Politické Blogy, News & Views

Shawn Bannon | reakcie na článok

Scott,

Ja som s vami na bravčové tému, ale musím nesúhlasiť s vami na pár ďalších veciach. Po prvé, pokiaľ ide o deficit, nemôžete tvrdiť, že Američania sú cítiť pod tlakom, keď si uvedomíte, že kľúčové meranie ekonomického zdravia sú vynikajúce. Stačí sa pozrieť na trhu s bývaním, ktorý bol na koni vlna zvyšovanie cien, pretože spotrebitelia majú peniaze zaplatiť viac. Analytici predpovedajú, že cenová bublina praskla by aj dlhšie ako rok, ale to ešte nie je. A spoločenstvo vlastníkov jednotiek tvorí väčšie percento našej populácie dnes, ako kedykoľvek inokedy od kurzu, ktorý bol prvýkrát merať. Ceny zemného plynu je dvojnásobok toho, čo bolo len pred pár rokmi, ale tie sú vysoké preto, že trhový dopyt je udržiavanie týchto cien. Ľudia nie sú dramaticky mení svoje vodičské návyky. Sú to len zaplatia viac za plyn.

A zdravie ekonomiky je kvůli - z veľkej časti - na zníženie daňovej sadzby administratívou Bush a, pokiaľ sa týka spoločnosti, na štátnej úrovni. Prezident Bush sa daňové škrty, nadobudol platnosť v roku 2001, a predvídateľne, daňové príjmy vzrástli - a to aj napriek recesii v rokoch 2002-2003. To je rovnako ako tomu bolo na začiatku 1960, keď prezident Kennedy skrátiť daňovej sadzby, a v roku 1980, keď prezident Reagan urobil to isté. Daňové sadzby ísť nadol. Spotrebiteľské výdavky a podnikateľské investície idú hore. Spoločnosti rozširovať, pracovné miesta a zvýšenie daňových príjmov. To je dôvod, prečo Pay as you go daňová politika nefunguje. To popiera účinky rastu investícií v ekonomike. Nízkych daňových sadzieb - na individuálnej a podnikovej úrovni - výsledok v hojnější hospodárskeho rastu a zvýšenie daňových príjmov. História nesie, že von. Naopak, zvýšenie daňových sadzieb státie spotrebiteľské výdavky a obmedzujú schopnosť reinvestovať zisky korporácií, spôsoby, ktoré rastú podniky a vytvárať pracovné miesta.

Je to nespravodlivé diskutovať "kusy" v rozpočtu na vzdelávanie a niektorých nárokov na sociálne výhody, pretože tie "kusy", len sa v porovnaní roku 2005 a 2004. Ale vzdelanie a zdravotnú rozpočty bobtnají, čo prezident Bush nastúpil do úradu v roku 2001 ako výsledok No Child Left Behind právnych predpisov a nových liekov na predpis pre seniorov. Senátor Specter je ďaleko základne na túto tému.

NASA nemôže zabiť. Príliš veľa amerických inovácií v posledných 50 rokoch je výsledkom výskumu NASA. Príliš veľa výrobkov v našich domovoch by nikdy nebola vytvorená, keby nebolo pôvodnej žiadosti o zásadných vedeckých poznatkov v programoch NASA. Mohli by sme sa lepšie sústrediť rozsah NASA ako spôsob, ako mať pod kontrolou náklady? Áno, a my by sme mohli získať nejakú prax. Ale ani generálna oprava alebo pohreb na programe bude mať za následok dlhodobého hľadiska-výhody pre naše hospodárstvo, ktoré prevažujú nad nákladmi vzdávať výhod sme zožali a bude aj naďalej ťažiť z existencie NASA.

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

Lastly, regarding farm subsidies, your point is well made, and better controls are required. But the answer isn'ta subsidy program that rewards only those poor farmers who struggle to maintain their small operations. Without those subsidies, large farms that are actually producing food will become unsustainable and/or the price of food will rise dramatically, seriously affecting the poor. So, the answer is a tweak to the subsidy program that simply looks to cut out benefits to those people who own “farms” that don't yield anything more than the subsidies themselves.

