Politické Blogy, News & Views

Tým, Shawn Bannon | Odpovedať na článok

Scott,

Ja som s vami na bravčové otázku, ale musím nesúhlasiť s vami na pár ďalších veciach. Po prvé, pokiaľ ide o deficit, nemôžete tvrdiť, že Američania pociťujú pinch, keď si uvedomíte, že kľúčové meranie ekonomického zdravia sú vynikajúce. Stačí sa pozrieť na trhu s bývaním, ktorý bol na koni vlna zvyšovania cien, pretože spotrebitelia majú peniaze zaplatiť viac. Analytici predpovedajú, že bola cenová bublina praskla by za viac ako rok, ale to ešte nie je. A majitelia domov tvoria väčšie percento našej populácie dnes, než kedykoľvek od tejto sadzby bol prvýkrát zmeraný. Ceny plynu sú dvakrát to, čo oni boli len pred pár rokmi, ale je to, že vysoké, pretože trhový dopyt je udržanie týchto cien. Ľudia nie sú dramaticky mení svoje vodičské návyky. Sú to len platiť viac za plyn.

A zdravie ekonomiky je splatná - z veľkej časti - na zníženie daňovej sadzby, ktoré administratíva Bush, a pokiaľ ide o spoločnosti sa obávajú, na štátnej úrovni. Prezident Bush je daňové škrty, nadobudla platnosť v roku 2001, a predvídateľne, príjmy z daní šla hore - a to aj napriek recesii 2002-2003. To je rovnako ako tomu bolo na začiatku 1960, keď prezident Kennedy zrazil daňových sadzieb, a v roku 1980, keď prezident Reagan urobil to isté. Daňové sadzby idú dolu. Spotrebiteľské výdavky a podnikateľské investície hore. Spoločnosti rozširovať, pracovných miest sa vytvára a zvyšuje príjmy z daní. To je dôvod, prečo pay as you go daňová politika nefunguje. To popiera vplyv rastu investícií v ekonomike. Nízke daňové sadzby - na individuálnej a firemnej úrovni - vyústiť v výdatnejším hospodársky rast a vyššie príjmy z daní. História medvede, že von. Naopak zvýšenie státie daňových sadzieb spotrebiteľské výdavky a obmedzujú schopnosť korporácií na reinvestovanie zisku spôsoby, ktoré rastú podnikov a vytváranie pracovných miest.

Je to nespravodlivé, aby rokovala "rezy" vo rozpočtoch na vzdelávanie a niektorých nárok programy, pretože tie "škrty", len sa objaví v porovnaní roku 2005 a 2004 rozpočtov. Ale vzdelanie a Medicare rozpočty bobtnajú potom, čo prezident Bush nastúpil do úradu v roku 2001 v dôsledku No Child Left Za právnych predpisov a nových liekov na predpis prínosom pre seniorov. Senátor Specter je ďaleko založiť na túto tému.

Nemožno zabiť NASA. Príliš veľa amerických inovácií v posledných 50 rokoch je výsledok výskumu NASA. Príliš veľa produktov v našich domovoch by nebola nikdy vytvorená keby nebolo prvotných žiadostí o zásadných vedeckých poznatkov v rámci programov NASA. Mohli by sme sa lepšie sústrediť rozsah NASA ako spôsob, ako mať pod kontrolou náklady? Áno, a my by sme mohli získať nejaké krajine. Ale ani generálna oprava alebo pohreb pre program bude mať za následok dlhodobý prínos pre naše hospodárstvo, aby to kompenzovalo jeho cenu vzdávať výhod sme zbierali a bude naďalej profitovať z existencie NASA.

Korporatívne sociálnej je nesprávne pomenovanie, a myslím, že sa pozeráte na otázku zlým smerom. Firmy absolútne urobiť platiť dane z príjmu rovnako ty a ja. Spotrebitelia zaťažená vysokou firemné dane len v rovnakom zmysle, že naši zamestnávatelia odovzdávať peniaze z daní cez nás k vláde. Ak sú uvedené daňové úľavy - sa často presťahovať do nového mesta alebo rozšíriť v určitom regióne - miestne samosprávy sú obchodné obmedzené množstvo daňových príjmov na vytváranie nových pracovných miest a v dôsledku hospodárskeho rastu. Bude to fungovať? Niekedy áno, niekedy nie. Ale je to firemné blahobytu? Nie, je to vypočítané riziko, ktoré miestni politici, že proste nemusí vždy vyplatiť.

Napokon, pokiaľ ide o poľnohospodárske dotácie, vaše miesto je dobre vykonaná, a lepšiu kontrolu sú nutné. Odpoveď však nie je žiadny dotačný program, ktorý odmeňuje len tie chudobných poľnohospodárov, ktorí sa snažia udržať svoje malé operácie. Bez týchto dotácií, veľké poľnohospodárske podniky, ktoré sú skutočne na výrobu potravín sa stala neudržateľnou, a / alebo ceny potravín porastú dramaticky, vážne ovplyvňuje chudobné. Takže odpoveď je štípnout do dotačného programu, ktorý proste vyzerá na vystrihnuté dávky pre ľudí, ktorí vlastnia "farmy", ktoré neprináša nič viac, než samotné dotácie.

Odpovedať na tento konkrétny komentár

Do Scott Bannon | Odpovedať na článok

Shawn, ďakujem za komentáre. Aby bolo jasno, bol som zhŕňa to, čo niekoľko republikánov (väčšinou v napadnutom re-voľby závody), ktoré je uvedené v posledných dňoch pred moje písanie o Američanov 'pocit štipku'. Budeme sa musieť dohodnúť na sporia o to, ale pre mnoho nižšej a strednej triede Američanov pás je už rovnako dobre to môže dostať, a tak budem štát v súlade s republikánmi 'vyhlásenia.

Pokiaľ ide o zníženie Bush daňovej sadzby a bitka pokračovať v nich, neverím, som sa osobne na jednej strane problém v mojom vysielania. Moje komentáre k tomuto boli jednoducho má upozorniť na existujúce vnútornej strany rozdelia vyskytujúce sa v priebehu ekonomické otázky.

Nesúhlasím, že je to nespravodlivé, aby rokovala "rezy" v rozpočtoch programov len preto, že tie "kusy", sa objaví len v porovnaní roku 2005 a 2004 rozpočtov. Či určitá úroveň výdavkov pre každý program bol udržanou za posledných desať rokov, alebo len jeden, redukcia, že výdavky je z definície "cut" a všetkými prostriedkami reálne diskutovať.

