Political Blogs, News & Views

Sa pamamagitan ng Shawn Bannon | Sumagot sa may-akda

Scott,

Ako sa iyo sa issue ng baboy, ngunit Mayroon akong gumawa ng isyu sa iyo sa isang pares ng mga iba pang mga bagay-bagay. Una sa lahat, tungkol sa mga depisit, hindi ka maaaring claim na Amerikano ay ang pakiramdam kurot kapag isaalang-alang mo na ang susi measurements ng pang-ekonomiyang kalusugan ay ang lahat ng mahusay. Basta tumingin sa merkado sa pabahay, na kung saan ay nakasakay sa 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 Gusto pagputok para rin sa loob ng isang taon, ngunit ito ay hindi pa. At ang may-ari ng bahay gumawa ng isang mas mataas na porsyento ng ating populasyon ngayon kaysa sa anumang oras mula sa rate na ay unang sabay-sabay. Gas presyo ay dalawang beses sa kung ano sila ay lamang ng ilang taon na ang nakaraan, ngunit sila ay na dahil sa mataas na demand sa merkado ay nagtutukod mga presyo. Ang mga tao ay hindi dramatically 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 - upang biyak tax rate sa pamamagitan ng pangangasiwa Bush at, tulad ng abot ng mga korporasyon ay nababahala, sa antas ng estado. Presidente Bush's buwis biyak nagpunta sa bisa noong 2001, at predictably, buwis sa kita ay wala na 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 na mga rate sa buwis, at sa 1980s, kapag ang Pangulo Reagan ay ang parehong. Buwis sa mga rate ng bumaba. Consumer paggasta at negosyo investment pumunta up. Companies expand, mga trabaho ay nilikha, at sa buwis sa kita ng nadadagdagan. Ito ay kung bakit pay bilang pumunta ka sa patakaran sa buwis ay hindi gumagana. Ito negates ang mga epekto ng mga pamumuhunan paglago sa ekonomiya. Mababang mga rate sa buwis - at ang mga indibidwal at mga korporasyon na antas - magreresulta sa mas maraming abundant pang-ekonomiya at paglago ng mas mataas na buwis sa kita. Kasaysayan bears na-out. Sa kabaligtaran, tataas sa rate ng tax na paggastos kabalyerisa mamimili at limitasyon sa kakayahan ng mga korporasyon sa reinvest kita sa mga paraan na palaguin ang mga negosyo at lumikha ng mga trabaho.

Ito ay di-patas na pag-usapan "hiwa" sa mga badyet para sa edukasyon at mga tiyak na karapatan programa dahil sa mga "hiwa" lamang lalabas sa isang paghahambing ng 2,005 at 2004 badyet. Subalit ang edukasyon at Medicare na budget ng ballooned since President Bush kinuha opisina noong 2001 bilang resulta ng mga No Child Left Behind batas at ang bagong reseta ng gamot na pakinabang para sa mga nakatatanda. Senador multo ay ang paraan off base sa mga isyung ito.

Hindi pumatay NASA. Masyadong marami American pagbabago sa huling 50 taon ay resulta ng NASA pananaliksik. Masyadong marami sa mga produkto sa aming mga tahanan hindi kailan man ay nabuo na ito ay hindi para sa unang mga aplikasyon sa mga batayan sa science NASA programa. Puwede naming mas pokus ang nasasakupan ng NASA bilang isang paraan na naglalaman ng mga gastos? Oo, at maaari namin makakuha ng ilang mga lupa. Ngunit kahit ang isang pangunahing maingat na pagsusuri o ng isang libing para sa programa ay magreresulta sa pang-matagalang mga benepisyo para sa ating ekonomiya na lumamang ang gastos ng surrendering ang mga benepisyo namin reaped at patuloy anihan mula sa NASA ang pagkakaroon.

