquarters than we as individual tax-payers are responsible to pay for the maintenance of the streets on which we live. Yes, their profits were huge. But so was their tax burden. Was this expenditure pork – a legislator throwing a bone to a company back home? Poate. That depends on whether or not the project was really necessary to improve traffic flow and keep the Wal-Mart headquarters there. Neither you nor I have the education or the in-depth knowledge of the particulars concerning this location to determine whether or not the road project was necessary. But even if it wasn't – even if it was pork – it still wasn't “corporate welfare.”

As I wrote last night, “corporate welfare” is a misnomer. By and large, it doesn't actually exist except in the minds of liberals who don't want to believe there is ever a good reason to use tax dollars in a way that would benefit large corporations. One could make the argument that certain government bailouts, such as the support the government gave the airlines after September 11, were “corporate welfare.” But those are very rare occasions and not what most people mean when they use the term.

De obicei, sintagma "bunăstării corporative" este folosit de oameni care neagă superioritatea capitalismului la alte sisteme economice. Aceştia sunt oameni care cred că totul ar trebui să fie egale şi că nimeni nu ar trebui să aibă vreodată, indiferent pe care le consideră a fi "prea mult", în timp ce altele merg fara. Aceştia sunt oameni care cred în drepturi în loc de încrederea în sine, ele cred că rolul guvernului este de a oferi susţinerea în loc de oportunitate. Ei cred ca Wal-Mart şi alte companii de succes sunt în mod inerent rele. Şi le-au inventat termenul de "welfare corporatist", pentru că ei nu cred că organizaţiile de succes ar trebui să fie furnizat în orice mod, forma sau sub formă de guvernul nostru. Aceasta este platforma lor, în ciuda faptului că organizaţii precum Wal-Mart a crea locuri de muncă, creştere economică de combustibil şi să contribuie la comunităţilor în care acestea sunt amplasate. Aceste liberalii sunt într-adevăr să ia-de la-bogate-şi-da-la-socialiştii-săraci, care s-ar lacrimă, mai degrabă în jos pe cei care sunt de succes decât spun cei care nu sunt de a face mai mult de oportunităţile lor.

Acum, nu cred că-mi crude sau dur. Noi, ca oamenii ar trebui să fie plin de compasiune. Noi ar trebui să aibă grijă de cei care sunt cu adevărat defavorizate. Dar noi ar fi trebuit să fac asta mai mult ca vecinii şi mai puţin ca contribuabili. Noi ar fi trebuit să fac acest lucru, prin donaţiile care le facem la bisericile noastre sau walkathons colaboratorii nostri de strângere de fonduri. Noi ar trebui să dea mai mult din timpul nostru propriu ca voluntari. Noi ar trebui să încurajeze guvernul nostru să finanţeze de locuri de muncă de competenţe de formare pentru cei care doresc să facă o viaţă mai bună pentru ei înşişi şi pe cei dragi. Noi ar fi trebuit să stea în spatele ajutor de stat ca oamenii oferă o mână în sus, nu o mână afară. Dar noi ar trebui să se ridice împotriva nici un efort pentru a sancţiona pe cei care au fost mai prosper, deoarece "nu este corect", că există alţii care nu au realizat potenţialul lor. Şi asta e ceea ce liberalii / socialişti - oameni care argumentează împotriva oricărei utilizări de dolari fiscale care ar beneficia de o societate (indiferent din beneficiul obţinut de comunitate şi economia) - scopul de a face. Nu cred că sunteţi unul dintre ei, asa ca mi-ar să vă încurajez să-şi reconsidere această problemă şi utilizarea termenului "bunăstării corporative."

Răspundeţi la acest comentariu specifice de

Prin Scott Bannon | Răspundeţi la articol

Shawn, bucur ca am putut împinge-am bucura de tine in spate noastre civile şi forths.

Nu am aproba pay-as-you-go "politicii bugetare. Am ilustrat-o ca unic cele mai semnificative şi nu a reuşit-move făcut recent de către Democraţilor pentru a aborda în afara cheltuielilor de control de la Washington. Scuzele mele în cazul în care nu a fost evidentă în articolul meu.

Noi nu sunt de acord cu privire la pericolele de pay-as-you-go "reguli, acestea sunt restrictive şi profund impact pentru a naţiunii. Noi facem, probabil, nu sunt de acord cu privire la momentul o măsură drastică măsură provizoare ar fi oportun să se insufle, dar voi lăsa ca pe o diferenţă filozofică de locul unde a trage linie bugetară de moarte.

La NASA, după cum am recunoscut deja, am înţeles punctul dumneavoastră şi nu pe deplin de acord. Cu toate acestea, un buget de echilibrare naţional este o muncă grea. Există o sumă finită pentru a merge în jurul şi opţiunile de greu trebuie să se facă. Linia de fund este de priorităţi. Da, NASA a făcut (şi continuă să facă) contribuţii extraordinare să îmbogăţească vieţile oamenilor.