Mám svoj bod na NASA a súhlasí trochu. Ako som už spomenul ja som veľký fanúšik NASA, kanál Discovery a rezanie-hrana vied. Napriek tomu som presvedčený, že súkromný sektor pokrok a inovácie majú schopnosť tromf vláda financovala výskum vo väčšine oblastí. To je najväčší (z mnohých) priaznivé argument pre kapitalistickej spoločnosti podľa môjho názoru.

Aj keď by som radšej NASA nezomrelo úplne, to je pravda, že veľké množstvo peňazí (miliardy a miliardy dolárov ročne) sa vydávajú na letu rakety do komét a 4-krúžiť okolo robota na povrch Marsu. Výskum za týchto programov je platný a čestný, ale nie ako prioritu ako niektoré iné programy, keď musia výdavky znížiť.

Je to ako riadenie rozpočtu domácností na väčšiu váhe. Ak si nemôžete dovoliť upgrade na najnovšiu nové gadget-zabalené, papier-tenké, projekčný systém založený na domáce kino v tomto roku, pretože malý Timmy potrebné výstuhy, potom trpíte prostredníctvom sledovania Simpsons na tejto zastarané 60 palcov big-obrazovka pre ďalšie rok a upgrade na neskôr.

Možno som sa pozrieť na firemné dobrých životných podmienok zvierat zo zlého pohľadu, ale možno tiež nie. Ak vlastník (y) Widgety Smith sa rozhodne, že chce plnú dolár za widget predal ziskovú maržu, teda s tým, že oni budú platiť o 47% svojho príjmu na daniach znamená, že môžu ich cenu widgety mať o niečo viac ako dolár a pol ziskové rozpätie. Vláda dostane je to 47% a Smith je Widgety vrecká plné dolárov za predané widget chceli.

Zrejme to nie je úplne, že zjednodušujúce, ale potom zase do istej miery skutočne je.

To znamená, že som nebol zameraný len na miestnej správy zaoberá, ktoré ponúkajú daňové stimuly a úľavy spoločnostiam, aby sa rast zamestnanosti pre svoje regióny. Problém je na federálnej úrovni, ako aj zamaskované ako bravčové v mnohých prípadoch. Dokonalým príkladom je nedávny hlavnej cesty Bill, ktorá drží poburujúce množstvo bravčového mäsa-založené firmy dobrých životných podmienok výplaty ako 37000000dolar rozšíriť jedinej cesty v Arkansase, ktorý je hlavný prístupový bod k ústredie Wal-Mart Stores Inc

Nie som si istý, o presnom 2005 zisku pre Wal-Mart, ale v roku 2004 je uvedený v 10300000000dolar dolárov. A keď chápem, že je potrebné mať veľké podniky so sídlom v komunite a prácu s nimi, aby im v komunite, správy Videl som o tejto navrhnúť dopravné problémy neboli tak zlé v porovnaní s podobnými cez-tarify. Napriek tomu, boli daňoví poplatníci nútení vysolit 37.000.000dolar dolárov tak, že Wal-Mart zamestnanci by mohli mať rýchlejší prístup k ich pracovisku. Jedná sa o formu firemného dobrých životných podmienok zvierat, ktorá existuje, ale je často prehliadaná.

Na poľnohospodárskych dotácií, to je tvrdý oriešok. Viem, obmedziť ju len na určité percento by mohlo mať negatívne dopady na celý poľnohospodársky priemysel a zaťaženie spotrebiteľov nakoniec. Ja tiež viem, že veľa peňazí sa vynakladá každý rok platiť vlastníci pôdy nepoužívať ich krajiny. Rýchle vyhľadávanie na Google ukáže, že často tieto vlastníkmi pozemkov sú športové alebo iné zábavy hviezdy alebo bohatí majitelia podnikov. Nie ľudia, ktorí by sa hospodárstvo svojej krajiny rovnako, ale stále bude vláda venovať im toto zabezpečiť. Je to daň loop-diera zneužívaná, je to plytvanie peniazmi a celý program musí mať úprimný a transparentné hodnotenie s cieľom zabezpečiť peniaze je používaný v čo najlepším spôsobom podpory nejzasloužilejších kandidátov.

Odpovedať na tento konkrétny komentár

Tým, Shawn Bannon | Odpovedať na článok

Scotta,

Som vždy rád, že vstúpiť do debaty s vami.

Máš pravdu, že mnohí v GOP sú rozdelené na výdavky a daňové škrty. Niektorí ľudia v mojej party stratili zo zreteľa fiškálna zdržanlivosť voliči očakávajú od Republican zákonodarcov. Tam boli niektoré poľahčujúce okolnosti, ktoré prispeli k súčasnej situácii, ale na konci dňa, republikánska zákonodarcovia majú urobiť lepšiu prácu kontrolovať sami, pokiaľ ide o výdavky.

Ako som povedal, nie, ste zostúpili na jednej alebo druhej strane, pokiaľ ide o Bush zníženie daní. A nebol som kritizovať vaše diskusie o tieto daňové škrty. Skôr som bol podrobne niektoré výhody týchto daňových škrtov, aby vysvetlila, prečo pay-as-you-go rozpočtovú politiku, ktorá si schválila, neposkytne pre rozvoj nášho hospodárstva na ceste, že zachovanie daňové škrty budú.

Nie je nič zlého na tom s niektorými deficitné výdavky - a to aj veľa deficit výdavkov - v prípade, že ekonomika rastie silne dost zaplatiť dole z toho vyplývajúce deficity v rozumnom množstve času. Pomer deficitu k HDP je oveľa dôležitejšie, ako o skutočnom schodku úrovni. Takže môžete zvýšiť pôžičky platiť za dôležité veci, ako je vojna proti terorizmu, obmedzené rozšírenie na Medicare, preskupenie našej národnej vzdelávacej politiky, infrastructure zlepšenie atď Ale zákonodarcovia musia vedieť, kde je hranica medzi tým, čo využitie našich daní dolárov sú opatrné a nevyhnutné a tie, ktoré len vytvárajú politický kapitál. Pay-as-you-go rozpočtovej politiky nefunguje (je to výnimočne zlé v čase krízy), nie je potrebné, a - v skutočnosti - brzdia rast potenciálu ekonomiky. Ale to neznamená, že republikáni by kľudne bežať až na karte, a to buď.