Odpovedať na tento osobitný komentár

By Scott Bannon | Reply to article

Shawn, thank you for the comments. To be clear, I was summarizing what several Republicans (mostly in contested re-election races) have stated in recent days prior to my writing regarding Americans 'feeling the pinch'. We'll have to agree to disagree on this, but for many lower and middle class Americans the belt is already as tight as it can get, so I'll stand in line with the Republicans' statements.

As for Bush's tax rate cuts and the battle to continue them, I don't believe I came down personally on either side of the issue in my posting. My comments on this were simply intended to highlight current internal party splits occurring over economic issues.

I disagree that it's unfair to discuss “cuts” in the budgets of programs just because those “cuts” only appear in a comparison of 2005 and 2004 budgets. Whether a certain level of spending for any program has been sustained for the past ten years or only one, a reduction to that spending is by definition a “cut” and by all means fair to discuss.

I get your point on NASA and agree somewhat. As I mentioned I am a huge fan of NASA, the Discovery channel and cutting-edge sciences. Still, I believe that private sector advances and innovations have the ability to trump government funded research in most areas. This is the biggest (of many) favorable argument for a capitalistic society in my opinion.

Aj keď by som radšej NASA nezomrel úplne, to je pravda, že veľké sumy peňazí (miliardy a miliardy dolárov ročne) sa vynakladajú na let rakiet na kométy a 4-krúžiacich okolo robota na povrch Marsu. Výskumu za týchto programov je platná a čestný, ale nie ako prioritu ako niektoré iné programy, kedy je potrebné výdavky znížiť.

Je to ako riadenie rozpočtu domácností na väčšom meradle. Ak si nemôžete dovoliť vykonať upgrade na najnovšiu nový prístroj-zbalil, papier-tenký, projekcie na systéme domáceho kina v tomto roku, pretože malý Timmy potrebné rovnátka, budete trpieť skrze sledovanie seriálu Simpsonovci na tejto zastarané 60 palcov big-screen pre iného rok a upgrade na neskôr.

Možno som sa pozerať na firemné starostlivosti z hľadiska zlý, ale možno nie. Ak je vlastníkom (y) Widget Smith rozhodne chcú plne dolár na widget predal ziskovú maržu, teda s tým, že oni budú platiť o 47% svojho príjmu na daniach znamená, že môžu svoje ceny widgety mať o niečo viac ako dolár polovica zisku. Vláda dostane to je 47%, a Smitha Widget vrecká plné dolárov za predané widget chceli.

Je zrejmé, že to nie je dosť, že zjednodušujúce, ale potom opäť do istej miery to naozaj je.

, Ktorý povedal, som sa zameral len na miestnej samosprávy, ktorá sa zaoberá ponúkajú daňové stimuly a úľavy spoločnostiam, aby sa rast pracovných miest pre svoje regióny. Problém je na federálnej úrovni, rovnako ako bravčové, a zamaskované v mnohých prípadoch. Dokonalým príkladom je nedávny Highways návrh zákona, ktorý má neskutočné množstvo bravčového mäsa-založené spoločnosti blahobytu, ako odškodné 37 miliónov dolárov do rozšírenia jednej ceste v Arkansase, ktorá je hlavný prístupový bod do centrály spoločnosti Wal-Mart Stores Inc

Nie som si istý, o presnom 2005 zisku pre Wal-Mart, ale v roku 2004 je uvedená na 10,3 miliárd amerických dolárov dolárov. A aj keď chápem, že je potreba mať veľké podniky so sídlom v obci a pracovať s nimi, aby im v spoločnosti, správach som videl na tomto navrhnúť dopravné problémy nie sú tak zlé, keď v porovnaní s podobnými cez-cestovné. Napriek tomu boli daňoví poplatníci nútení vysoliť 37 miliónov dolárov dolárov tak, že Wal-Mart zamestnancov by mohlo mať rýchlejší prístup k ich pracovisku. To je forma spoločnosti blahobytu, že existuje, ale je často prehliadaná.

