Political Blogs, News & Views

Sa pamamagitan ng Shawn Bannon | Sumagot sa may-akda

Scott,

ako sa iyo sa ang isyu ng baboy, ngunit ko na got sa kumuha ng isyu na sa iyo sa loob ng ilang mga iba pang mga bagay. Una sa lahat, tungkol sa mga kakulangan, hindi ka maaaring claim na Amerikano ay pakiramdam ang kurot kapag isaalang-alang mo na ang susi measurements ng pang-ekonomiya sa kalusugan ay ang lahat ng mahusay. Just tumingin sa pabahay merkado, na kung saan ay pagsakay sa kabayo ang isang alon ng pagtaas ng presyo dahil ang mga mamimili ay may pera upang magbayad ng higit pa. Analysts ay predicting na ang presyo bubble ay sumambulat para sa mahusay sa loob ng isang taon, ngunit ito ay hindi pa. At may-ari ng bahay gumawa ng up ng isang mas malaking porsyento ng ating populasyon ngayon kaysa sa anumang oras dahil ang rate na ay unang sinusukat. Gas presyo ay dalawang beses sa kung ano sila ay lamang ng ilang mga taon na nakalipas, ngunit ang mga ito ay mataas na dahil ang market demand ay nagtutukod ang mga presyo. Ang mga tao ay hindi higit pagbabago ng kanilang mga gawi sa pagmamaneho. lamang nila ay nagbabayad ng mas marami para sa gas.

At ang kalusugan ng ekonomiya ay dahil - sa malaking bahagi - sa buwis cuts rate sa pamamagitan ng ang pangangasiwa Bush at, tulad ng mga korporasyon ay nag-aalala, sa antas ng estado. President Bush's tax cuts nagpunta sa bisa noong 2001, at predictably, buwis sa kita ay gone up - kahit na sa pamamagitan ng 2002-2003 urong. Ito ay tulad ng ito ay sa unang bahagi ng 1960s, kapag ang Presidente Kennedy laslas rate ng buwis, at sa ang 1980s, kapag ang Pangulo Reagan ay ang parehong. Buwis sa mga rate ng pumunta pababa. Consumer paggasta at pamumuhunan sa negosyo pumunta up. Kumpanya mapalawak, mga trabaho ay nilikha, at buwis ng kita ay nagdaragdag. Ito ay kung bakit ang pay bilang ka pumunta sa buwis ng patakaran ay hindi gumagana. Ito negates ang epekto ng mga pamumuhunan sa paglago ng ekonomiya. Mababang rate ng buwis - at ang mga indibidwal at corporate antas - resulta sa mas maraming mga likas pang-ekonomiyang paglago at nadagdagan ang mga kita sa buwis. Kasaysayan ng bears na out. Sa kabaligtaran, tataas sa rate ng buwis sa paggastos kabalyerisa consumer at limitasyon sa kakayahan ng mga korporasyon sa reinvest kita sa paraan na palaguin ang mga negosyo at lumikha ng mga trabaho.

Ito ay hindi makatarungan upang talakayin "cuts" sa badyet para sa edukasyon at mga tiyak na karapatan mga programa dahil sa mga "cuts" lamang lalabas sa isang paghahambing ng 2005 at 2004 badyet. Subalit ang pag-aaral at Medicare badyet ay may ballooned since President Bush kinuha opisina noong 2001 bilang isang resulta ng Walang Bata Kaliwa likod ng batas at ang bagong reseta gamot benepisyo para sa mga matatanda. Senador Specter ay paraan off base sa ang isyu na ito.

Hindi pumatay NASA. Masyadong marami American makabagong-likha sa huling 50 taon ay isang resulta ng pananaliksik NASA. Masyadong marami sa mga produkto sa aming mga tahanan ay hindi kailanman ay may nagawa na ito ay hindi para sa unang aplikasyon ng mga agham batayan sa NASA programa. Puwede naming mas mahusay na tumutok ang nasasakupan ng NASA bilang isang paraan ng na naglalaman ng mga gastos? Oo, at maaari naming makakuha ng ilang mga lupa. Ngunit kahit ang isang malaking oberhol o ng isang libing para sa programa ay magreresulta sa pang-matagalang benepisyo para sa ating ekonomiya na malamangan ang gastos ng surrendering ang mga benepisyo na namin reaped at ay patuloy na pag-anihan mula sa NASA's pagkakaroon.