Teraz, na spravodlivé riešenie niektorých bodov, ktoré sa vo svojej reakcii na moje poznámky:

Je nespravodlivé, aby prerokovať škrty v oblasti vzdelávania a Medicare rozpočty ako ste, pretože ste zabudli dať ich do kontextu. Sú uvedené v pôvodnej metráži ako orientačné správne zanedbávanie - pozrite sa na kusy, aby tieto dôležité projekty, zatiaľ čo iné, menej dôležité alebo-bravčová projekty sú plne financované. To je to, čo je nespravodlivé o vašej diskusiu o znížení. Finančné prostriedky venované na vzdelanie a Medicare zvýšil nesmierne potom, čo prezident Bush nastúpil do úradu, a to predovšetkým v reakcii na potrebu vytvoril novej legislatívy a zvýšenie dávok. Kým školských systémov upravené tak, aby nové normy a Medicare infraštruktúra bola vytvorená, aby sa zohľadnili tieto zmeny, viac peňazí bolo potrebné. Ale to, že rovnaká úroveň výdavkov nie je potrebné teraz, že programy sú v prevádzke, takže je úplne namieste, aby zníženie týchto rozpočtov.

Premýšľajte o malú firmu - železiarstva, možná. Predajňa je mierne úspešný, a režijných nákladov všeobecne bežať asi 1 milión dolárov ročne. (To je len príklad, nemám predstavu, aké sú skutočné režijné náklady na prevádzku železiarstva by sa.) Tak, po 10 rokoch v podniku, vlastník rozhodne otvoriť druhý obchod v rámci mesta. V tomto roku, jeho prevádzkové náklady idú na raketové stúpať. Má na výstavbu alebo rekonštrukciu objektu, nákup zásob, prenájom pracovníkov, atď Bolo by ho stálo 5 miliónov amerických dolárov, aby si jeho obchod a prevádzku, a potom budem mať vyššie náklady spojené s prevádzkou druhý sklad pre mnoho rokov , až sa stane rovnako súčasťou komunity a miestneho hospodárstva ako jeho prvý obchod. V čase, keď náklady na spustenie druhého skladu by mala byť zhruba rovnaké ako náklady na spustenie prvej. Tak za päť rokov v rade, jeho režijné náklady sú možná 2,5 milióna dolárov pre kombinovanú prevádzku. Teraz má svoje réžii rozpočtu znížil, medziročne sa od druhej obchode prvom otvorení, ale to neznamená, že je zanedbáva podnikanie, skladovanie nižšia-kvalitný tovar alebo podvádzajú svojich zákazníkov.

To isté platí aj pre vládne výdavky. Až príliš často si myslíme, že zníženie fondov určených na konkrétny program znamená automatický zhoršenie kvality tohto programu. A ľudia ako senátor Specter bojovať for ďalšie financovanie na rovnakých úrovniach, alebo väčší finančný - odlievanie doláre daňových poplatníkov, ak nie sú využívané efektívne - čo znamená, že musíme znížiť inde, akceptovať vyššiu budget deficit, alebo zvýšiť dane. Môžeme diskusia financovanie vzdelávania inokedy, ale nalial viac peňazí do tried nie je - dlhodobé - odpoveď na vzdelanie problém Ameriky.

Pokiaľ ide o NASA, možno by sme to stačí, aby súhlasil s nesúhlasím, pretože si myslím, že ste 100 percent - OK, možno len 95 percent - zle. Ako som písal včera večer, áno, súhlasím s tým, že niektoré reprioritization projektov a výdavkov, môže byť nevyhnutné, ale já bych skutočne tvrdiť, že NASA správcovia urobili chvályhodné prácu v tomto smere v posledných rokoch. Majú upraviť svoje plány na výskum vesmíru významne z hľadiska rozpočtu a bezpečnosti.

NASA výskum je dôležitý, ale podnecuje inovácie v súkromnom sektore, ktoré by sa stalo inak, pretože náklady by boli príliš vysoké, aby manažéri zodpovední investori. To je podobné ako argument mnohým ľuďom, aby v prospech federálnej financovaní materiálnej pomoci kmeňových-buniek. Zrušenie výhod pre naše obranné programy, prínosy výskumu NASA do nášho každodenného života - vrátane, ale mnoho oveľa dôležitejšie ako luxusný tovar, ako big-obrazovkou - je príliš veľa obetovať.

Len sa opýtajte niekoho, kto kedy prežil život-ohrozujúce ochorenie, pretože zlepšenie lekárske porozumení založené na vede NASA. Spýtajte sa po amputácii, ktorý môže bežať dnes kvôli umelú nohu navrhnuté s použitím kovov a konštrukčných koncepcií ktorý bol vyvinutý pre použitie NASA. Opýtajte sa niekoho, ktorého rodina unikol trailer domov v Oklahoma tesne pred tornádo zasiahlo, ako dôležité bolo, že dostal 14-minútové varovania vdaka zlepšenému počasie sledovacích systémov a obohatený pochopenie zmien na základe výskumu NASA. Niekoľko generácií späť, by nemali vedieť o tom, že tornádo, kým to počuli parane prostredníctvom domy svojich susedov '. Opýtajte sa mladá žena, ktorej život bol zachránený, keď bola schopná vytočiť polícia s ňou mobilný telefón z kufra svojho únoscu voz o význame tohto telefónu a globálny navigačný technológiu použila polícia, aby ju našiel. To je NASA. Nejde len o super-duper big-obrazovkou, tak pekne, ako sú. Já bych odporučiť, aby sa, či sa život na Zemi časti stránok NASA Web len 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 sa mali grant NASA neobmedzený rozpočet na výskum alebo že by nebolo vhodné kontrolné mechanizmy, aby prehodnotili svoje výdavky, ale nikdy nebudem súhlasiť, že NASA výdavky sa podobá politicky motivované bravčové projekty, ktoré sú skutočnú metlu na náš rozpočet.

Prepínanie predmety, obávam sa, že tiež nesúhlasiť s vašou "právnických prospech" argument. Vaša widget spoločnosť môže nielen zvýšiť ceny pre vytvorenie svojej požadovanej rezervy pre rad dôvodov, z ktorých všetky sú svedectvom o krásu kapitalizmu. Zjednodušene povedané, môžu účtovať len to, čo je trh schopný uniesť. Ak sa zvýšia ceny a spotrebitelia naďalej kupovať ich výrobky, potom boli nabíjanie príliš málo začať. Ak sa zvýšia ceny a spotrebitelia rozhodnú prestali kupovať ich widgety, bude firma znižovať svoje ceny, alebo snímanie príležitosť, podnikaví konkurent krokom a predávať porovnateľné produkt pre 75-cent zisku. Na konci dňa, fyzika súťaže prirodzená kapitalizmus diktovať, že tovar bude predávať len za cenu trh unesie, čo je dôvod, prečo kapitalizmus je dobré pre spotrebiteľa.