O poľnohospodárske dotácie, to je tvrdý oriešok. Viem, že to obmedzuje len na určité percento by mohlo mať negatívne dôsledky na celý poľnohospodársky priemysel a zaťaženie spotrebiteľov nakoniec. Viem tiež, že veľa peňazí sa vynakladá každý rok platiť vlastníci pozemkov nesmie používať ich krajiny. Rýchle vyhľadávanie na Google ukáže, že často tieto vlastníkmi pozemkov sú športové či iné zábavy hviezd alebo bohatí majitelia podnikov. Nie ľudí, ktorí by ich poľnohospodárskej pôdy rovnako, ale napriek tomu vláda zaplatí im toto zabezpečiť. Je to daň loop-hole zneužíva, je to plytvanie peniazmi a celý program potrebuje mať úprimný a transparentné hodnotenie, aby zabezpečili prostriedky sa využívajú v najlepším spôsobom pomoci najvhodnejších kandidátov.

Odpovedať na tento osobitný komentár

Shawn Bannon | reakcie na článok

Scott,

Som vždy rád, že vstúpiť do debaty s tebou.

Máš pravdu, že mnohí ľudia v GOP sú rozdelené na výdavky a zníženie daní. Niektorí ľudia v mojej strany stratili zo zreteľa fiškálna zdržanlivosť voličmi očakávať od republikánskych zákonodarcov. Tam boli niektoré poľahčujúce okolnosti, ktoré prispeli k súčasnej situácii, ale na konci dňa, republikánsky zákonodarcovia majú robiť lepšie kontrolovať sami, pokiaľ ide o výdavky.

Ako som povedal, nie, vy ste zostúpili na jednej alebo druhej strane, pokiaľ ide Bush daňové škrty. A nebol som kritizoval svojho rokovania z týchto daňových škrtov. Skôr som bol podrobne niektoré z výhod týchto daňových škrtov, prečo pay-as-you-go rozpočtovú politiku, ktorú schválil, nebudú poskytnuté pre rozšírenie našej ekonomiky tým spôsobom, že zachovanie daňové škrty bude.

Nie je nič zlého na niektoré deficitné výdavky - a to aj veľa deficitných výdavkov - v prípade, že ekonomika rastie natoľko robustne zaplatiť nadol v dôsledku nedostatkov v rozumnom čase. Pomer deficitu k HDP je oveľa dôležitejšie, ako o skutočnom schodku úrovni. Takže môžete zvýšiť pôžičky zaplatiť dôležitých vecí, ako je vojna proti terorizmu, obmedzené rozšírenie Medicare, preskupenie našej národnej vzdelávacej politiky, zlepšenie infraštruktúry, atď Ale zákonodarcovia potrebujú vedieť, kde je hranica medzi tým, čo je využitie našich daní doláre sú opatrné a potrebné a tie, ktoré iba vytvoriť politický kapitál. Pay-as-you-go rozpočtová politika nefunguje (to je mimoriadne zlé v čase krízy), nie je potrebné a - v skutočnosti - brzdia rastový potenciál ekonomiky. Ale to neznamená, že republikáni by pokojne plynúť až na kartu, a to buď.