Corporate welfare ay isang maling pangalan, at sa tingin ko ang hinahanap mo sa isyu sa mga maling paraan. Korporasyon absolutely ko magbayad ng mga buwis sa kita sa parehong paraan mo at gagawin ko. Consumers madala ang mga pasanin ng mataas na mga rate ng corporate tax lamang sa parehong pang-unawa na ang aming mga employer pumasa sa buwis sa pamamagitan ng pera sa amin sa pamahalaan. Kapag sila ay binibigyan ng break ng buwis - madalas sa 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? Kung minsan oo, minsan hindi. Ngunit ito ay corporate kapakanan? Hindi, ito ay isang kinakalkula panganib na nakuha sa mga lokal na pulitiko na lang ay hindi palaging bayaran.

Sa wakas, hinggil sa subsidies sakahan, ang iyong punto ay lubos na ginawa, at ng 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 pakikibaka na panatilihin ang kanilang maliit na operasyon. Walang mga subsidies, malaki na ang sakahan ay talagang paggawa ng pagkain ay magiging unsustainable at / o ang presyo ng pagkain ay tumaas dramatically, malalang epekto sa mahihirap. Kaya, ang sagot ay isang sabunot sa tulong na salapi programa na lang na tingin sa hiwa ng mga benepisyo sa mga tao na sariling "bukid" na hindi nagbubunga ng anumang bagay na higit sa subsidies sa kanilang sarili.

Sumagot sa tiyak na puna

Ayon sa 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 muling halalan karera) na nakasaad sa kamakailan-lamang na araw bago ang aking pagsusulat tungkol sa mga Amerikano 'pakiramdam ang kurot'. Kami ay may sa sumang-ayon na hindi sumasang-ayon sa mga 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 pumila sa Republicans 'na pahayag.

Bilang para sa Bush's buwis biyak rate at ang gera upang magpatuloy sa kanila, hindi ako naniniwala ako dumating down ng personal sa magkabilang panig ng isyu sa aking pag-post. Aking mga puna sa ito ay inilaan lamang upang i-highlight ang kasalukuyang panloob na partido Splits nangyari sa mga isyung pang-ekonomiya.

Hindi sumasang-ayon ako na ito ay di-patas na pag-usapan "hiwa" sa mga badyet ng mga programa lamang dahil sa mga "hiwa" lamang lalabas sa isang paghahambing ng 2,005 at 2004 badyet. Kung ang isang tiyak na antas ng paggasta para sa anumang programa ay matagal para sa nakaraang sampung taon o isa lamang, pagbabawas ng isang na sa paggasta ay sa pamamagitan ng pagbibigay-kahulugan ng "cut" at ng lahat ng makatarungang paraan upang mapag-usapan.

Nakukuha ko ang iyong punto sa NASA at sumasang-ayon medyo. Tulad ng nabanggit ko Ako ay isang malaking tagahanga ng NASA, ang Discovery channel at pagputol-gilid agham. Still, naniniwala ako na ang pribadong sektor advances at makabagong-likha ng may kakayahang gumawa ng pamahalaan na pinondohan ng pananaliksik sa karamihan sa mga lugar. Ito ay ang pinakamalaking (ng marami) sang-ayon argument para sa isang kapitalista lipunan sa aking opinyon.

Habang ang gusto ko ang NASA ay hindi ganap na mamatay, ito ay tunay na isang malaking halaga ng pera (at bilyon-bilyong bilyun-bilyong dolyar bawat taon) ay ginugol sa lumipad rockets sa mga 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 bilang ilang mga iba pang programang kapag ang paggasta ay dapat bawasan.

Ito ay tulad ng sa pamamahala ng isang bahay na badyet sa isang grander scale. Kung hindi mo kayang i-upgrade sa pinakabagong mga bagong gadget na-nakaimpake, papel-manipis, projection batay sa bahay teatro sistema 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 susunod na panahon.

Siguro ako tumingin sa corporate kabutihan mula sa mga maling pananaw, ngunit marahil hindi. Kung ang may-ari (s) ng mga Smith Widgets nagpasiya na gusto nila isang buong dolyar bawat widget na nabili tubo, at pagkatapos ay pag-unawa na kailangan nila magbayad ng tungkol sa 47% ng kanilang kita sa buwis na nangangahulugan na maaari na sila ng presyo ng kanilang mga widgets na magkaroon ng isang maliit na sa loob ng isang dolyar at ang isang kalahating margin tubo. Ang pamahalaan ay makakakuha ng ito ay 47% at Smith Widgets pockets ang buong dolyar bawat widget na nabili nila pinaghahanap.