Corporate welfare ay isang maling pangalan, at sa tingin ko ang hinahanap mo sa isyu sa maling paraan. Korporasyon absolutely ko magbayad ng buwis sa kita sa parehong paraan sa iyo at ko. Consumers madala ang pasan ng mataas na mga rate ng corporate buwis lamang sa parehong pang-unawa na ang aming mga employer pumasa sa buwis ng pera sa pamamagitan ng sa amin sa pamahalaan. Kapag sila ay binibigyan ng break buwis - madalas na magpalipat sa bagong lungsod o upang mapalawak sa isang partikular na rehiyon - mga lokal na pamahalaan ay trading isang limitadong halaga ng buwis ng kita para sa paglikha ng trabaho at pang-ekonomiya na nagreresulta paglago. Ba ito gumagana? Minsan oo, minsan hindi. Ngunit ito ay corporate welfare? Hindi, ito ay isang kinakalkula panganib kinuha sa pamamagitan ng mga lokal na pulitiko na lang ay hindi palaging bayaran.

Sa wakas, tungkol sa subsidies sakahan, ang iyong punto ay mahusay na ginawa, at mas mahusay na mga kontrol ay kinakailangan. Ngunit ang kasagutan ay hindi isang programa ng tulong na salapi na gantimpala lamang sa mga mahihirap na magsasaka na labanan upang panatilihin ang kanilang maliit na operasyon. Nang walang mga subsidies, mga malalaking sakahan na talaga paggawa ng pagkain ay naging unsustainable at / o ang presyo ng pagkain ay tumaas higit, malubhang nakakaapekto sa mga mahihirap. Kaya, ang sagot ay isang sabunot sa tulong na salapi programa na lang ang hitsura sa hiwa ng mga benepisyo sa mga tao na sariling mga "sakahan" na hindi nagbubunga ng anumang bagay na higit sa subsidies sa kanilang sarili.

Sumagot sa ito tiyak na puna

Sa pamamagitan ng Scott Bannon | Sumagot sa may-akda

Shawn, salamat sa iyo para sa mga puna. Upang maging malinaw, ako ay kung ano ang buod ng ilang mga Republicans (karamihan sa tinututulang karera muling halalan) na nakasaad sa kamakailan-lamang na araw bago ang aking pagsusulat tungkol sa Amerikano 'pakiramdam ang kurot'. Kami ay may sa sumang-ayon na hindi sumasang-ayon sa ito, ngunit para sa maraming mga mas mababa at gitnang uri Amerikano ang sinturon ay bilang masikip gaya ito maaari kumuha, kaya kukunin ko na tumayo sa linya sa Republicans 'pahayag.

Bilang para sa Bush's tax cuts rate at ang gera upang magpatuloy sa kanila, hindi ako naniniwala ako ay dumating down na ang personal na sa magkabilang panig ng isyu na sa aking pag-post. Ang aking mga puna sa ito ay para lang i-highlight ang kasalukuyang panloob partido Splits nangyari sa paglipas ng pang-ekonomiyang mga isyu.

hindi sumasang-ayon ako na ito ay hindi makatarungan upang talakayin "cuts" sa badyet ng mga programa lamang dahil ang mga "cuts" lamang lalabas sa isang paghahambing ng 2005 at 2004 badyet. Kung ang isang tiyak na antas ng paggasta para sa anumang programa ay matagal para sa mga nakaraang taon o sampung lamang isa, ng pagbawas sa paggastos na ay sa pamamagitan ng kahulugan ng isang "cut" at sa pamamagitan ng lahat ng ibig sabihin nito makatarungan upang talakayin.

makuha ko ang iyong punto sa NASA at sumasang-ayon tila. Tulad ng nabanggit ko Ako ay isang malaking tagahanga ng NASA, ang pagkatuklas channel at pagputol-gilid agham. Still, sa tingin ko na ang pribadong sektor paglago at makabagong-likha ay ang kakayahan upang likhain pamahalaan pinondohan pananaliksik sa karamihan sa mga lugar. Ito ay ang pinakamalaking (ng marami) kanais-nais na argument para sa isang kapitalista lipunan sa aking opinyon.

Habang ako mas gusto NASA ay hindi ganap na mamatay, ito ay tunay na isang malaking halaga ng pera (bilyun-bilyong at bilyun-bilyong dolyar bawat taon) ay ginugol sa lumipad rockets sa comets at 4-pag-ikot ng isang robot sa paligid ng ibabaw ng Mars. Ang pananaliksik sa likod ng mga programang ito ay may-bisa at marangal, ngunit hindi bilang priority ng ilang mga iba pang mga programa kapag ang paggasta ay dapat bawasan.