Teraz, na spravodlivé riešenie niektorých bodov ste sa vo svojej reakcii na moje pripomienky:

To je nespravodlivé prediskutovať krátenie na vzdelanie a zdravotnú rozpočty tak, ako ste preto, že ste zanedbali dať ich do kontextu. Sú uvedené v pôvodnej kus ako orientačné administratívne zanedbávanie - pozrite sa na kusy týchto dôležitých projektov, zatiaľ čo iné, menej dôležité alebo bravčové mäso-projekty sú plne financované. To je nespravodlivé o vašej diskusie o zníženie. Prostriedky venované na vzdelávanie a zdravotnú značne zvýšili po tom, čo prezident Bush nastúpil do úradu, a to predovšetkým v reakcii na potrebu vytvoriť nové právne predpisy a zvyšovanie dávok. Kým školské systémy prispôsobiť novým normám a Medicare infraštruktúra bola vytvorená s cieľom zohľadniť tieto zmeny, viac peňazí, bolo nevyhnutné. Ale, že rovnaká úroveň výdavkov nie je potrebné teraz, že programy sú plne funkčné, takže je úplne namieste, aby zníženie týchto rozpočtov.

Premýšľajte o malú firmu - železářství, možná. Predajňa je mierne úspešný, a režijné náklady všeobecne bežať asi 1 milión dolárov ročne. (To je len príklad, nemám predstavu, aké sú skutočné režijné náklady na prevádzku železiarstva bude.) Takže, po 10 rokoch v podnikaní, majiteľ rozhodne pre otvorenie druhého obchodu v celé mesto. V tomto roku, jeho prevádzkové náklady idú na raketovo stúpať. Má k výstavbe alebo rekonštrukcii budov, nákup zásob, najať zamestnancov, atď Bolo by ho stálo 5 miliónov amerických dolárov, aby si jeho obchod a prevádzku, a potom bude mať vyššie náklady spojené s chodom druhého skladu na niekoľko rokov až sa stane nielen súčasťou komunity a miestneho hospodárstva ako jeho prvý obchod. V čase, keď sa náklady spustiť druhý obchode by mala byť približne rovnaká ako náklady na spustenie prvej. Takže, po piatich rokoch línii, jeho režijné náklady sú asi 2,5 milióna dolárov pre kombinovaný prevádzku. Teraz má svoje réžii rozpočtu znížil, medziročne od prvého otvorenia druhého obchodu, ale to neznamená, že je zanedbaná podnikania, skladovania nižšia-kvalitný tovar alebo podvádzanie svojich zákazníkov.

To isté platí aj pre vládne výdavky. Príliš často sa domnievame, že zníženie finančných prostriedkov určených na konkrétny program, znamená automatický zhoršenie kvality tohto programu. A ľudia ako senátor bojovať Specter pre ďalšie finančné prostriedky na rovnakej úrovni alebo viac finančných prostriedkov - odlievanie doláre daňových poplatníkov, kde nie sú vynakladané efektívne - čo znamená, že musíme znížiť inde, akceptovať vyššie schodok rozpočtu alebo zvyšovať dane. Môžeme diskusie finančné prostriedky na vzdelávanie inokedy, ale nalial viac peňazí do tried nie je - dlhodobá - odpoveď na problém vzdelávania v Amerike.

Pokiaľ ide o NASA, možno by sme si jednoducho musel súhlasiť, nesúhlasiť, pretože si myslím, že ste 100 percent - OK, možno len 95 percent - zle. Ako som napísal včera večer, áno, súhlasím s tým, že niektoré nové stanovenie priorít projektov a výdavkov môže byť potrebné, ale já bych skutočne tvrdiť, že NASA správcovia urobili chvályhodné práce v tomto smere v posledných rokoch. Majú upraviť svoje plány na prieskum kozmu výrazne z hľadiska rozpočtu a bezpečnosti.

NASA výskum je dôležitý, ale podnecuje inovácie v súkromnom sektore, ktoré by sa nestalo, pretože inak by boli príliš vysoké náklady na obchodné vedúcich predstaviteľov, aby investori. Toto je podobné tvrdenie mnohým ľuďom, aby v prospech federálnej financovania pre-kmeňových buniek. Zrušenie výhody pre naše obranné programy, výhody plynúce z výskumu NASA do nášho každodenného života - vrátane, ale mnohé omnoho dôležitejšie ako luxusný tovar, ako je big-screen TVs - príliš veľa obetovať.

