Sunday, May 24, 2009

Here's Your Answer...

My dear professor,

Here, as promised, is my answer to your challenge.

Currently, federal spending projected for FY 2010 amounts to 3.997 trillion dollars. Revenue is projected to reach 2.156 trillion. This yields a projected deficit of 1.841 trillion. Add to that (at your insistence) a necessary surplus of .608 trillion, and your goal can only be reached by a combination of spending cuts and/or tax increases which must total 2.449 trillion dollars. Are you insane?

For reference, I could entirely disband all of our military forces, scrap every weapon and still not achieve half the required difference. I could as well anesthetize every person in Cleveland, remove their vital organs and sell them on the black market - or seize all the treasure of all of Ireland's leprechauns - or tax a politician a hundred dollars every time he or she breaks a promise and... oh wait, I take that back, the tax on politicians alone would probably pay off the national debt in about 26 seconds. Ye gods man, what manner of hallucinogen interfered with your capacity to fashion challenges?... and may I borrow some of it?

Moving right along, allow me to point out that Planet Earth is peopled by a species with the strange penchant for believing that a paper cut of theirs is equal in magnitude to a bullet wound in someone else - and nowhere on Earth is this non compos mentis more habitual than in the good old U.S. of A. Here, a thousand abominations come easily to a man's lips in the exercise of explaining why he himself should not be taxed - yet a stunning silence attends his reaction to the taxation of his neighbor. Thus, to imagine today's Everyman would accept the responsibility of repaying the debts of his forebears is quite as absurd as imagining he would object to passing his own debts on to his descendants.

What we have become is a nation of Snuffy Smiths and J. Wellington Whimpys. We will " gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today..." Our heroes - uniformly - are men and women of sudden, desperate courage. Yet we have little admiration for quiet and patient determination, which we consider to be insensate. Not a tenth of a tenth or our 300 million would even consider some small, extended discomfort in the interest of the greater good. To imagine otherwise would be not less than the equal of imagining that a computer would anchor a political revolution on the Moon. But since you owe your existence to that very same speculative device, it would be not more trusting of me to believe that citizens of this country will tomorrow wake up and accept the most fundamental of civic responsibilities, which is to pay for the benefits they have bestowed upon themselves. And now, to work....

First off, I would narrow the deficit gap by raising more money. Here's how:

The U.S. military maintains 800 bases around the world valued at 385 billion dollars. I would close all but a few of these bases (10%, mostly naval) and sell the property for around 80% of its appraised value, which would yield revenue of around 277 billion dollars.

I would thereafter sell to friendly countries - at bargain prices - approximately a third of the U.S. weapons arsenal - including up to 6 nuclear super-carriers, along with approximately 100 other naval vessels - not to mention tanks - aircraft and other assets. Now estimating the value of this arsenal is difficult. But, of the nearly 6 trillion dollars we've spent on national defense over the last 10 years, about 39%, or 2.3 trillion has been spent on procurement. Reducing this figure by 50% to account for wastage, obsolescence and usage, we arrive at a working subtotal of 1.165 trillion. If a third of these assets were sold at half of their original value, this would yield revenue of around 195 billion dollars.

Leaving aside the question of military strategy, is this sale of military armaments actually possible? Certainly it is. World military spending currently stands at almost 1.5 trillion dollars, with the European Union and Japan alone accounting for 360 billion. I see no reason why any of these countries would not jump at the chance to double the value of their arms purchases by obtaining some of the most modern military hardware at half of its nominal cost. As for land and structures, while 277 billion is a lot of money, bear in mind it would be sold to governments and private operators the world over.

I would allow citizenship status to approximately 11 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S., make them subject to full income and social insurance taxes - and allow a 5 year phase-in period to qualify for most government entitlement programs. First year, this would generate around 55 billion dollars.

I would raise the ceiling on social security tax to 125,000.00 and include passive income such as dividends and interest subject to the tax. This change would generate around 25 billion dollars conservatively - and probably much more.

Finally, I would raise income tax rates, generally for every individual earning over 25,000 and every couple earning over 50,000. The rate increase would be progressive - starting at around 1% for earners at the bottom of the scale and come out to something just over 10% for earners at the top of the scale. This would generate an additional 100 billion dollars.

As for spending, I would reduce military spending by 471 billion dollars. Note that this figure is based on numbers on the chart issued with the challenge and would include major cuts in foreign aid. The resulting military budget would come in at 350 billion. Also included in this reduction would be the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.

Tax enhancements, sales and military cuts so far stand at 1.123 trillion - or 1.326 trillion short of the required 2.449 trillion combination of cuts and increased revenue. But that is not all. The chart on spending submitted for the challenge lists total 2009 tax revenue at 2.156 trillion dollars - whereas the President's budget estimates receipts will total 2.699 trillion. While this latter figure may be optimistic, note that actual tax receipts for 2007 came to 2.568 trillion. Therefore I believe the chart itself is wildly inaccurate - and that tax receipts - at present rates, will amount to at least 2.6 trillion dollars. By correcting this mistake - (444 billion), the shortfall now goes from 1.326 trillion to 882 billion.