Pokiaľ ide o Wal-Mart napríklad, že nie je "príjmov právnických prospech", a to ani nemusí byť bravčové. Wal-Mart rozrástla z malej organizácie do jedného z najväčších svetových. To má v mnohých ohľadoch, prerástol ich domov, aby som tak povedal. Teraz by mohlo pohybovať. To je zrejme to, čo vy alebo já bych robiť, keď sme prerástli našich domovov. Ale politici, ktorí zastupujú občanov Arkansas pochopiť nesmiernu hodnotu, ich zložky a pre ekonomiku svojho štátu vlastné v súlade Wal-Mart tam, kde to je. Ak sa rozšírenie cesty zlepší plynulosť premávky a tiež prospieva ekonomike prostredníctvom tvorby umiestnenie vhodnejšie miesto pre Wal-Mart, aby pokračovala vo svojej činnosti, je úplne vhodné na financovanie tohto projektu majú byť zahrnuté do návrhu zákona diaľnici položky.

Wal-Mart zisky nemajú nič spoločného s týmto argumentom. Nejedná sa o nič viac priamo zodpovedný platiť za údržbu ciest v okolí svojej centrály, než sme si ako jednotlivé daňovníkov dane-sú zodpovedné platiť za údržbu ulíc, na ktorých žijeme. Áno, ich zisky boli obrovské. Ale to bol ich daňové zaťaženie. Bol tento výdavky bravčové - zákonodarca hádzať kosti na domáce firmy späť? Možno. To závisí na tom, či bol projekt skutočne potrebné zlepšiť plynulosť premávky a priebežne Wal-Mart riaditeľstva tam. Ani vy, ani ja, mali vzdelanie, alebo in-hlboké znalosti o údaje týkajúce sa tejto lokalite zistiť, či na ceste projektu bolo nutné. Ale aj keby to nebolo - aj keby to bolo bravčové - to ešte nebolo "právnických prospech."

Ako som písal včera večer, "právnických prospech" je nesprávne pomenovanie. Celkovo vzaté, nie je v skutočnosti neexistujú, ibaže v mysliach liberáli, ktorí nechcú veriť, že je stále dobrý dôvod pre využívanie daňových dolárov spôsobom, ktorý by prospech veľkých korporácií. Dalo by sa robiť argument, že niektoré výpomoci vlád, ako je podpora vlády dal leteckej spoločnosti po 11. septembri, boli "firemné sociálne." Ale tie sú veľmi vzácnych príležitostiach a nie to, čo väčšina ľudí myslí, keď používajú termín.

Zvyčajne sa slová "právnických prospech" je používaný ľuďmi, ktorí popierajú nadradenosť kapitalizmu do iných ekonomických systémov. Sú to ľudia, ktorí veria, že všetko by malo byť rovnaké, a že nikto by nemal nikdy mať všetko, čo považujú za "príliš veľa", zatiaľ čo iní idú bez. Sú to ľudia, ktorí veria v nárokov miesto self-závislosť, sa domnievajú, že úloha vlády je zabezpečiť živobytie miesto príležitosť. Myslí si, že Wal-Mart a ďalšie úspešné spoločnosti sú svojou podstatou zlé. A oni si vymysleli termín "corporate blahobytu", pretože neverí, že úspešné organizácie by mali byť postarané, aby v žiadnom prípade tvare alebo forme našej vlády. To je ich platforma napriek tomu, že organizácie ako Wal-Mart vytváranie pracovných miest, stimuluje hospodársky rast a prispieť ku komunitám, v ktorých si nachádza. Tieto liberáli sú naozaj Take-z - bohatý-a-dať-to-the-chudobné socialisti, ktorí by radšej strhnúť tých, ktorí sú úspešnejší ako povedať tým, ktorí nie sú, aby viac svojich možností.

A teraz, nemyslím, že ma krutý, alebo bezohľadný. My ako ľudia by mali byť súcitný. Mali by sme sa postarať o tých, ktorí sú skutočne znevýhodnení. Ale mali by sme to urobiť viac za susedov a menej ako daňoví poplatníci. Mali by sme to urobiť prostredníctvom darov robíme pre naše kostoly alebo fundraising našich spolupracovníkov 'walkathons. Mali by sme dať viac našej doby ako dobrovoľníci. Mali by sme povzbudiť svoju vládu, aby fond pracovnej-zručností pre tých, ktorí chcú vytvoriť lepší život pre seba a svojich blízkych. Mali by sme stáť za vládnu pomoc, ktorá ponúka ľuďom ruku, nie ruku. Ale mali by sme povstali proti akejkoľvek snahe potrestať tých, ktorí boli prosperujúce, pretože "to nie je spravodlivé," že tam sú iní, ktorí neboli uvedomil ich potenciál. A to je to, čo liberáli / socialistami - to sú ľudia, ktorí tvrdia, proti využívaniu daňových dolárov, ktoré by prospelo Corporation (bez ohľadu na výsledný prínos pre obec a ekonomika) - cieľom je urobiť. Neverím, že ste jeden z nich, tak by som vás povzbudiť k prehodnoteniu tejto záležitosti a používanie pojmu "právnických prospech."

Odpovedať na tento konkrétny komentár

Do Scott Bannon | Odpovedať na článok

Shawn, rád, že som mohol vyprovokovať vám palce sa mi páčia naše občianske späť a forths.

I didn't endorse the pay-as-you-go budgetary policy. I illustrated it as the single most significant–and failed–move recently made by Democrats to address out of control spending in Washington. My apologies if that wasn't clearly evident in my article.

We don't disagree on the dangers of the pay-as-you-go rules, they are restrictive and deeply impacting to the nation. We probably do disagree on when a drastic stopgap measure would be appropriate to instill, but I'll leave it as a philosophical difference on where to draw the budgetary line of death.

On NASA, as I've conceded already, I understand your point and don't fully disagree. However, balancing a national budget is hard work. There's a finite amount to go around and tough choices must be made. The bottom line is priorities. Yes, NASA has made (and continues to make) tremendous contributions to enrich people's lives.

Nemenej dôležité však na rovnaké alebo väčšie množstvo americkej populácie je jedlo, prístrešia, lieky a vzdelanie, aby budúce generácie mali schopnosti pokračovať vo vývoji nových technológií a väčší.

Zatiaľ čo vysoko nad mnohými ďalšími peniaze-pit projekty a iste týčiaci sa nad horou bravčové odpadov, NASA stále spadá pod mnohými základných programov a služieb v prioritných rovnako, môj pôvodné miesto bolo, že keď začneme rezanie týchto - NASA musí prísť dopredu v sekanie blok 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.