Stačí sa opýtať, kto niekedy prežil-život ohrozujúce ochorenie, pretože zlepšenie lekárske znalosti založené na vedeckých poznatkoch NASA. Opýtajte sa po amputácii, ktorý môže bežať dnes kvôli umelú nohu navrhnutým pomocou kovov, hutných a technických koncepcií bol vyvinutý pre použitie NASA. Spýtajte sa niekoho, ktorého utiekol príves domov v Oklahome tesne pred tornáda udrela, ako je dôležité, aby sa dostali 14-minútové varovania zlepšeného počasia sledovacie systémy a obohatil pochopenie klímy založené na výskume NASA. Pred niekoľkých generácií, nemohlo by to mohla vedieť o tornádo, že kým to počuli kopírovanie cez domovov ich susedia '. Opýtajte sa mladá žena, ktorej život bol zachránený, keď dokázala vytočiť polície so svojim mobilným telefónom z kufra svojho auta únosca o význame tohto telefónu a globálne navigačné technológiu Polícia použila ju nájsť. To je NASA. Nejde o to super-duper-veľké televízne obrazovky, ako je pekné, ako sú. Chcel by som odporučiť, aby si vyskúšať život na Zemi časť z webových stránok NASA o trochu informácií o mnohých dôležitých ohľadoch NASA je urobiť svet lepším miestom. Nájdete ju na http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/features/index.html.

Samozrejme to neznamená, že by sme mali poskytnúť NASA neobmedzený rozpočet na výskum alebo že by nemali byť zavedené vhodné kontroly na preskúmanie ich výdavkov, ale nikdy nebudem súhlasiť, že výdavky NASA sa podobá politicky motivované bravčové projekty, ktoré sú skutočné bičom na našom rozpočte.

Prepínanie predmety, obávam sa, že tiež nesúhlasí s vašou "spoločnosti blahobytu" argument. Váš widget spoločnosť môže nielen zvýšiť ceny o vytvorení svojej požadovanej rozpätí niekoľkých dôvodov, z ktorých všetky sú svedectvom krásy kapitalizmu. Jednoducho povedané, môžu účtovať len to, čo je trh schopný uniesť. V prípade, že zvýšenie cien a spotrebitelia naďalej kupovať ich výrobky, potom sa nabíjanie príliš málo začať. Ak sa zvýšia ceny a spotrebiteľov, aby si prestali kupovať ich widgety, bude firma znižovať svoje ceny, alebo vycítil príležitosť, podnikaví konkurent krok a predávať výrobok za porovnateľný 75-cent zisku. Na konci dňa, fyzika súťaže spojené s kapitalizmom diktovať, že tovar bude predávať len za cenu trh unesie, čo je dôvod, prečo kapitalizmus je pre spotrebiteľov.

Čo sa týka napríklad Wal-Mart, ktorá nie je "spoločnosti blahobytu", a to nemusí byť ani bravčové. Wal-Mart rozrástla z malé organizácie do jednej z najväčších svetových. To má v mnohých ohľadoch, prerástol svojho domova, aby som tak povedal. Teraz, mohlo by to pohnúť. To je zrejme to, čo vy alebo ja by som to, keby sme prerástla naše domovy. Ale politici, ktorí zastupujú občanov Arkansas pochopiť nesmiernu hodnotu svojich voličov a ekonomika ich vlastný štát v súlade Wal-Mart, presne tam, kde to je. V prípade rozšírenia cestnej premávky a zlepší aj prospieva ekonomike prostredníctvom tvorby umiestnenie vhodnejšie miesto pre Wal-Mart, aby pokračovala vo svojej činnosti, je úplne vhodná pre financovanie projektov, ktoré majú byť zahrnuté do návrhu zákona diaľnici položiek.