Nu mai puţin important dacă, la o valoare egală sau mai mare din populaţia americană este mâncare, adăpost, medicamente şi educaţie pentru a se asigura generaţiile viitoare să aibă aptitudinile necesare pentru a continua dezvoltarea de noi tehnologii şi mai mare.

În timp ce mare de bani de mai sus multe alte proiecte groapă şi, desigur, falnic peste munte de deşeuri de porc, NASA încă scade mai jos de multe programe şi serviciilor de bază în mod prioritar, de asemenea, punctul meu de original a fost că, atunci când vom începe tăierea acestor - NASA, trebuie să vină înainte în voinic linie de bloc.

Noi considerăm bunăstării corporative din diferite perspective, noi ar trebui să lase, probabil, acest unul la asta. Nici în acest articol, nici vreodată într-o conversaţie am declarat un all-out opoziţia faţă de dolari impozit care beneficiază de afaceri. Nu sunt domenii importante şi numeroase în cazul în care asistenţa guvernamentală pentru afaceri este vitală, atât pentru afaceri individuale şi comunitate. Imediat dupa 11 septembrie 2001, când industria a companiei aeriene a luat o lovitură uriaşă de atacurile Nu m-am opus cauţiune iniţială în nici un fel, deşi m-am gândit unele industria de-prevederile model de restructurare ar fi fost înţelept să se ataşeze. I s-au opus cauţiune ulterioare-out cereri pentru că mă simt (din cunoştinţele mele outsider limitate şi perspectivă), care a industriei ca un întreg şi-a mare, probleme operaţionale (majoritatea care a existat înainte de 9 / 11) şi are încă să le abordeze în mod eficient . De asistenţă iniţială a fost o binemeritata mână-up, cererile ulterioare au fost pentru o parte proverbiala-outs, în opinia mea.

Niciodată nu am propus penalizarea o afacere sau o industrie care face bine pentru sine. Voi oferi articolele mele anterioare aici, pe PBNV.com în ceea ce priveşte industria de petrol ca exemple. I se opune nici un efort să adopte taxe speciale pe succes.

Voi sta în spatele meu Wal-Mart de exemplu. A fost într-adevăr de bunăstare corporative? Asta depinde de modul în care vă definiţi de bunăstare Presupun. Am defini-o ca sprijinul guvernamental pentru a fi utilizate pentru susţinerea şi îmbunătăţirea de sine o (sau pe profit). Wal-Mart au beneficiat în mod specific (mai bună) de la acest proiect, aşa că se încadrează în definiţia din perspectiva mea. Este probabil ca, în cazul în care rutiere au fost ocupat într-o zonă comercială, precum şi lărgirea ar fi beneficiat un număr de întreprinderi în loc de un singur aş simţi diferit, care nu pare de caz din ce am gasit.

În ceea ce priveşte cota de profit Wal-Mart a lui, nu a fost de a sugera că acestea ar fi fost într-un fel responsabil pentru plata să se extindă carosabilului în sine, a fost pentru a ilustra faptul că au existat cu toate acestea, mai multe locuri, probabil, merita pentru ca banii să meargă. Presupunând că lărgirea drumului nu a fost imediat esenţiale, cum sugerează de raportare.

Eu nu vreau să continue pe această cale mult mai departe, de teamă că unele cititorul poate cred ca sunt doar "a ataca un alt liberal Wal-Mart". Am apărat această societate, în trecut împotriva unor astfel de atacuri şi doar le-au utilizat ca un exemplu aici pentru ca exemplu şi faptele au fost primele disponibile într-o căutare rapidă. În cazul în care concluziile similare în ceea ce priveşte o altă afacere, a fost primul I-ar le-au folosit în loc. Am aproape simt nevoia să-e-mail Lee Scott, cu o Coppa mia.

Pentru a merge off-topic de la original articol aici doar pentru un moment, nu cred că vă sunt crude sau dur, dar cred că e greşit să facă implicaţiile patura care sugerează o ecuaţie negativ al liberalilor cu socialişti.

Mai întâi de toate, socialismul în sine nu este în mod inerent rău ca unii s-ar crede. Este un sistem, nu mai mult sau mai puţin, precum şi orice rău exemple care pot fi citate-am spus poate fi atribuită oamenilor muncii de sistem, şi nu a sistemului în sine. Acelaşi lucru este valabil de monarhii, republici democraţii şi prin istorie. Aşa cum am oferi dovezi că socialismul a lucrat bine pentru catolici şi de alte religii organizate pentru multe generaţii acum. Cel puţin la fel de bine ca orice sistem are pentru alte grupări.

Dincolo de faptul că, acolo sunt trasaturile discutabilă a socialismului ţesute în ţesătură fondator al naţiunii noastre. Declaraţia de Independenţă nostru defineşte guvern ca fiind responsabile pentru (şi limitat la), de securitate şi fericirea (a se citi ca bunăstarea), a cetăţenilor care o deserveşte. O entitate colectivă de la populaţie a creat să se ocupe de cel care a privat sau individual nu pot fi realizate pentru binele comun şi drepturile tuturor. Practic, este ", toată lumea, prin intermediul guvernului, asigurându-vă că toată lumea are de la cel mai puţin acest lucru", cu "acest" fiind drepturile suntem de acord asupra ca sacru la toate. Aceasta este o utilizare moderată a ideologiei adevărat socialiste si a fost o cerere de strălucit de oameni care purtau chiloţi şi peruci, în opinia mea.