Beyond that, there are arguable traits of socialism woven into the founding fabric of our nation. Our Declaration of Independence defines government as being responsible for (and limited to) the security and happiness(read as wellbeing) of the citizens it serves. A collective entity from the population created to handle that which privately or individually can't be accomplished for the common good and rights of all. Basically, it's “everyone, by means of the government, making sure that everyone has at-least this”, with 'this' being the rights we agree upon as sacred to all. That is a moderate usage of true socialistic ideology and was a brilliant application by men who wore knickers and wigs in my opinion.

This doesn't mean to suggest I'd prefer a full or even necessarily more socialist tendency in America, it means that I believe there were trace elements of socialism implied by our founding fathers with an understanding that they could help to achieve the forming of a more perfect union. Sort of a 'too much of anything is bad, but in moderation may be healthy and beneficial' approach.

I often hear conservatives add negative connotations to 'entitlement' programs and noted it in your reply as well. The very fact that the terminology was shifted from social programs to 'entitlements' suggests that a change in public perceptions was desired by those who would oppose them being tax-based and government run. But, as a liberal I see these programs (when structured and managed reasonably) as the government doing half of it's assigned duty–ensuring the wellbeing of the citizens it serves.

Môžu tieto programy stali nevyspytateľný albatrosov? Áno, to je dôvod, prečo je potrebné ich dobre tvarovaná a majú transparentné prehliadnutiu. Ale len preto, že môžu byť poškodené, neznamená, že sú od prírody poškodený alebo si zaslúži, aby akýkoľvek všeobecne negatívnom svetle je obsadenie na ne.

Informácie o vláde ako subjekt verejného (ako ja), som tiež vidieť tieto programy ako "starostlivosti o našich susedov"-ako hovoríš by sme mali. Naopak, keď konzervatívci útok alebo navrhnúť škrty na 'nárok' programy (s negatívnym pripojené tón), zatiaľ čo bravčové a iné non-základné zbytočný výdavky stúpa vyššie a vyššie vymkne kontrole, Vidím to ako vláda snaží vyhýbať polovice je to zodpovednosť, kým chamtivo niekoľko vykŕmili vrecká.

Je tu medzeru v našej perspektívy a názory na mnohé otázky. To je tak v poriadku a dobré, to ma drží myslenia a dúfam, že robí to isté pre teba.

Snáď môžeme prísť k šťastnej dohode o jednej veci sem aj keď, v prípade bravčového mäsa odpadmi boli odstránené sme mohli obaja všetko, čo sme chceli a veril, že mal pravdu, podľa vlády, okrem ďalšieho zníženia daňovej sadzby pre všetky ...

Odpovedať na tento konkrétny 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.

Briefly, regarding “corporate welfare” and Wal-Mart, when you write that Wal-Mart, because of its huge profits, is maybe not as “deserving” as some other causes, you are – in effect – suggesting that government support be denied this tax-paying organization because of its success. I would argue the opposite, that this project was particularly important to the people of Arkansas specifically because Wal-Mart has been so successful. When Wal-Mart does well, jobs are created, tax dollars are generated, and more money is funneled into the community through corporate and employee charitable contributions. You call it “corporate welfare” because you see Wal-Mart as the primary beneficiary. I say it's an infrastructure improvement project that demonstrably supports the economy as well as the local community. I don't think you're a crazy liberal attacking Wal-Mart, but I do think your definition of “corporate welfare” does align more closely than you realize with the views of socialist liberals and that you may be too quick to call government support of businesses like Wal-Mart “corporate welfare” when it is anything but.

Now, speaking of socialist liberals, I didn't equate liberals with socialists. I talked about a specific group of liberals who are also socialists. I do think most liberals have socialist leanings, but that doesn't make all liberals socialists.

Concerning socialism, it is an economic system of bondage and oppression that suppresses innovation, discourages extraordinary effort and has no method for rewarding achievement. It is a gear without teeth, constantly spinning without ever advancing the machine. It has no mechanism by which to adjust to market influences, is easily corrupted and rejects liberty. Because it is so vastly inferior to capitalism, it is doomed to failure.

Socialism does not work well for organized religion. It works, to some degree, among the clergy, but not among the laity. Still, history shows us that socialism has not always worked even among the clergy; the history of the Catholic Church is rife with stories of corruption and abuses of power. Inquisition, anyone? That doesn't make the Catholic Church, as an institution, evil – not at all. But it does demonstrate that socialism is only moderately sustainable even among a limited populace composed of clergy that have given over their worldly desires and committed to one unifying set of beliefs.

I think you're wrong to associate threads of community and union built into our Declaration of Independence with socialism. The Founding Fathers were absolute capitalists, and they worked very hard in the drafting of that document to define only the loosest of formal ties between the colonies so as to preserve the rights of self-determination inherent to individuals and each colony. They set out to limit the role of the federal government to the greatest possible extent, and they explicitly called for the consent of the governed – something no self-respecting socialist would ever do.

You are mistaken when you write that the Declaration proclaims the government's responsibility “for the safety and happiness of the citizens it serves.” What the Declaration says is that the citizenry has the right to form a government “most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” This is a very different thing and a far cry from socialism. It means that the people are responsible for their own safety and happiness but that they have the right to design governmental mechanisms that give them the best opportunity – individually or collectively – to ensure their own safety and happiness. It doesn't preclude them from banning together as neighbors to help the downtrodden, but it also doesn't require them to do so.

You wrote that the Founding Fathers were calling for “a collective entity from the population created to handle that which privately or individually can't be accomplished for the common good and rights of all. Basically, it's 'everyone, by means of the government, making sure that everyone has at-least this,' with 'this' being the rights we agree upon as sacred to all.” That is incorrect. They were declaring their independence from an oppressor who denied them rights that they believed were inalienable, and they were staking claim to their rights as free men to determine for themselves what form of government would offer them – individually and collectively – the best opportunity to realize their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They weren't writing that the government is responsible for granting you these rights; they were writing that the government doesn't have the authority to take these God-given rights away from you. This may seem like a mild distinction to you, but it is the difference between socialism and liberty. It is the difference between communism and capitalism. And it is all the difference in the world.

If you're looking for the introduction of socialism in our political-economic systems, the only place to start is with The New Deal. And that's also where we might begin our discussion of entitlements. The New Deal was a short-sighted answer to the failed economic policies that led to the Great Depression. The result was a bloated bureaucracy and future taxpayer liabilities that we would not be able to afford in the long-term because of the changing demographics of a nation that had long since begun to shift from agrarian economics to manufacturing and industry. Additional entitlement programs enacted under Lyndon Johnson's Great Society plan, while well-intentioned, exacerbated the problem.