Wal-Mart zisk nemajú nič spoločného s touto argumentáciou. Oni nie sú o nič viac platiť priamo zodpovedný za údržbu ciest okolo svojho sídla, ako sme si ako jednotlivé daňových poplatníkov-zodpovedajú platiť za údržbu ulíc, na ktorých žijeme. Áno, ich zisky boli obrovské. Ale to bola ich daňové zaťaženie. Pomohla vám táto výdavky bravčové - zákonodarca hádzanie kosť spoločnosti doma? Možno. To závisí na tom, či bol projekt skutočne nevyhnutné pre zlepšenie plynulosti cestnej premávky a udržať Wal-Mart veliteľstvo tam. Ani vy, ani ja si vzdelanie alebo in-hlboké vedomosti o informácie týkajúce sa tejto lokality určiť, či cesty projektu bolo potrebné. Ale aj keby to nebola - aj keby to bolo bravčové - to ešte nebolo "spoločnosti blahobytu".

Ako som napísal včera večer, "spoločnosti blahobytu", je nesprávny. Skrátka a dobre, že v skutočnosti neexistuje, s výnimkou v mysliach liberáli, ktorí nechcú veriť, že je niekedy dobrý dôvod na použitie doláre daňových poplatníkov, a to spôsobom, ktorý by prospech veľkých korporácií. Dalo by sa urobiť tvrdenie, že niektoré výpomoci vlád, ako je podpora vláda dala leteckým spoločnostiam po 11. septembri boli "spoločnosti blahobytu." Ale tie sú veľmi zriedkavých príležitostiach, a nie to, čo väčšina ľudí myslí, keď používajú termín.

Zvyčajne sa slová "spoločnosti blahobytu" používaný ľuďmi, ktorí popierajú nadradenosti kapitalizmu iné ekonomické systémy. Sú to ľudia, ktorí veria, že všetko by malo byť rovnaké, a že nikto by nikdy nemal, čo považujú za "príliš veľa", zatiaľ čo ostatné idú bez. Sú to ľudia, ktorí veria v nároky namiesto self-závislosť, sa domnievajú, že úloha vlády je zabezpečiť živobytie miesto príležitosť. Myslí si, že Wal-Mart a ďalšie úspešné firmy sú zo svojej podstaty zlé. A tak som vymyslel pojem "corporate blahobytu", pretože neverí, že úspešné organizácie by mali byť zaistený, aby akýmkoľvek spôsobom, tvaru alebo forme našej vlády. To je ich platforma napriek skutočnosti, že organizácia, ako je Wal-Mart vytváranie pracovných miest, palivá, hospodársky rast a prispieť ku komunitám, v ktorých si nachádza. Títo liberáli sú naozaj brať-od - bohatý-a-dať-na-na-nepodarené socialistov, ktorí by radšej zbúrať tých, ktorí sú úspešnejší, ako povedať tí, ktorí nie sú lepšie využívať ich možnosti.

A teraz, nemyslím, že mi kruté alebo bezcitné. Máme ako národ by mal byť súcitných. Mali by sme sa postarať o tých, ktorí sú skutočne znevýhodnení. Ale my sme mali urobiť viac ako susedia a menej ako daňoví poplatníci. Mali by sme to urobiť prostredníctvom darov robíme pre naše kostoly alebo Fundraising naše spolupracovníkmi 'walkathons. Mali by sme dať viac našej doby ako dobrovoľníci. Mali by sme podporovať našej vlády na financovanie práce-zručností pre tých, ktorí chcú lepší život pre seba a svojich blízkych. By sme sa mali stať za štátnu pomoc, ktorá ponúka ľuďom ruku, nie ruku. Ale mali by sme povstali proti akejkoľvek snahe potrestať tých, ktorí boli prosperujúce, pretože "to nie je fér", že tam sú iní, ktorí si uvedomil svoj potenciál. A to je to, čo liberáli / socialisti - to sú ľudia, ktorí argumentujú proti akejkoľvek využívanie daňových dolárov, ktoré by prospelo spoločnosti (bez ohľadu na výsledný prínos pre spoločnosť a hospodárstvo) - cieľom je urobiť. Neverím, že ste jeden z nich, tak by som vás povzbudiť k prehodnoteniu tohto problému a použitie termínu "spoločnosti blahobytu".