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.

În vizualizarea guvernul ca o entitate a publicului (ca mine), am vedea, de asemenea, aceste programe ca "are grijă de vecinii noştri"-cum spui se cuvine sa. Dimpotrivă, atunci când conservatorii de atac sau de a propune reduceri la "dreptul" de programe (cu ton negativ ataşat) în timp ce carnea de porc şi a altor cheltuieli esenţiale pierdut urcă mai mari şi mai mare de sub control, să văd acest lucru ca guvernul încearcă să se sustragă de jumătate din Este responsabilitatea în timp ce câteva lacomi îngrăşa buzunarele lor.

Există un decalaj în perspectivele noastre şi credinţele pe probleme de multe. Asta-i bine şi atât de bună, aceasta ţine-mă gândesc şi sper face acelasi lucru pentru tine.

Poate că putem ajunge la un acord de fericit pe un singur lucru aici, deşi, în cazul în care deşeurile din carne de porc au fost eliminate, atât am putut avea tot ce ne-am dorit şi a crezut a fost dreptul prevăzut de către guvern, în plus faţă de alte reduceri fiscale pentru toate rata de ...

Răspundeţi la acest comentariu specifice de

De Shawn Bannon | Răspundeţi la articol

Scott,

Ne pare rau-am interpreta greşit tine pe pay-as-you-go ". Am citit că porţiunea de post iniţial ca o expresie a dezamăgirea că efortul DEM "pe acest front au eşuat. O simplă chestiune de neînţelegerile pe care Ma bucur ca ne-am lamurit.

Sper ca nu va fi jignit atunci când spun că cred că poziţia dumneavoastră pe NASA este pur şi simplu pe termen scurt. Am înţeles punctul dumneavoastră despre priorităţile, dar esti, sugerând că nu vom ajusta bugetele umflat de anumite programe, până când le-am tăiat din bugetul NASA, deoarece credeţi că are nevoie de acele programe scopul de a răspunde sunt mai importante decât progrese tehnologice şi înţelegerea care rezultă din eforturile de NASA. Adevărul este că este posibil - şi un număr tot mai mare de studii (cel puţin studiile nu sponsorizate de sindicatele profesorilor) sugerează - că banii nu este o problema cu sistemul de educaţie nostru şi că dumpingul mai mulţi bani în sistemul de învăţământ publice fără reformă dramatice de la stat şi local, este la fel de eficace ca arderea că banii. Deci, în cazul în care este dolarul federale de impozitare a petrecut mai bine? Problema nu este dacă educaţie sau starea de sănătate a vârstnicilor este mai important decât de cercetare NASA. Problema este modul în care în mod eficient de bani dedicate pentru fiecare este folosit pentru a servi de fapt, aceste cauze. Şi asta este locul unde cred că tu şi multe altele lipsesc barca.

Pe scurt, în ceea ce priveşte "bunăstării corporative" şi Wal-Mart, atunci când vă scriu că Wal-Mart, pentru că din profiturile sale uriaşe, poate ca nu este "merită", deoarece unele din alte cauze, eşti - de fapt - care sugerează că sprijinul guvernamental fi negat acest impozit-plătitoare organizaţie, deoarece de succesul acestuia. Mi-ar susţine contrariul, că acest proiect a fost deosebit de important pentru oamenii din Arkansas în mod special, deoarece Wal-Mart a fost atât de succes. Când Wal-Mart face bine, de locuri de muncă sunt create, de dolari fiscale sunt generate, precum şi mai mulţi bani este funneled în comunitatea prin corporative şi angajat contribuţii caritabile. Tu îl numesc "bunăstării corporative", pentru că tu a vedea Wal-Mart ca beneficiarul principal. Eu spun că este un proiect de infrastructură îmbunătăţire a demonstra că sprijină economiei, precum şi comunitatea locală. Nu cred ca esti un liberal nebun ataca Wal-Mart, dar eu cred că definiţia dumneavoastră de "welfare corporatist", nu se alinieze mai bine decat iti dai seama cu punctele de vedere ale liberalilor socialiste şi că ar putea fi prea rapid la apelul Guvernului sprijinire a întreprinderilor ca Wal-Mart "welfare corporatist", atunci când este nimic, dar.

Acum, vorbind de liberali socialiste, nu am pune semnul egalităţii între liberali cu socialiştii. Am vorbit despre un anumit grup de liberali, care sunt, de asemenea, socialiştii. 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. Dovada? 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.

Răspundeţi la acest comentariu specifice de

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.

Răspundeţi la acest comentariu specifice de

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.

Răspundeţi la acest comentariu specifice de

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.

Nicăieri în care există de securitate sau de siguranţă menţionate. 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.

Răspundeţi la acest comentariu specifice de

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.

Răspundeţi la acest comentariu specifice de