Ito ay tulad ng pamamahala ng isang sambahayan na badyet sa isang grander scale. Kung hindi mo kayang mag-upgrade sa pinakabagong mga bagong gadget na-nakaimpake, papel-manipis, projection system na nakabatay sa bahay teatro sa taong ito dahil sa maliit na Timmy kailangan tirante, at pagkatapos ay magdusa ka sa pamamagitan ng pagmamasid sa Ang Simpsons sa lipas na sa panahon na 60 pulgada malaking-screen para sa ibang taon at mag-upgrade sa isang oras mamaya.

Siguro ko tumingin sa corporate welfare mula sa maling perspektibo, ngunit marahil hindi. Kung ang may-ari (s) ng Smith na Widgets nagpasiya na gusto nila ng isang buong dolyar bawat widget na nabili tubo, at pagkatapos ay pag-unawa na kailangan nila bayaran ang tungkol sa 47% ng kanilang kita sa buwis ay nangangahulugan na maaari nilang presyo ng kanilang mga widget na magkaroon ng isang maliit na higit sa isang dolyar at kalahati ng isang puwang sa paligid tubo. Ang pamahalaan ay makakakuha ng ito ay 47% at Smith na Widgets pockets ang buong dolyar bawat widget na nabili sila wanted.

Malinaw na ito ay hindi lubos na simplistic, ngunit pagkatapos ay muli sa ilang degree ito ay tunay.

Sa gayon, hindi ko ay nakatutok lamang sa mga lokal na pamahalaan deal na nag-aalok ng insentibo sa buwis at break sa mga kumpanya upang maging mga trabaho para sa kanilang rehiyon. Ang problema ay sa mga pederal na antas ng pati na rin at lihim na baboy sa maraming mga pagkakataon. Ang isang perpektong halimbawa ay ang isang kamakailan-lamang na Bill highway na humahawak ng isang lampas sa matwid na halaga ng baboy-based corporate Pagbigay bayad sa welfare tulad ng $ 37,000,000 upang mapalawak ang isang solong daan sa Arkansas na ang pangunahing punto ng access sa mga punong-himpilan ng Wal-Mart Tindahan Inc

hindi ako sigurado ng eksaktong 2005 kita para sa Wal-Mart, ngunit sa 2004 ito ay nakalista sa $ 10300000000 dollars. At habang Naiintindihan ko ang pangangailangan na may malalaking mga negosyo na matatagpuan sa isang komunidad at sa mga gawain sa kanila upang panatilihin ang mga ito sa komunidad, mga ulat ko na nakita sa iminumungkahi na ito ang problema sa trapiko ay hindi na masama kung ihahambing sa mga katulad na sa pamamagitan ng-pamasahe. Still, nagbabayad ng buwis ay sapilitang upang magbigay ng pera $ 37,000,000 dollars kaya na Wal-Mart empleyado ay maaaring magkaroon ng mas mabilis na access sa kanilang lugar ng trabaho. Ito ay isang form ng corporate welfare na umiiral ngunit ay madalas na overlooked.

Sa sakahan subsidies, ito ay isang matibay isa. Alam ko takda sa ito lamang sa isang tiyak na porsyento ay may negatibong epekto para sa buong industriya ng agrikultura at pasanin mamimili sa huli. Ako din malaman na tons ng pera ay na ginastos sa bawat taon sa pagbabayad sa may-ari ng lupa hindi gamitin ang kanilang mga lupain. Ang isang mabilis na paghahanap sa Google ay magpapakita na madalas ang mga may-ari ng lupa ay Sports o iba pang Entertainment stars o mayaman negosyo may-ari. Hindi mga tao na nais ang kanilang mga sakahan lupa pa rin, ngunit pa rin ng pamahalaan ang ay magbabayad ng mga ito upang matiyak na ito. Ito ay isang buwis loop-butas sa pagiging pinagsamantalahan, ito ay nasayang pera at ang buong programa ng mga pangangailangan na magkaroon ng isang matapat at transparent suriin upang masiguro na ang pera ay ginagamit sa ang pinakamabuting posibleng paraan upang aid ang pinaka-karapat-dapat na kandidato.

Sumagot sa ito tiyak na puna

Sa pamamagitan ng Shawn Bannon | Sumagot sa may-akda

Scott,

Ako palaging nasisiyahan na pumasok sa mga debate sa iyo.