Malinaw na ito ay hindi lubos na simplistic, pero pagkatapos ay muli sa ilang mga antas na ito ay tunay.

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

Hindi ako sigurado sa eksaktong 2,005 kita para sa Wal-Mart, ngunit sa 2004 ito ay nakalista sa $ 10.3 billion dollars. At habang Naiintindihan ko ang pangangailangan na magkaroon ng mga malalaking mga negosyo na matatagpuan sa isang komunidad at sa mga gawain sa kanila upang panatilihin ang mga ito sa komunidad, ang mga ulat ko na nakita sa iminumungkahi ng mga problema ng trapiko ay hindi na masama kapag inihambing sa mga katulad na sa pamamagitan ng-pasahe. Still, nagbabayad ng buwis ay pinilit na shell out $ 37 million dollars para sa Wal-Mart empleyado ay maaaring magkaroon ng mas mabilis na access sa kanilang lugar ng trabaho. Ito ay isang porma ng corporate welfare na umiiral ngunit ito ay madalas na overlooked.

Sa subsidies sakahan, ito ay isang matigas ang ulo ng isa. Kong malaman pumipigil ito sa lamang sa isang tiyak na porsyento ay maaaring magkaroon ng negatibong epekto para sa buong industriya ng agrikultura at tumatangkilik pasanin sa huli. Ko rin malaman na tons ng pera ay ginugol sa bawat taon ng pagbabayad ng may-ari ng lupa na hindi gamitin ang kanilang mga lupain. Isang mabilis na paghahanap sa Google ay magpapakita na madalas ay ang mga may-ari ng lupa ay Sports o iba pang Entertainment stars mayaman o may-ari ng negosyo. Hindi mga tao na gusto ng kanilang mga sakahan lupa pa rin, ngunit pa rin ang pamahalaan ay magbabayad ng mga ito upang matiyak na ito. Ito ay isang buwis sa loop-butas na pinagsamantalahan, ito ay nasayang ang pera at ang buong programa ng pangangailangan na magkaroon ng isang tapat at transparent na suriin upang masiguro na ang pera ay ginagamit sa pinakamabuting paraan na tulungan ang pinaka-karapat-dapat na kandidato.

Sumagot sa tiyak na puna

Sa pamamagitan ng Shawn Bannon | Sumagot sa may-akda

Scott,

Ako palaging nasisiyahan na pumasok sa debate sa iyo.

Kayo ay may karapatan na marami sa GOP ay split sa paggasta at mga buwis sa biyak. Ang ilan sa aking mga partido nawala sa paningin ng piskal ang pagpigil sa mga botante inaasahan mula sa Republican mambabatas. Nagkaroon ng ilang mga pangyayari extenuating pagbibigay ng kontribusyon sa kasalukuyang kalagayan, ngunit sa katapusan ng araw, Republican mambabatas na kailangang gumawa ng mabuting trabaho ng pagkontrol ng kanilang mga sarili pagdating sa paggastos.

Ang pagkakaroon ng said na, no, hindi ka bumaba sa isa sa gilid o sa iba pang mga tungkol sa Bush tax biyak. At hindi ako ay criticizing iyong discussion ng mga biyak na buwis. Sa halip, ako ay nagdedetalye ng ilan sa mga benepisyo ng mga biyak sa buwis na ipaliwanag kung bakit pay-bilang-mo-go pambadyet patakaran, na kung saan kayo endorsed, ay hindi magbibigay ng para sa pagpapalawak ng ating ekonomiya sa paraan na ang pagpapanatili ng buwis ay biyak.