These programs became entitlements when people began to depend on them even before they needed them. When people began planning during their working years for the Social Security income they would have during their retirement, Social Security became an entitlement. It was not intended at its inception to play the role in retirees' lives that it does today. Medicare was not supposed to become a senior citizen's only means of securing medical treatment. The original designers, in their short-sightedness, did not adequately plan for the aging of our population and increased life expectancies. And so, we are struggling under the mounting weight of social programs that will soon buckle our knees unless these programs are dramatically reinvented in ways that better align them with America's brand of capitalism and strip away the ties to socialism.

At the end of the day, I think the biggest difference between your views and mine is that you think government should provide for us while I think government should get out of the way so we can provide for ourselves and each other. This is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals assume that the poor, the weak and the lost would be left for dead if it were up to conservatives because we wouldn't have nearly the degree of government-provided services that exist today. I disagree because I believe that our capacity for achievement and prosperity is matched only by our generosity and the strength of our communities. The proof? According to the Catalogue for Philanthropy, 28 of the 29 most generous states, defined by the average per capita charitable deduction (how much each person gives to charity), are red states – states that voted for Bush in 04, states where conservatives have the strongest foothold. That's not to say that liberals aren't at all charitable, just that they (as a group) give less to charity because they assume the government will take care of our neighbors' ills. And it's another indication of liberals' desire to shed personal responsibility.

Reply to this specific comment

By Scott Bannon | Reply to article

Shawn, just a few quick points to clarify. I said there were probably more deserving places for that money to go with regards to the road widening for Wal-Mart. I'd have to twist it like a pretzel to infer “Wal-Mart doesn't deserve assistance because of it's success” from that statement.

I said there were 'better' or more deserving uses for the money. That doesn't translate into Wal-Mart is not deserving of assistance, only was less deserving at that point and under the circumstances.

Your points on socialism with specific examples of failure and corruption are accurate, but as I suggested can be linked directly to the people working the system.

I don't believe socialism is a better method, I was simply stating that it is a concept, like all forms of government, and inherently neutral. Any success or failure, good or evil that comes of it's application is a result of the people within, not the system itself.

You appear to have taken high exception with my suggesting that our founding fathers embraced trace aspects of socialistic ideology. I understand that, a lot of people (conservative and liberals alike) tend to do so. Perhaps it's a lack of emotional attachment to any specific ideology–capitalism, socialism, communism, Any'isms– that prevents me from reacting the same. I have thoughts on what's good and bad about each of these concepts, but no emotional connections to any of them.

Still, to borrow certain elements from any system which would further our ultimate goals seemed 'ahead of their time' to me and was stated in praise of their design.

We simply comprehend the Declaration of Independence differently. This is a long standing wedge in conservative vs. liberal perspectives. Conservatives seem content to reduce government to a corporate sponsor (you yourself have argued in favor and defense of corporate aid from government) with military might.

Liberals (myself included), tend to believe that falls short of the full intention which also includes the ensuring of individuals' wellbeing.

I get that from this line (expanding your own example to add the appropriate context): “..to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them [the governed] shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

When happiness is read as it's synonym, wellbeing, which I believe was the intention since I doubt our founding fathers felt government should pay for cable or lap dances (though if they really wanted to keep me happy or get my vote…)–and interpreting “organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect” as “building a government designed to cause or make so”, then it's clear that ensuring and protecting the wellbeing of citizens [the governed] was indeed intended.

That idea is further supported within the preamble of the constitution as well, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

I don't actually think government should provide all for us, I think we should provide for each other when the needs and means exist. As you say, take care of our neighbors. I just happen to believe the best tool for this is government in many instances due to resources and access. Smaller groups and charities are perfectly suited to certain needs, though often more inclined or predisposed to discriminate upon who receives their support. Government is better suited (by design) to others.

Reply to this specific comment

By Shawn Bannon | Reply to article

Scott,

You're still using Wal-Mart's success as a way of determining whether or not it deserves government aid. By assigning a negative “deserve” factor based on Wal-Mart's success – by deciding that someone else is more deserving because you think Wal-Mart has been successful enough that it doesn't deserve aid as much as another taxpayer – you have, indeed, assessed a penalty for that success. Having said that, because the highway improvement project in question is an infrastructure improvement that benefits the local and state economy and, in turn, Wal-Mart, it's like Clint Eastwood said in Unforgiven: “Deserve's got nothing to do with it.” One of the responsibilities of our elected representatives is to make the best decisions they can about how to use tax dollars to bring about the greatest benefit to we the governed. You can, from 1,000 miles away, second-guess the need for this road work in Arkansas, but Wal-Mart's success has nothing to do with whether or not the project should have been funded in the manner that you suggest.

Now, regarding your thoughts on socialism, it doesn't fail because of the people in the system. It fails because it was an ill-devised system to begin with. It isn't inherently neutral, as you suggest, because it aims from the outset to take from those who prosper. It retards the socio-economic advancement of those who are ambitious or entrepreneurial while rewarding those whose contributions or productivity are minimal. Intended to transcend human nature, it instead grates against those who are subjugated by the system, destroying souls and breeding corruption.

I do take exception to your argument concerning the Founding Fathers because I am troubled by such a fundamental misunderstanding of our founding documents. More than that, I am troubled by the idea that you – or any American born in this land of opportunity – claim to have no emotional attachment to the system of values that has made the United States the greatest country in the world. No other country offers its citizens as much opportunity. No other economic system has created as much wealth for a people as has American capitalism. Nowhere else in the world would we consider people who carry cell phones and wear Nike shoes to be living in poverty. But here in America, you can drive through the poorest neighborhood at night, and you'll see nearly every apartment window lit by the glow of a color television. Sure, there are poor who struggle here in the United States. There are hard-working Americans who find it difficult to put food on the table for their families. But where else in the world would those same people have the opportunities that they have here to lift themselves above their struggles?

This country, which has provided more opportunity for prosperity than any other, has given you, me and millions of others the chance to make our dreams a reality. But you have no emotional attachment to our particular brands of government, community and commerce? Sadly, too many liberals feel this way. And if conservatives accuse liberals of not being patriots, it's because of this lack of love of country, not because you or people far more liberal than you are critical of the government's policies.

Speaking of conservatives, your assertion that conservatives want to “reduce government to a corporate sponsor,” couldn't be more wrong. And what I've argued is that it is wholly appropriate for government to make infrastructure improvements and other tax-funded investments – with the consent of the governed through the actions of their elected representatives. These government actions are intended to effect the safety and happiness of the governed by creating opportunities for greater prosperity. That is 100 percent in line with the language in our founding documents.