Kayo ay may karapatan na marami sa mga GOP ay nahati sa paglipas ng paggasta at mga buwis cuts. Ang ilan sa aking partido ay may nawala paningin ng mga botante piskal pagpigil inaasahan mula sa Republican mambabatas. Nagkaroon ng ilang mga extenuating pangyayari pagbibigay ng kontribusyon sa kasalukuyang sitwasyon, ngunit sa katapusan ng araw, Republican mambabatas na kailangang gumawa ng mabuting trabaho ng pagkontrol ng kanilang mga sarili kapag ito ay dumating sa paggastos.

Ang pagkakaroon ng sinabi na, hindi, hindi ka bumaba sa isang tabi o sa iba pang mga tungkol sa Bush tax cuts. At hindi ako ay criticizing iyong mga discussion ng mga buwis cuts. Sa halip, ako ay nagdedetalye ng ilan sa mga benepisyo ng mga cuts buwis na ipaliwanag kung bakit ang pay-bilang-mo-go pambadyet patakaran, na kung saan kayo endorsed, ay hindi nagbibigay para sa pagpapalaki ng aming mga ekonomiya sa paraan na ang pagpapanatili ng buwis cuts ay.

May ay wala mali sa ilang mga depisit sa paggastos - kahit na ang isang pulutong ng depisit sa paggastos - kung ang ekonomiya sa paglaki robustly sapat na upang magbayad ng pababa ang deficits na nagreresulta sa isang makatwirang halaga ng oras. Ang ratio ng depisit sa GDP ay malayo mas mahalaga kaysa sa aktwal na antas ng depisit. Kaya, maaari mong taasan ang paghiram upang magbayad para sa mahalagang mga bagay na tulad ng digmaan sa terorismo, ang isang limitadong pagpapalaki ng Medicare, muling pag-aayos ng aming mga pambansang patakaran sa edukasyon, imprastraktura pagpapabuti, atbp Subalit mambabatas kailangan upang malaman kung saan ang mga linya ay sa pagitan ng kung ano ay gumagamit ng aming mga buwis dolyar ay masinop at kinakailangan at ang mga lamang na lumikha ng pampulitikang kabisera. Pay-bilang-mo-go pambadyet patakaran ay hindi gumagana (ito ay iba sa masamang panahon ng krisis), ay hindi kinakailangan at - sa katunayan - retards ang mga potensyal na paglago ng ekonomiya. Ngunit na ay hindi nangangahulugan na Republicans ay dapat maging malaya na tumakbo up ng tab, alinman.

Ngayon, sa makatarungan address ng ilan sa mga puntos na iyong ginawa sa iyong tugon sa aking mga puna:

Ito ay hindi makatarungan upang talakayin cuts sa pag-aaral at Medicare badyet bilang ikaw dahil ikaw nagpapabaya upang ilagay ang mga ito sa konteksto. Sila ay itinanghal sa iyong orihinal na piraso bilang tanda ng administrative kapabayaan - tingnan ang mga cuts sa mga importanteng proyekto habang ang iba pang, mas mababa-mahalaga o baboy proyekto ay ganap na pinondohan. Iyan ay kung ano ang di-makatarungang tungkol sa iyong mga discussion ng mga cuts. Ang mga pondo dedikado sa edukasyon at Medicare ay nadagdagan napakalaki dahil President Bush kinuha opisina, higit sa lahat sa pagtugon sa pangangailangan nilikha sa pamamagitan ng mga bagong batas at pagpapabuti ng mga benepisyo. Habang ang mga sistema ng paaralan nababagay sa mga bagong pamantayan at Medicare imprastraktura ay nilikha upang account para sa mga pagbabago na ito, mas maraming pera ay kinakailangan. Subalit, na parehong antas ng paggasta ay hindi kinakailangan na ngayon na ang mga programa ay up at tumatakbo, kaya ito ay lubos na angkop upang mabawasan ang mga badyet.