Walang mali sa ilang mga depisit sa paggasta - kahit na ang isang pulutong ng depisit sa paggasta - kung ang ekonomiya ng lumalaki robustly sapat na upang magbayad ng down ang deficits na nagreresulta sa isang makatwirang halaga ng oras. Ang ratio ng depisit sa GDP ay mas higit na mahalaga kaysa sa aktwal na antas ng depisit. Kaya, maaari mong taasan ang paghiram ng magbayad para sa mahalagang mga bagay na tulad ng digmaan sa terorismo, ang isang limitadong pagpapalawak ng Medicare, muling pag-aayos ng aming mga pambansang patakaran sa edukasyon, imprastraktura ng mga pagpapahusay, atbp Subalit ang mga mambabatas na kailangan malaman kung saan ang mga linya ay sa pagitan ng kung ano ang gumagamit ng aming buwis dollars ay may isip at kailangan at doon na lang gumawa ng pulitikal na capital. 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 iyon ay hindi nangangahulugan na Republicans ay dapat mag-atubili na tumakbo ang mga tab na, alinman.

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

Ito ay hindi makatarungan upang talakayin ang biyak sa edukasyon at mga badyet ng Medicare bilang ikaw dahil napapabayaan na ilagay ang mga ito sa konteksto. Sila ay iniharap sa iyong orihinal na piraso bilang tanda ng administrative kapabayaan - tingnan ang biyak sa mga mahahalagang proyekto habang ang iba, mas-importante o baboy proyekto ay ganap na pondo. Iyan ay kung ano ang di-patas na diskusyon tungkol sa iyong ng biyak. Ang mga pondo na nakaukol sa edukasyon at Medicare ay nadagdagan since malaking-malaki President Bush kinuha opisina, pangunahin sa bilang tugon sa kailangan na nilikha ng mga bagong batas at enhancement ng mga benepisyo. Habang ang mga sistema ng paaralan na nababagay sa mga bagong pamantayan at Medicare imprastraktura ay nilikha upang account para sa mga pagbabagong ito, mas maraming pera ay kinakailangan. Subalit, na parehong antas ng paggasta ay hindi kinakailangan na ngayon na ang programa ay up at tumatakbo, kaya ito ay lubos na angkop upang mabawasan ang mga badyet.

Mag-isip tungkol sa isang maliit na negosyo - isang hardware store, marahil. Ang mga tindahan ay moderately matagumpay, at sa ibabaw gastos sa pangkalahatan tumakbo tungkol sa $ 1 milyon sa isang taon. (Ito lamang ay isang halimbawa; Wala akong ideya kung ano ang aktwal na gastos sa itaas upang mapatakbo ang isang tindahan ng hardware ay.) Kaya, matapos ang 10 taon sa negosyo, ang may-ari ay nagpasiya na magbukas ng isang pangalawang tindahan sa buong bayan. Sa taon na, ang kanyang mga operating mga gastos ay pagpunta sa biglang tumaas. Siya ay upang mabuo o magkumpuni ng isang gusali, bumili ng imbentaryo, upa ng kawani, at iba pa ay maaaring ito na gastos sa kanya $ 5 million upang makakuha ng kanyang tindahan ng up at tumatakbo, at pagkatapos ay makikita siya ay may mas mataas na mga gastos na kaugnay ng pagpapatakbo ng pangalawang tindahan para sa isang bilang ng mga taon hangga't ito ay nagiging tulad ng marami sa isang bahagi ng komunidad at lokal na ekonomiya ng kanyang unang store. 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 pababa ang linya, ang kanyang mga gastos sa itaas ay marahil $ 2.5 milyon ang pinagsama ng operasyon. Ngayon, sa ibabaw ng kanyang badyet ay nabawasan, taon sa paglipas ng taon mula sa ikalawang tindahan unang binuksan, ngunit iyon ay hindi nangangahulugan na siya neglecting sa negosyo, ang 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 na nakaukol sa isang partikular na programa ay nangangahulugan ng isang awtomatikong pagsama sa kalidad ng programa. At ang mga tao tulad ng senador multo labanan para sa patuloy na pagpopondo sa parehong antas o mas mataas na pagpopondo - pagbuhos dolyar ng buwis kung saan sila ay hindi ginagamit na epektibong - na nangangahulugan na mayroon tayo sa hiwa sa ibang lugar, tanggapin ang isang mas mataas na depisit na badyet o magtaas ng mga buwis. Maaari naming debate edukasyon pagpopondo ng isa pang oras, ngunit ang pagbuhos ng mas maraming pera sa silid-aralan ay hindi - pangmatagalang - ang sagot sa problema sa pag-aaral Amerika.