Your substitution of “wellbeing” for “happiness” is a mistake. Jefferson, Adams and the other signers of the Declaration absolutely meant “happiness” in that government should make it possible for you as a citizen to gain employment, own land and accumulate wealth. They were talking about “happiness,” and they wrote “happiness.”

You are trying to rewrite the Declaration to fit your agenda by interpreting plain English that only requires interpretation if you are trying to change the meaning. The reason Jefferson didn't write about a government “designed to cause or make so” the safety and happiness of the citizenry is because that isn't what was intended. The Founding Fathers were adamant that all responsibility and authority remained with the governed, for whom the government is but a tool used to bring about the greatest likelihood of safety and happiness. The language you quoted from the Constitution is all about national security. It has nothing to do with making sure the sick receive taxpayer-funded healthcare or that senior citizens are guaranteed an income in their retirement.

Lastly, regarding your belief that the government is the best channel by which to provide support to those in need, I'm afraid you have it backwards, and we will likely always disagree on that. With few exceptions, government programs represent the most inefficient and ineffective means of delivering social services to our citizens. Bloated administrative organizations waste money. Layers of bureaucracy waste time. Consider that the American Red Cross is far better at mobilizing and providing for the wellbeing of citizens in the wake of a disaster than federal, state and local agencies. Consider that children in private schools score significantly higher on standardized tests than public school students despite the fact that the cost to educate a student in most private schools is about half of what taxpayers pay per student in nearby public schools. Liberals don't seem to mind this inefficiency and waste. In fact, they seem to think that the more you feed the beast, the more it will accomplish. But the evidence doesn't support that.

The simple fact is that private agencies are better organized, better focused, better connected to those they serve and, as a result, better able to provide the support required by our neighbors in need. We should do more to encourage a transfer of responsibility back to individuals and those private organizations, fighting discrimination where it occurs on a case-by-case basis instead of assuming a culture of discrimination. That charge, in my experience, tends to be tossed around too indiscriminately by liberals who simply don't agree with the values espoused by many of those private organizations. Perhaps, instead of pushing for more tax money dedicated to inefficient, ineffective and wasteful government agencies, liberals should dedicate themselves to making a more direct contribution to the wellbeing of those in need by getting involved themselves.

Reply to this specific comment

By Scott Bannon | Reply to article

Shawn, my stating that Wal-Mart was perhaps less deserving in that situation came not from any negative weight placed upon their success, but rather from more demanding needs in other areas. Their success, despite any rush hour traffic problems to date, is evidence that perhaps areas like education–where Arkansas constantly brings up the rear–had a greater need under the circumstances at that point in time. When faced with more needs than there is funding to supply, one must prioritize. I'm not prioritizing against Wal-Mart or any business/program in some bottom-up chopping block approach, but rather from top-down to assess the most demanding. Yes, I do believe that assistance should always go to the most needy to do the most overall good. We'll have to agree to just disagree from that point.

It's wrong to equate a lack of love for capitalism to a lack of patriotism or love for country. My reasons for loving America may differ from yours or anyone else's, but that in no way suggests I love my country any less–just as I don't feel you are any less of a patriot for your reasons.

Capitalism is an economic–or socioeconomic–system, it is not the underlying values of our nation which I do hold emotional connections with. Perhaps you misread my previous comments on this. My lack of attachment is to the structure, not true values such as freedom, compassion, accountability, charity, tolerance and so on. These are the sort of values that exist in America and with which I am most proud of. This doesn't mean that I feel financial opportunities and prosperity aren't of value, nor do I feel anyone who views them as higher values is less patriotic than myself.

We don't all need to hold the same perspectives or reasons in order to share an equal love for our country, and shame on those conservatives you spoke of who believe or would suggest otherwise.

My comments regarding socialism in no way placed a negative light on capitalism. You can argue that one [socialism] isn't all/inherently bad without saying the other [capitalism] isn't better. It isn't an either-or option to me.

I don't believe I'm trying to rewrite the Declaration, I believe it is a fundamental and understandable difference in comprehension that exists between conservatives and liberals. If I were to comprehend it more verbatim as you suggest, then I believe I've been missing some government sponsored lap-dances for quite a long time now and will be writing my republican senators about this tonight.

You're correct that programs and ideas such as national health-care or social security weren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The 'general Welfare' of we the people was, and you can interpret that to apply only to security, however the definition of welfare is a) Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being and b) Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.

Nowhere in there is security or safety mentioned. If I must read the Declaration verbatim and without interpretation then I insist the same of the Constitution. Knowing that the needs and wants of society would evolve with time, the Constitution formed a foundation for future generations to meet them without the founding fathers having to specifically name them individually from some crystal ball.

Why is it that when government makes “infrastructure improvements and other tax-funded investments” that primarily or most directly benefit business it's appropriate and “with the consent of the governed through the actions of their elected representatives”, but when government makes social improvements and other tax-funded investments with the same consent of the governed through the actions of their same elected representatives it's an unfair 'entitlement' of the few paid for by the many?

Again, I have absolutely no objections to government assisting business to become more prosperous–in fact I believe that's a basic responsibility of government. However, that same responsibility exists to the general populace as well and my only objections are when the balance tilts disproportionately.

I agree and said so previously, that private charities are often the best suited outlets for some social needs. Some others, such as the social security program require more oversight and control than could be accomplished with privatization, in my opinion. This doesn't mean I think things have been well managed as is, simply that I believe the best opportunity exists within government management of some programs and that having these fall under government administration is Constitutional.

Reply to this specific comment

By Shawn Bannon | Reply to article

Scott,

You may not think you've assessed Wal-Mart a penalty for its success, but in your original piece, you clearly drew a line between Wal-Mart's profits and whether or not a particular highway improvement project should be funded. Now, having thought more about that, you may not feel that is the way to approach the issue, but I do think your original presentation of the matter is indicative of how many on the left look at similar issues, and it is important to address that mistake.

Having said that, I have to dispute your argument that the politicians have not appropriately prioritized their use of tax dollars because they're funding a highway project while the Arkansas education system continues to fail the children in the state's public schools.

In Arkansas, only 26 percent of 8th graders are proficient or better in reading, and only 22 percent are proficient or better in math. Those numbers are abysmal. So, when you consider that Arkansas taxpayers pay $6,774 per student per year to send their children to school, if you didn't know any better you might think that moving money from the highway project that benefited Wal-Mart to the education budget would be wise. But consider that Alaska, the state that spends the most – $16,665 per student – can boast proficiency ratings of just 27 percent and 29 percent for reading and writing, respectively. Is Alaska an anomaly? No. In the District of Columbia, which spends $16,344 per student, those numbers are just 12 percent and 7 percent. And nationwide, the state-by-state averages are just 29 percent and 28 percent. The problem is with education policy, not education budgets. And without dramatic reform, dumping taxpayer dollars into education is not likely to have near the same positive effect on the state of Arkansas as infrastructure improvements like the highway project we've been discussing in this thread of posts.