Mag-isip tungkol sa isang maliit na negosyo - ang isang tindahan ng hardware, siguro. Ang mga tindahan ay moderately matagumpay, at mga gastos sa itaas ay karaniwang tumakbo tungkol sa $ 1 milyon sa isang taon. (That's lamang ang isang halimbawa; Wala akong ideya kung ano ang aktwal na mga gastos sa itaas upang patakbuhin ang isang tindahan ng hardware ay.) Kaya, pagkatapos ng 10 taon sa negosyo, may-ari ng nagpasyang buksan ang isang pangalawang tindahan sa buong bayan. Sa na taon, ang kanyang mga operating mga gastos ay pagpunta sa kuwitis. Siya ay upang bumuo o baguhin ang isang gusali, pagbili imbentaryo, pag-upa ng kawani, atbp Ito ay maaaring gastos sa kanya $ 5,000,000 upang makakuha ng kanyang tindahan ng up at tumatakbo, at pagkatapos ay makikita siya ay may mas mataas na mga gastos na kaugnay sa pagpapatakbo ng pangalawang tindahan para sa isang bilang ng mga taon hanggang sa ito ay nagiging bilang magkano ang isang bahagi ng komunidad at mga lokal na ekonomiya bilang kanyang unang tindahan. Sa oras na, bagaman, ang mga gastos upang patakbuhin ang pangalawang tindahan ay dapat tungkol sa parehong bilang ng mga gastos upang patakbuhin ang unang. Kaya, limang taon down ang linya, ang kanyang mga gastos sa itaas ay marahil $ 2,500,000 para sa pinagsamang operasyon. Ngayon, ang kanyang ibabaw badyet ay nabawasan, taon sa paglipas ng taon mula ng ikalawang unang tindahan binuksan, ngunit na ay hindi nangangahulugan na siya ay neglecting ang negosyo, medyas mas mababang-kalidad na paninda o cheating sa kanyang mga customer.

Ang parehong goes para sa gobyerno sa paggastos. Masyadong madalas, sa tingin namin na ang pagbabawas ng pondo dedikado sa isang partikular na programa ay nangangahulugan ng isang awtomatikong pagkasira sa kalidad ng programa na. At ang mga tao tulad ng Senador Specter labanan para sa patuloy na pagpopondo sa parehong antas ng o mas mataas na pagpopondo - pagbuhos buwis dolyar kung saan sila ay hindi na ginagamit epektibo - na nangangahulugan na kami ay may sa hiwa sa ibang dako, tanggapin ang isang mas mataas na badyet depisit o magtaas ng mga buwis. Maaari naming debate edukasyon pagpopondo ng isa pang oras, ngunit ang pagbuhos ng mas maraming pera sa classrooms ay hindi - matagal na kataga - ang sagot sa problema ng edukasyon ng Amerika.

Tungkol sa NASA, marahil lamang namin kailangang sumang-ayon na hindi sumasang-ayon, dahil sa tingin ko ikaw ay 100 porsyento - OK, marahil makatarungan 95 bahagdan - ang mali dito. Bilang ko wrote huling gabi, yes, sang-ayon ako na ang ilang mga reprioritization ng mga proyekto at expenditures ay maaaring kinakailangan, ngunit Gusto ko talagang magtaltalan na NASA administrator ay may ginawa ng isang kapuri-puri trabaho sa ito alang sa kamakailan-lamang na taon. Sila ay may inayos ang kanilang mga plano para sa space pagsaliksik makabuluhang sa liwanag ng badyet at kaligtasan ng mga alalahanin.

NASA pananaliksik ay napakahalaga; ito spurs makabagong-likha sa pribadong sektor na hindi mangyayari kung hindi dahil ang gastos ay humahadlang sa mga lider sa negosyo nananagot sa namumuhunan. Ito ay katulad ng argumento ng maraming mga tao na gumawa sa pabor ng pederal na pagpopondo para sa mga ugat ng salita-cell research. Pagse-set-tabi ang mga benepisyo sa aming mga programa sa pagtatanggol, ang mga benepisyo ng NASA pananaliksik sa aming araw-araw na buhay - kasama na, ngunit maraming mga malayo mas mahalaga kaysa sa mga bagay tulad ng luho malaking-screen telebisyon - ay masyadong marami sa sakripisyo.

Basta magtanong sinumang may kailanman survived isang buhay-pagbabanta sakit dahil sa pinabuting medikal na pag-unawa batay sa NASA science. Magtanong ng isang amputee na maaaring tumakbo sa araw na ito dahil sa isang artipisyal na paa na naka-disenyo gamit ang mga metal at engineering concepts unang binuo para sa NASA aplikasyon. Magtanong ng isang tao na ang pamilya nakatakas sa trailer bahay sa Oklahoma lamang bago ang isang buhawi gulat kung gaano kahalaga ito ay na sila got ang isang 14-minuto na babala dahil sa pinabuting panahon sa pagsubaybay ng mga sistema at ang isang enriched pag-unawa ng klima batay sa pananaliksik NASA. Ang ilang henerasyon ago, hindi nila alam na may tungkol na buhawi hanggang sa sila ay narinig ito sa nakagugulat sa pamamagitan ng kanilang mga kapitbahay 'tahanan. Tanungin ang dalaga na ang buhay ay nai-save na kapag siya ay ma-i-dial ang mga pulis sa kanyang cell phone mula sa baul ng kanyang kotse mangangagaw ng tungkol sa kahalagahan ng na ang telepono at ang global positioning teknolohiya sa pulis na ginagamit upang mahanap ang kanyang. Ito ay NASA. Ito ay hindi tungkol sa super-duper malaking-screen telebisyon, bilang gandang bilang sila. Gusto pinapayo na inyong suriin ang mga buhay sa Earth na bahagi ng Web site NASA's para sa mga lamang ng isang maliit na piraso ng impormasyon tungkol sa maraming mahalagang mga paraan NASA ay na gawin ang mga mundo ng isang mas mahusay na lugar. Maaari mong mahanap ito sa http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/features/index.html .