Odpovedať na tento osobitný komentár

Od Scott Bannon | reakcie na článok

Shawn, rád by som vás vyprovokovať dovnútra sa mi páči naše občianske späť a forths.

I neschválili pay-as-you-go rozpočtovej politiky. Aj to ukazuje ako jeden najvýznamnejší-a-move zlyhal nedávno uskutočnenej demokratov riešiť mimo kontroly výdavkov vo Washingtone. Ospravedlňujem sa, ak to nie je zreteľnejšie v mojom článku.

Nechceme nezhodnú na nebezpečenstvo pay-as-you-go pravidlá sú obmedzujúce a hlboko vplyv na národ. Pravdepodobne sa sporia o núdzové riešenie, keď radikálne opatrenia by bolo vhodné vštepiť, ale nechám to ako filozofický rozdiel o tom, kde k tomu rozpočtovú položku smrti.

Na NASA, ako som už pripustila, chápem, kam mierite, a nie celkom nesúhlasí. Avšak, vyvažovanie štátneho rozpočtu, je tvrdá práca. Tam je konečné množstvo ísť okolo a tvrdá rozhodnutie musí byť vykonaná. Zrátané podčiarknuté priority. Áno, NASA urobil (a tým aj naďalej), obrovské príspevky k obohateniu života ľudí.

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

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

We view corporate welfare from differing perspectives, we should probably leave this one at that. Neither in this article nor ever in conversation have I stated an all-out opposition to tax dollars benefiting business. There are significant and numerous areas where government assistance to business is vital, for both the individual business and the community. Right after September 11th, 2001, when the airline industry had taken a huge blow from the attacks I didn't oppose the initial bail-out in any way, though I thought some industry-model restructuring stipulations would have been wise to attach. I did oppose subsequent bail-out requests because I feel (from my limited outsider knowledge and perspective) that the industry as a whole has huge operational problems (most of which existed pre 9/11) and has yet to address them in an efficient manner. The initial assistance was a deserved hand-up, subsequent requests were for the proverbial hand-outs in my opinion.

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

I'll stand behind my Wal-Mart example. Was it really corporate welfare? That depends upon how you define welfare I suppose. I define it as government assistance to be used for sustaining and improving one's self (or corporation). Wal-Mart specifically benefited (improved) from this project, so it falls within that definition from my perspective. It's likely that if the road were in a busy commercial area and the widening had benefited a number of businesses instead of just one I would feel differently, that doesn't seem the case from what I found.

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

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

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

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

Okrem toho tam sú diskutabilné črty socializmu do zakladajúci tkanej štruktúry nášho národa. Naše vyhlásenie nezávislosti definuje vlády, ktorých úlohou je (a iné) bezpečnosť a šťastie (čítaj ako blahobyt) občanov, ktoré slúžia. Kolektívne entita z populácie vytvoril zvládnuť to, čo súkromne, alebo jednotlivo, nemožno dosiahnuť pre spoločné blaho a práva všetkých. V podstate je to "každý, a to prostredníctvom vlády, uistite sa, že každý má pri-aspoň to", s 'to' sú práva, ako sme sa dohodli na posvätné pre všetkých. To je pravda, stredne použitie socialistickej ideológie a bol brilantný žiadosť muži, ktorí nosia nohavičky a parochne podľa môjho názoru.

To neznamená, navrhovať Radšej by som úplne alebo dokonca nevyhnutne viac socialistická tendencie v Amerike, znamená to, že verím, že tam bolo stopové prvky socializmu, vyplýva z našich zakladateľov s tým, že by mohli pomôcť dosiahnuť tvárnenie dokonalejšie spojenie. Druh 'taky nic moc, je to zlé, ale s mierou, môže byť zdravý a prospešný' prístup.