Tungkol sa NASA, marahil lamang namin ang kailangang sumang-ayon na hindi sumasang-ayon, dahil sa tingin ko ikaw ay 100 bahagdan - OK, baka lang 95 bahagdan - ang mali dito. Bilang ako wrote huling gabi, oo, Sumasang-ayon ako na ang ilang mga reprioritization ng mga proyekto at expenditures ay maaaring kinakailangan, ngunit nais ko talagang magtaltalan na NASA administrador nagawa ng isang kapuri-puri ng trabaho sa pagsasaalang-alang sa mga kamakailan-lamang na taon. Sila ay nababagay sa kanilang mga plano para sa puwang sa pagsaliksik makabuluhan sa liwanag ng badyet at pag-aalala sa kaligtasan.

NASA pananaliksik ay mahalaga; ito spurs pagbabago sa pribadong sektor na hindi mangyayari kung hindi dahil sa mga gastos ay pumipigil sa mga lider sa negosyo nananagot sa mga namumuhunan. Ito ay katulad ng argument na maraming tao ang gumawa sa pabor ng pederal na pagpopondo para sa stem cell-research. Pagse-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 malayo higit na mahalaga kaysa sa mga bagay na luho tulad ng malaking-screen TVs - ay masyadong marami sa sakripisyo.

Basta humingi ng sinumang may kailanman survived ng isang nakamamatay na sakit dahil sa mga pinahusay na mga medikal na pag-unawa base sa NASA science. Magtanong ng isang amputee na maaaring tumakbo ngayon 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 sa pamilya na ang nakatakas sa trailer bahay sa Oklahoma lamang bago buhawi sa isang gulat kung gaano kahalaga ito ay na sila got isang 14-minuto na babala dahil sa panahon pinabuting mga sistema ng pagsubaybay at isang enriched-unawa ng klima base sa NASA pananaliksik. Ang ilang henerasyon nakaraan, hindi nila alam na may tungkol na buhawi hanggang sa sila ay narinig ito sa pag-rip sa pamamagitan ng kanilang mga kapitbahay 'tahanan. Tanungin ang mga batang babae na ang buhay ay naka-save na kapag siya ay ma-i-dial ang mga pulis sa kanyang cell phone mula sa baul ng kotse ang kanyang mangangagaw tungkol sa kahalagahan ng na ang telepono at ang teknolohiya ng global positioning ng pulis ginagamit upang makahanap sa kanya. Ito ay NASA. Ito ay hindi tungkol sa super-duper malaking-screen TVs, tulad ng nice na ang mga ito. Gusto ko pinapayo na i-tsek mo ang Life on Earth bahagi ng mga Web site ng NASA para lamang sa isang maliit na piraso ng impormasyon tungkol sa maraming mahalagang paraan NASA ay gawin ang mga mundo ng isang mas mahusay na lugar. Maaari mong makita ito sa http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/features/index.html.

Of course, ito ay hindi nangangahulugan na dapat naming bigyan ng NASA isang walang limitasyong badyet sa pananaliksik o na mayroong hindi dapat maging angkop ang mga kontrol sa lugar upang repasuhin ang kanilang paggasta, ngunit hindi kailanman ako ay sumasang-ayon na ang NASA sa paggastos ay akin sa pampulitika motivated proyekto ng baboy ay na - ang tunay na salot sa aming budget.