Of course, ito ay hindi nangangahulugan na dapat namin bigyan ng NASA ng isang walang limitasyong badyet o pananaliksik na doon ay hindi dapat angkop na mga kontrol sa lugar na suriin ang kanilang paggasta, ngunit hindi kailanman ako ay sumasang-ayon na NASA paggasta ay kamag-anak sa pampulitika motivated proyekto ng baboy na ang tunay na salot sa aming mga badyet.

Ang paglipat paksa, tingin ko, ako din may sa hindi sumasang-ayon sa iyong "corporate welfare" argument. Ang iyong widget na kumpanya ay hindi lamang magtaas ng mga presyo na gumawa nito nais na margins para sa isang bilang ng mga dahilan, ang lahat ng kung saan ay isang tipan sa kagandahan ng kapitalismo. Ilagay lamang, maaari lamang sila singilin kung ano ang market ay magkakaroon. Kung taasan nila ang mga presyo at mga mamimili patuloy na bumili ng kanilang mga produkto, sila ay singilin masyadong maliit upang magsimula sa. Kung taasan nila ang mga presyo at mga mamimili ay piliin na ihinto ang pagbili ng kanilang mga widgets, ang kumpanya ay mas mababa ang presyo o, sensing pagkakataon, handa sa hirap ng isang kasali sa paligsahan ay hakbang sa at nagbebenta ng isang maihahambing produkto para sa isang 75-sentimo tubo puwang sa paligid. Sa katapusan ng araw, ang physics ng kompetisyon ng bukal sa kapitalismo utos na kalakal ay nabili lamang sa isang merkado na presyo ay maaaring magkaroon ng kinalaman, na kung saan ay kung bakit ang kapitalismo ay mabuti para sa mga mamimili.

Bilang para sa Wal-Mart halimbawa, na hindi "corporate welfare," at hindi kahit na ito ay maaaring baboy. Wal-Mart ay lumago mula sa isang maliit na organisasyon sa isa sa mga mundo pinakamalaking. Ito ay, sa maraming paraan, outgrown kanyang bahay, kaya na makipag-usap. Ngayon, maaaring ito ilipat. Iyan ay marahil kung ano ang iyong o Gusto ko gawin kung outgrew namin ang aming tahanan. Subalit ang mga pulitiko na kumakatawan sa mga mamamayan ng Arkansas na maunawaan ang napakalawak na halaga sa kanilang mga constituents at sa ekonomiya ng kanilang estado bukal sa pagsunod sa Wal-Mart kanan kung saan ito ay. Kung pagpapalapad ng kalsada nagpapabuti sa daloy ng trapiko at din sa benepisyo ang ekonomiya sa pamamagitan ng paraan ng paggawa ng mga lokasyon ng isang mas na mga lugar para sa Wal-Mart upang ipagpatuloy ang operasyon nito, ito ay lubos na angkop para sa pagpopondo ng mga proyekto na na kasama sa isang appropriations bill highway.

Wal-Mart kita walang kinalaman sa argument na ito. Ang mga ito ay hindi anumang mas direktang pananagutan na magbayad para sa pangangalaga ng kalye sa paligid ng kanilang punong himpilan kaysa namin bilang mga indibidwal na buwis-payers ay may pananagutan na magbayad para sa maintenance ng mga kalye kung saan live kami. Oo, ang kanilang kita ay malaking-malaki. Subalit gayon ay ang kanilang mga buwis pasan. Was ito paggasta ng baboy - isang mambabatas pagkahagis ng isang buto sa isang bahay kumpanya sa likod? Siguro. Iyon ay depende sa kung o hindi ang mga proyekto ay talagang kinakailangan upang mapabuti ang daloy ng trapiko at panatilihin ang Wal-Mart punong-himpilan ng doon. Ni ikaw ni ako ang pag-aaral o ang malalim na kaalaman ng mga detalye ukol sa lokasyon na ito upang matukoy kung o hindi ang kalye proyekto ay kinakailangan. Ngunit kahit na ito ay hindi - kahit na ito ay baboy - ito pa rin ay hindi na "corporate welfare."