Často počúvam konzervatívci pridať negatívne konotácie k 'oprávnenia' programy a uviesť ho vo svojej odpovedi tiež. Samotný fakt, že terminológia bola posunutá od sociálne programy 'oprávnenia' naznačuje, že zmena vo vnímaní verejnosti bolo želanie tých, ktorí by proti nim bola daň-based a vláda spustiť. Ale, ako liberálne vidím tieto programy (ak je štruktúrovaná a podarilo rozumne), ako vláda robí polovica je pridelená služba-zabezpečenie blahobytu občanov, ktoré slúžia.

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…

Odpovedať na tento osobitný komentár

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.

Stručne povedané, pokiaľ ide o "spoločnosti blahobytu", a Wal-Mart, keď píšete, že Wal-Mart, pretože jeho obrovské zisky, možno nie, ako si "zaslúžia" aj niektoré ďalšie príčiny, ste - v zmysle - čo naznačuje, že štátna pomoc bude odmietnutý -platiť túto daň organizácie, pretože jeho úspechu. Já bych tvrdiť opak, že tento projekt bolo dôležité najmä pre obyvateľov Arkansase najmä preto, že Wal-Mart je tak úspešný. Wal-Mart, keď robí dobre, sú novo vytvorených pracovných miest, sú generované doláre daňových poplatníkov, a viac peňazí sa odrazili v spoločnosti prostredníctvom firemných a zamestnaneckých charitatívne príspevky. Vravíte, že "spoločnosti blahobytu", pretože vidíte, Wal-Mart ako primárny príjemcu. Ja hovorím, že to zlepšenie infraštruktúry projektu, ktorý preukázateľne podporuje ekonomiku, rovnako ako miestne komunity. Nechcem think you're crazy liberálne útočiace Wal-Mart, ale myslím si, že vaša definícia pojmu "corporate blahobytu" prispôsobiť sa lepšie, než si uvedomíte, s názormi socialistickej a liberáli, ktoré môže byť príliš rýchla na výzvu vlády Podpora podnikania, ako je Wal-Mart "corporate blahobytu", keď je niečo, ale.

Teraz, keď už hovoríme o socialistických liberálov, I didn'ti znamienko rovnosti medzi liberáli so socialistami. Hovoril som o špecifické skupiny liberálov, ktorí sú aj socialisti. Ja si myslím, že väčšina liberáli socialistickej sklony, ale to neznamená, že všetci liberáli, socialisti.

Pokiaľ ide o socializmus, to je ekonomický systém otroctva a útlaku, ktorý potlačí inovácie, odrádza mimoriadne úsilie, a nemá žiadny spôsob odmeňovania za úspech. Jedná sa o zariadenie bez zubov, neustále spinning, bez kedy postupujúcej stroj. To nemá žiadny mechanizmus, ktorým sa prispôsobiť trhovým vplyvom, je ľahko poškodený a odmieta slobodu. Pretože to je tak oveľa nižšia ako kapitalizmus, je odsúdená na neúspech.

Socializmus nefunguje dobre organizovaného náboženstva. Ono práce do istej miery medzi duchovenstvom, ale nie medzi laikov. Stále, história nám ukazuje, že socializmus nie je vždy pracoval aj medzi duchovenstvom, histórii katolíckej cirkvi, je presýtený príbehy korupcie a zneužívania moci. Inkvizície, niekto? Neznamená, že sa katolícka cirkev ako inštitúcia, zlo - vôbec nie. Ale to predsa dokázať, že socializmus je len mierne udržateľná a to aj medzi ľud obmedzené zloženie kňazov, u ktorých bol nad ich svetské túžby a usiluje o zjednotenie jeden súbor vír.

Myslím si, že sa mýlite spájať vlákna spoločenstva a Európskej únie súčasťou nášho vyhlásenia nezávislosti sa socializmom. 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.

Odpovedať na tento osobitný komentár

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.

Odpovedať na tento osobitný komentár

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.

Odpovedať na tento osobitný komentár

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.

Odpovedať na tento osobitný komentár

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.

Odpovedať na tento osobitný komentár