Ang paglipat ng mga paksa, tingin ko, ako ay mayroon din na hindi sumasang-ayon sa iyong "corporate welfare" argumento. Ang iyong widget kumpanya ay hindi maaaring lamang magtaas ng mga presyo upang lumikha ng kanyang nais na mga gilid para sa isang bilang ng mga dahilan, ang lahat ng na kung saan ay isang testamento sa kagandahan ng kapitalismo. Ilagay lamang, maaari lamang nila kung ano ang singil sa merkado ay magkakaroon. Kung taasan nila ang mga presyo at mga mamimili ay 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 pumili upang ihinto ang pagbili ng kanilang mga widgets, ang kumpanya ay mas mababa ang presyo o, sensing pagkakataon, handa sa hirap ng isang kalahok sa paligsahan ay hakbang sa at magbenta ng isang maihahambing na produkto para sa isang 75-sentimong tubo. Sa katapusan ng araw, ang physics ng competition likas sa kapitalismo utos na gamit na maibebenta lamang sa presyo sa merkado maaaring bear, 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 kahit na hindi ito maaaring baboy. Wal-Mart ay lumago mula sa isang maliit na organisasyon sa isa sa mundo pinakamalaking. Ito ay, sa maraming paraan, outgrown nito sa bahay, kaya na makipag-usap. Ngayon, maaaring ilipat. Iyon ay marahil kung ano ang iyong o gusto kong gawin kung outgrew namin ang aming tahanan. Ngunit ang mga pulitiko na kumakatawan sa mga mamamayan ng Arkansas maintindihan ang napakalawak na halaga sa kanilang mga constituents at sa ekonomiya ng kanilang estado bukal sa pagsunod sa Wal-Mart kanan kung saan ito. Kung pagpapalapad ng kalsada nagpapabuti sa daloy ng trapiko at mga benepisyo din ang ekonomiya sa pamamagitan ng paraan ng paggawa ng lokasyon ng isang mas angkop na lugar para sa Wal-Mart upang magpatuloy sa kanyang operasyon, ito ay lubos na angkop para sa pagpopondo ng mga proyekto na na isasama sa isang appropriations bill highway.

Wal-Mart kita ay walang kinalaman sa argument na ito. Ang mga ito ay hindi sa anumang mas direkta responsable magbayad para sa pangangalaga ng mga kalye sa paligid ng kanilang punong-himpilan sa namin bilang mga indibidwal na tax-payers ay responsable magbayad para sa pagpapanatili ng mga kalye na kung saan nakatira namin. Oo, ang kanilang kita ay malaking-malaki. Subalit kaya ay sa kanilang mga pasanin sa buwis. Was ito paggasta ng baboy - ang isang mambabatas pagkahagis ng isang buto sa isang kumpanya sa likod bahay? Marahil. Iyon ay depende sa kung o hindi ang proyekto ay talagang kinakailangan upang mapabuti ang daloy ng trapiko at panatilihin ang mga Wal-Mart punong-himpilan doon. Ni mo o ko ang pag-aaral o ang malalim na kaalaman sa mga detalye ukol sa lokasyon na ito upang matukoy kung o hindi ang daan ng proyekto ay kinakailangan. Subalit kahit na ito ay hindi na - kahit na kung ito ay baboy - ito pa rin ay hindi "corporate kapakanan."

Bilang ako wrote huling gabi, "corporate welfare" ay isang maling tawag. At sa pamamagitan ng malaki, ito ay hindi talaga umiiral maliban sa isip ng mga liberals na hindi gustong maniwala diyan ay kahit minsan sa isang magandang dahilan upang gamitin ang mga dolyar ng buwis sa isang paraan na ang makikinabang malalaking korporasyon. Isa sa maaaring gawin ang mga argument na ang ilang mga bailouts ng gobyerno, tulad ng suporta ng pamahalaan ang nagbigay ng airlines matapos ang Setyembre 11, ang "corporate kapakanan." Subalit ang mga ito ay lubhang bibihirang 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 kataasan ng uri ng kapitalismo sa iba pang mga pang-ekonomiyang sistema. Ang mga ito ay mga tao na naniniwala na ang lahat ng bagay ay dapat pantay-pantay at ang walang saysay na tao ay dapat na kailangang isaalang-alang ang ano man sila ay "masyado" habang ang iba ay hindi na. Ang mga ito ay mga taong naniniwala sa karapatan sa halip ng tiwala sa sariling kakayahan; sa tingin nila ang papel ng gobyerno ay ang pagbibigay ng sustento sa halip ng pagkakataon. Sa tingin nila sa Wal-Mart at iba pang mga matagumpay na mga kumpanya ay inherently masama. At sila na-imbento ang salitang "corporate welfare" dahil hindi sila naniniwala na ang matagumpay na mga organisasyon ay dapat catered para sa anumang paraan, hugis o anyo sa pamamagitan ng ating pamahalaan. Ito ay ang kanilang mga plataporma sa kabila ng ang katunayan na ang mga organisasyon tulad ng Wal-Mart makalikha ng trabaho, gasolina pang-ekonomiya at paglago ng kontribusyon sa mga komunidad kung saan sila ay matatagpuan. Ang mga liberals ang talagang tumagal-mula-sa-mayaman-at-bigyan-to-the-mahirap sosyalista na mas gugustuhin pilasin sa mga matagumpay kaysa sa sabihin sa mga taong hindi upang gumawa ng higit pa sa kanilang pagkakataon.