Bilang ko wrote huling gabi, "corporate welfare" ay isang maling tawag. Sa pamamagitan ng at malaki, ito ay hindi tunay na umiiral maliban sa mga isip ng mga liberals na hindi nais na naniniwala diyan ay kailanman ng isang magandang dahilan upang gamitin ang dolyar ng buwis sa isang paraan na makikinabang malalaking mga korporasyon. Ang isa ay maaaring gumawa ng mga argument na ang ilang mga pamahalaan bailouts, tulad ng suporta ng gobyerno ang nagbigay ng Airlines pagkatapos ng Setyembre 11, ay "corporate welfare." Subalit ang mga ito ay lubhang bihirang okasyon at hindi kung ano ang karamihan sa tao ibig sabihin kapag ginagamit nila ang mga kataga.

Karaniwan, ang mga pariralang "corporate welfare" ay ginagamit ng mga tao na tanggihan ang higit na kahusayan ng kapitalismo sa iba pang mga pang-ekonomiyang mga sistema. Ang mga ito ay mga tao na naniniwala na ang lahat ng bagay ay dapat pantay-pantay at walang sinuman na dapat kailangang isaalang-alang ang kahit na ano sila ay "masyadong maraming" habang ang iba pumunta nang walang. Ang mga ito ay mga tao na naniniwala sa mga karapatan sa halip ng mga pagtitiwala sa sariling kakayahan; tingin nila ang papel ng pamahalaan ay upang magbigay ng kabuhayan sa halip ng mga pagkakataon. tingin nila sa Wal-Mart at iba pang mga matagumpay na mga kumpanya ay inherently masama. At sila ay na-imbento ang salitang "corporate welfare" dahil hindi sila naniniwala na ang matagumpay na mga organisasyon ay dapat na catered para sa anumang paraan, hugis o anyo sa pamamagitan ng aming pamahalaan. Ito ay ang kanilang mga plataporma sa kabila ng ang katunayan na ang mga organisasyon tulad ng Wal-Mart lumikha ng mga trabaho, gasolina ekonomiya paglago at magbigay ng kontribusyon sa mga komunidad kung saan sila ay matatagpuan. Ang mga liberals ay talagang gawin-mula-sa-mayaman-at-magbigay-sa-ang-mahirap sosyalista na mas gugustuhin pilasin mga matagumpay kaysa sa sabihin sa mga taong hindi na gumawa ng higit pa sa kanilang mga pagkakataon.

Ngayon, hindi ako sa tingin malupit o lipak. Kami bilang isang tao dapat na maging mahabagin. ala namin na kumuha ng pag-aalaga ng mga taong tunay na disadvantaged. Subalit nararapat nating gawin na mas maraming bilang kapitbahay at mas mababa bilang nagbabayad ng buwis. ala namin na gawin na sa pamamagitan ng mga donasyon gawin namin sa aming mga simbahan o sa aming mga coworkers 'fundraising walkathons. ala namin na magbigay sa higit pa sa aming sariling oras bilang boluntaryo. ala naming hinihikayat ang aming mga pamahalaan upang pondohan ang trabaho-kasanayan sa pagsasanay para sa mga taong nais na gumawa ng isang mas mahusay na buhay para sa kanilang sarili at ang kanilang mga minamahal. ala naming tumayo sa likod ng pamahalaan aid na nagbibigay ng mga tao ang isang kamay up, hindi ng isang kamay out. Subalit dapat namin tumaas up laban sa anumang pagsisikap na parusahan ang mga may been mapalad dahil "ito ay hindi makatarungang" na may mga iba na may hindi na natanto ang kanilang potensyal. At na kung ano ang liberals / sosyalista - ang mga tao na magtaltalan laban sa anumang paggamit ng mga dolyar ng buwis na benepisyo ng isang korporasyon (hindi alintana ng mga resulta benepisyo sa komunidad at sa ekonomiya) - Layunin nito na gawin. hindi ako naniniwala kayo ay isa sa mga ito, kaya ko gusto hikayatin kayo na umisip na muli ang isyu na ito at ang paggamit ng salitang "corporate welfare."

Sumagot sa ito tiyak na puna

Sa pamamagitan ng Scott Bannon | Sumagot sa may-akda

Shawn, natutuwa ako could sagwan ka enjoy ko ang aming mga sibil sa likod at sa forths.