Now, I don't want to turn this into a discussion of your patriotism, but I think it is reasonable to question an American's love of the US if rejects any or all of the most basic principles upon which this nation has been built. You wrote a few nights ago that you have no emotional attachment to any ideology. In your most recent post, you wrote that you have no attachment to structure but that you are proud of values – freedom, compassion, accountability, etc. So you like, maybe even love, certain characteristics that make you feel good, but those things are not unique to the United States. You would find some measure of all of those qualities in Canada, the UK and elsewhere in the Western world. What makes the United States different from any other country in the world are our particular structures – our brand of capitalism, our form of representative democracy, the ties between and the borders that separate our states, our systems of laws and justice. If you don't embrace those structures – if you think they are artificial and somehow unimportant – I don't see any shame in asking whether what you love is the United States of America or Western culture in a broader sense.

As far as socialism is concerned, you can strip away everything I've written about the superiority of capitalism, and my argument that socialism is inherently oppressive and doomed to failure because it contradicts human nature still hold.

Now, I don't get this comment you've made (twice) that the establishment by the people of a system of government that creates the greatest likelihood of your safety and happiness somehow equates to government-sponsored lap dances. This is not a guarantee that the government will ensure either your safety or your happiness – whatever happiness means to you. This is simply a proclamation that the governed have the authority to decide for themselves what forms of government and commerce will provide the best opportunities by which they can realize their safety and happiness. In the United States, the governed have chosen to create a unique composite of republicanism and capitalism that have resulted in opportunities for prosperity greater than those experienced by any nation elsewhere in the world. And that prosperity pays for layered measures of security intended to offer the highest possible likelihood of our continued safety. If you are reading the Declaration to mean anything other than this, you should go back and read the writings of some of the men involved in the process of drafting and debating the document in the weeks prior to July 1776.

Concerning the Constitution, the definition you offer for the word welfare is a modern definition, which has changed dramatically with the advent of certain social programs in the 20th century. The word welfare had absolutely nothing to do with financial or other aid provided by the government when the Constitution was drafted. As for health, happiness and good fortune, the language of the Constitution is to promote – not to provide, but to promote – the general welfare. There is absolutely no contradiction between this promotion of the general welfare of the people and what I've written about the creation of government structures designed to bring about the best opportunity for its citizens to prosper.

You've attempted to catch me in a contradiction by insisting upon a strict reading of the Constitution, in essence suggesting that I was guilty of the same kind of rewriting or interpretation that you have done with the Declaration. But there you are wrong. I wrote of security as a concept that summarizes the language in the preamble to the Constitution because it was expedient for me to do so in a commentary that was already very long. But I could have used the verbatim language from the Constitution about insuring domestic tranquility and providing for the common defense, and my point would have been exactly the same and every bit as accurate. The difference between our points of view isn'ta matter of interpretation; it's the difference between what our founding documents say and what you'd like them to say.

Now, on to your question about entitlements. I never wrote that entitlement programs created with the consent of the governed are unfair. You are attempting to lump big business with conservatives against the little guy and liberals, I think, but you've got it wrong. Conservatives don't have a problem with entitlements because they're unfair. We have a problem with entitlement programs because they are bad, ill-fated policy that either ultimately keep down the people they're intended to lift up or turn into financial liabilities that – long-term –the country cannot afford.

Unlike you, I do object to government using my tax dollars in order to make businesses more prosperous. However – and this is crucial – I do support tax-funded investments that make the community more prosperous. In other words, I don't favor giving Wal-Mart $25 million in tax dollars so that the company can simply put more inventory on the shelves. But I would support a $25 million tax-funded infrastructure project that enabled Wal-Mart to open a store or two because the result would be the creation of new jobs, secondary business expansion as a result of increased traffic to the Wal-Mart site, increased tax dollar generation through retail sales and wages, etc. This investment is not designed to make Wal-Mart more prosperous. Wal-Mart's increased prosperity is simply a happy byproduct. But the government has no responsibility to ensure Wal-Mart's prosperity or that of any individual taxpayer. Still, individual taxpayers do reap the benefits of opportunities created when government wisely invests tax dollars to make a region more welcoming to businesses like Wal-Mart.

Finally, regarding Social Security, you would be hard pressed to find a program more illustrative of the points I've made in this posting and previously about entitlement programs. Social Security has been poorly managed with little or no care given to the changing demographics that have nearly doomed it to collapse. With every passing year, the gap between the assets available to pay our current liabilities and the assets we'll need to pay our future liabilities increases dramatically. It is happening at an alarming rate, but because we as a nation have come to expect benefits at a certain age that will afford us a certain level of income – because we have adopted a sense of entitlement – and because seniors make up such a significant block of the voting public, liberal politicians have been able to prey on the fears of retirees and those approaching retirement to the point that conservative politicians will not take the difficult but necessary steps to correct the program's major problems. Sooner or later, Americans are going to have to come to grips with the reality that an increase in the retirement age in line with longer life expectancy and a significantly slower rate of benefit increases – if not benefit reductions – will be necessary just to maintain the solvency of the program for a period of time. Then, if we still refuse to change the way we think about retirement security, dramatic tax increases will be necessary to avoid a complete Social Security meltdown. You may not like the idea of Social Security privatization, in any form, for any number of reasons. But you can bet that if we don't institute some form of mandated private retirement savings similar to President Bush's proposed personal investment accounts – if we don't make a large-scale shift from Social Security in its current form to a system for retirement security built on personal savings – a lot of Americans alive today will never see a dime of Social Security benefits regardless of how long they live.

When it was introduced, Social Security was not intended to become the primary source of a person's income after retirement. It was meant to encourage retirement planning and savings, and it was an attempt to help those who couldn't put even the most meager meal on the table. Those were desperate times, and the intentions were honorable. But, as always happens with government programs that spend taxpayer money, Social Security became a political football and spiraled out of control. If you, as a politician, fought to have benefits increased, you looked like a hero to your senior constituents. Never mind the future consequences of that increase. If the administration of the program is inefficient and wasteful, who even knows? And who is going to care enough to fix it? After all, those are tax dollars being wasted, not real dollars. Private institutions do not operate like that, but government organizations too often do. That is why Social Security was an ill-fated program from the day it was conceived. That is why entitlement programs, as a rule, are bad long-term public policy.

Reply to this specific comment