Now, don't think me cruel or callous. We as a people ought to be compassionate. We ought to take care of those who are truly disadvantaged. But we ought to do that more as neighbors and less as taxpayers. We ought to do that through the donations we make to our churches or our coworkers' fundraising walkathons. We ought to give more of our own time as volunteers. We ought to encourage our government to fund job-skills training for those who want to make a better life for themselves and their loved ones. We ought to stand behind government aid that offers people a hand up, not a hand out. But we should rise up against any effort to penalize those who have been prosperous because “it isn't fair” that there are others who have not realized their potential. And that's what liberals/socialists – the people who argue against any use of tax dollars that would benefit a corporation (regardless of the resulting benefit to the community and the economy) – aim to do. I don't believe you're one of them, so I'd encourage you to rethink this issue and use of the term “corporate welfare.”

Reply to this specific comment

By Scott Bannon | Reply to article

Shawn, glad I could goad you in. I enjoy our civil back and forths.

Hindi ko ini-endorso ng pay-bilang-mo-go pambadyet patakaran. Ko ang larawan na ito bilang nag-iisang pinaka makabuluhang at nabigo-ilipat ang kamakailan lamang na ginawa ng Democrats sa address ng control sa paggastos sa Washington. Aking pasensiya na kung hindi malinaw na malinaw sa aking artikulo.

Hindi namin hindi sumasang-ayon sa panganib ng mga pay-bilang-mo-go mga patakaran, ang mga ito ay mahigpit at matatamaan ang taos-puso sa bansa. Kami ay maaaring gawin sa mga hindi sumasang-ayon kapag ang isang marahas pasak panukalang-batas ay magiging angkop sa magtanim sa isip, ngunit maari ko bang iwan ito bilang isang pilosopiko pagkakaiba sa kung saan sa gumuhit ng pambadyet linya ng kamatayan.

Sa NASA, tulad ko na conceded na, naiintindihan ko ang iyong mga punto at hindi lubos na hindi sumasang-ayon. Gayunman, balancing ng pambansang badyet ay mahirap na trabaho. May isang may takda na halaga para makapunta sa paligid at mahihirap na mga pagpipilian ay dapat na ginawa. Ang bottom line ay prayoridad. Oo, NASA ginawa (at patuloy na gumawa) matinding kontribusyon upang mapagbuti ang mga tao sa buhay.

Walang mas mahalagang bagaman, sa isang pantay-pantay o mas mataas na halaga ng sa American populasyon ay ang pagkain, silungan, gamot at edukasyon upang matiyak na sa hinaharap na henerasyon ay may kakayahan upang ipagpatuloy ang pagbubuo ng mga bago at mas mataas na teknolohiya.

Habang ang mga mataas sa itaas marami pang ibang mga pera-hukay mga proyekto at tiyak na nagngangalit sa ibabaw ng bundok ng basura ng baboy, NASA pa rin bumaba sa ilalim ng maraming mahahalagang mga programa at mga serbisyo sa priority pati na rin, ang aking orihinal na point ay na kapag simulan namin ang pagputol ng mga - NASA dapat maaga dumating sa tadtaran linya.