Hindi ko ini-endorso ang mga pay-bilang-mo-go pambadyet patakaran. Ako may larawan na ito bilang nag-iisang pinaka makabuluhang-bigo at ilipat-kamakailan-lamang na ginawa sa pamamagitan ng Democrats sa address sa labas ng kontrol sa paggastos sa Washington. Aking pasensiya na kung noon ay hindi malinaw na malinaw sa aking mga artikulo.

Hindi namin hindi sumasang-ayon sa ang panganib ng mga pay-bilang-ka-pumunta patakaran, ang mga ito ay mahigpit at taos-puso matatamaan sa bansa. Kami ay marahil ang hindi sumasang-ayon sa kapag ang isang marahas masukat pasak ay magiging angkop sa makintal, ngunit maari ko bang iwan ito bilang isang pilosopiko pagkakaiba sa kung saan upang gumuhit ng pambadyet linya ng kamatayan.

Sa NASA, bilang ko na conceded na, Naiintindihan ko ang iyong mga punto at hindi ganap na hindi sumasang-ayon. Gayunman, balancing ng isang pambansang badyet ay hirap sa trabaho. May isang may takda na halaga upang pumunta sa paligid at matigas pagpipilian ay dapat ginawa. Ang ilalim na linya ay prayoridad. Oo, NASA ay ginawa (at patuloy na gumawa) matinding kontribusyon upang mapagbuti tao buhay.

Walang mas mahalaga bagaman, sa isang pantay-pantay o mas mataas na halaga ng sa American populasyong ay pagkain, silungan, gamot at edukasyon upang matiyak hinaharap na henerasyon ay may mga kakayahan upang magpatuloy sa pagbuo ng mga bagong at mas higit na teknolohiya.

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.

Hindi ko nais na magpatuloy sa ito subaybayan marami pang para sa takot na ang ilang mga mambabasa ay maaaring naniniwala ako lang ang "isa pang masaganang paglusob sa Wal-Mart". Ko na defended ng kumpanya na sa nakaraang laban sa gayong mga atake at ginagamit lamang ito bilang isang halimbawa dito dahil sa halimbawa at katotohanan ay ang unang magagamit sa isang mabilis na paghahanap. Kung katulad natuklasan tungkol sa ibang negosyo ay unang Gusto ko may ginamit ang mga ito sa halip. Ako halos pakiramdam ng pangangailangan sa email Lee Scott sa isang coppa mia.

Upang pumunta off-topic mula sa orihinal na artikulo dito para sa mga sandali lamang, hindi sa tingin ko ikaw ay malupit o lipak, ngunit tingin ko ito ang mali upang gumawa ng implikasyon kumot na iminumungkahi ng isang negatibong equation ng liberals sa sosyalista.

Una sa lahat, sosyalismo mismo ay hindi inherently masama bilang ilang ay naniniwala. Ito ay isang sistema, walang mas o mas mababa, at ang anumang mga masasamang halimbawa na maaaring-nabanggit sinasabi ko ay maaaring maiugnay sa mga tao sa pagtratrabaho ang sistema at hindi ang sistema mismo. Ang parehong ay totoo ng monarchies, democracies republics at sa pamamagitan ng kasaysayan. Bilang katibayan alok ko na sosyalismo ay nagtrabaho ng mabuti para sa mga Katoliko at iba pang mga relihiyon na inayos para sa maraming henerasyon ngayon. Hindi bababa sa pati na rin ang anumang mga sistema ay para sa iba pang mga grupong.

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.

Maaari mga programang ito maging matigas ang ulo albatrosses? Oo, na ang dahilan kung bakit kailangan nila upang maging maayos nabuo at magkaroon ng 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…

Sumagot sa ito tiyak na puna

Sa pamamagitan ng Shawn Bannon | Sumagot sa may-akda

Scott,

Ikinalulungkot namin na ako magkamali ng basa mo sa pay-bilang-mo-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.

Sumagot sa ito tiyak na puna

Sa pamamagitan ng Scott Bannon | Sumagot sa may-akda

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.

Sumagot sa ito tiyak na puna

Sa pamamagitan ng Shawn Bannon | Sumagot sa may-akda

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.

Sumagot sa ito tiyak na puna

Sa pamamagitan ng Scott Bannon | Sumagot sa may-akda

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.

Sumagot sa ito tiyak na puna

Sa pamamagitan ng Shawn Bannon | Sumagot sa may-akda

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.

Sumagot sa ito tiyak na puna