Tingnan namin corporate kagalingan mula sa differing perspectives, dapat naming malamang na umalis na ito ang isa sa mga iyon. Maging sa artikulong ito o kahit minsan sa pag-uusap ko sinabi ng isang lahat-ng-out pagsalungat sa dolyar ng buwis benefiting negosyo. May mga makabuluhang at maraming mga lugar na kung saan ang pamahalaan ng tulong sa mga negosyo ay mahalaga, para sa parehong mga indibidwal na negosyo at sa komunidad. Kanan pagkatapos ng 11 Septiyembre 2001, kapag ang mga airline industry ay kinuha ng isang napakalaking dagok mula sa pag-atake Hindi ko tutulan ang unang lagak-out sa kahit anong paraan, kahit na Akala ko ang ilang mga industriya-modelo restructuring takda Gusto ay matalino isama. Ako nag-tutulan kasunod lagak-out dahil sa kahilingan ng nararamdaman ko (mula sa aking mga tagalabas limitado ang kaalaman at perspektibo) na industriya ang buong bilang ay may isang malaking problema sa pagpapatakbo (karamihan sa mga umiiral pre 9 / 11) at may pa sa address na ito sa isang mahusay na paraan . Ang paunang tulong ay isang marapat sa kamay-up, kasunod na mga kahilingan ay para sa mga kilalang-kilala sa kamay pagkontra sa aking opinyon.

Hindi ko na iminungkahing penalizing isang negosyo o industriya na kung saan ay mabuti para sa kanyang sarili. Kukunin ko na nag-aalok ng aking mga nakaraang mga artikulo dito sa PBNV.com tungkol sa industriya ng langis bilang halimbawa. Tutulan ko ang anumang pagsisikap na magsabatas ng espesyal na buwis sa tagumpay.

Kukunin ko na tumayo sa likod ng aking Wal-Mart halimbawa. Ay ito tunay corporate kapakanan? Iyon ay depende sa kung paano mong tukuyin ang kapakanan ipagpalagay na ko. Ako tukuyin ito bilang tulong sa pamahalaan na gagamitin para sa nagtutukod at pagpapabuti sa sarili ang isa (o korporasyon). Wal-Mart na sadyang benefited (pinabuting) mula sa proyektong ito, kaya ito babagsak sa loob na kahulugan mula sa aking pananaw. Ito ay malamang na kung ang mga kalsada ay nasa isang busy komersyal na lugar at pagpapalapad ng benefited ay nagkaroon ng isang bilang ng mga negosyo sa halip ng isa lamang Gusto ko maging iba, na hindi mukhang ang kaso mula sa kung ano ako natagpuan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can these programs become wayward albatrosses? Yes, that's why they need to be well formed and have transparent oversights. But, just because they can be corrupted doesn't mean they are by nature corrupt or deserving of any generally negative light being cast upon them.

In viewing government as an entity of the public (as I do), I also see these programs as “taking care of our neighbors”–as you say we ought to. Conversely, when conservatives attack or propose cuts to 'entitlement' programs (with that negative tone attached) while pork and other non-essential wasted spending climbs higher and higher out of control; I view this as government trying to shirk half of it's responsibility while the greedy few fatten their pockets.

There's a gap in our perspectives and beliefs on many issues. That's both okay and good, it keeps me thinking and I hope does the same for you.

Perhaps we can come to a happy agreement on one thing here though; if pork waste were eliminated we could both have all that we wanted and believed was right provided for by government, in addition to further tax rate cuts for all…

Reply to this specific comment

By Shawn Bannon | Reply to article

Scott,

Sorry I misread you on pay-as-you-go. I read that portion of your original post as an expression of disappointment that the Dems' effort on that front had failed. A simple matter of miscommunication that I'm glad we've cleared up.

I hope you won't be offended when I say that I think your position on NASA is simply short-sighted. I understand your point about priorities, but you're suggesting that we not adjust the bloated budgets of certain programs until we've slashed the NASA budget because you believe the needs those programs aim to meet are more important than the advances in technology and understanding that result from NASA's efforts. The fact is that it is possible – and a growing number of studies (at least the studies not sponsored by the teachers' unions) suggest – that money is not the problem with our education system and that dumping more money into public education without dramatic reform at the state and local levels is as effective as burning that money. So, where is the federal tax dollar better spent? The issue isn't whether education or the health of senior citizens is more important than NASA research. The issue is how effectively money dedicated to each is used to actually serve those causes. And that is where I think you and many others are missing the boat.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to this specific comment

By Scott Bannon | Reply to article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to this specific comment

By Shawn Bannon | Reply to article

Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to this specific comment

By Scott Bannon | Reply to article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to this specific comment

By Shawn Bannon | Reply to article

Scott,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to this specific comment