Now for entitlement, discretionary and mandatory spending.

I would reduce direct federal welfare payments by a total of 100 billion and social security payments by 200 billion. This reduces the shortfall to 582 billion. I would immediately reduce the President's stimulus plan and supplemental infrastructure spending to the tune of 537 billion dollars, leaving in place 250 billion for TARP. Now we are only 45 billion short.

Now 45 billion dollars is not exactly chump change, but I would attain this last reduction by a combination of reductions in community development payments (5 billion dollars), the total elimination of earmarks (7.7 billion dollars), cost saving revisions in the prescription drug benefit - allowing for the government to negotiate drug costs (35 billion dollars) and government subsidized housing (a 20% reduction of 21 billion dollars). These last reductions put my plan almost 23.7 billion dollars over the challenge.

Let's review.

First, to be kind, I come up with a great deal of additional money (444 billion) simply by pointing out an accounting error in the revenue chart. This may be the "cheating" which you referred to in your original challenge. Mia Culpa - but I still stand by my plan - since it is the result of an exercise which you intended more as a vehicle to provide Steve and I with profound insights into government spending than as a means to solve the problem of the debt in the first place. And this leads to my second point.

Economists are going to argue incessantly over whether or not the United States can "grow" its way out of the crushing federal debt we are continuing to accumulate. To any man who earns all he spends and spends what he earns responsibly, these arguments are patently absurd. To such a man, it is plainly incomprehensible that government is beyond the ordinary rules which apply to the financial well being of individual citizens. Would such a man consider it moral to spend for his own ease and comfort the earnings of his sons and daughters - or theirs? Of course not. But that is exactly what government does when it spends more than it takes in.

Even if some Draconian plan were adopted tomorrow by which government proactively pays off our collective debt in 30 years, as you want, I will probably be dead by the time the final payment is made - and young men and women who are not even alive today will be making it.

So, the most important insight this exercise has given me has everything to do with morality and nothing to do with economics. A good father or mother will work long hours and make endless sacrifices for the good of his or her children. As citizens, we should demand that our elected representatives in government have the guts to hold us to the same standard.

-Chris

Friday, May 22, 2009

A Modest Proposal

Gentlemen,

As you know, I have made it my policy not to intervene in your debates as either arbiter or ally, yet at the same time have reserved for myself the authority to act as catalyst when the need requires. It would seem that time has arrived.

Although both of you have agreed to discuss federal spending, it appears you have reached a deadlock on how your consideration of this subject should proceed. Mr Green, in the characteristic fashion of contemporary conservatism, wants the central issue to be spending on what he views as government attempts at social engineering - a feature which he has already rendered as a form tyranny. On the other hand, Mr Rhetts, in the fashion of modern day liberalism, would rather focus on spending for the military-industrial complex, which by all appearances he views with at least as much trepidation as Mr Green does welfare.

From where I sit, you have both made pretty arguments, but they are as useful as oat bags which have no oats in them. As a way of navigating out of this ideological swamp, I propose a challenge which you are at liberty to accept or decline.

Available here, rendered in classic view, is estimated federal revenue for the fiscal year 2010.

Available here, again in classic view, is estimated federal spending for the fiscal year 2010.

The challenge I propose is simple: Review revenue and spending for fiscal year 2010 and not only bring them into balance, but also allow for a budget surplus sufficient to reduce the federal debt by one of thirty, including interest: a policy which would anticipate the virtual elimination of the federal debt within 30 years. Using an admittedly arbitrary interest rate of 3.5% and with the debt currently at 11.3 trillion dollars, this surplus should come out to around 608 billion dollars: a considerable sum to be sure, but absolutely required unless either or both of you are willing to plainly state that your country can continue to operate on borrowed money for all time.

You may be as creative as you like. You may raise taxes or lower them. You may increase or decrease spending. I even assume you will employ deductive reasoning which an experienced man such as myself would consider cheating. Possibly, either or both of will assert that your proposals will have a salubrious effect only in future years - and thereby want make the claim which ordinary politicians do when they promise their policies will work a host of satisfying miracles only after they have left office. But I hold the two of you to be composed of sterner stuff. As chefs, I expect you to feed me with a fully baked pie, rather than a half baked turkey. Therefore show me, here and now, how you would exert the fiscal acumen you both claim to possess.

Deadline for your submissions is 8 AM Memorial Day morning. And do not mistake my natural congeniality for lenience. My tolerance for delay and chicanery is far south of zero. You may signal your acceptance of this challenge in the comments section below this post. And be quick about it - the national debt went up by eight million dollars in the time it took you to read this.

...Dr. Bernardo de la Paz

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Still running from my imagination

Still running from my imagination...

1. My only purpose in limiting the scope of our budget discussion, is that the monster has grown so huge, we can spend the rest of our lives picking it apart piece-by-piece. I'm willing to concede that there are issues with the Military budget. Specifically, it has too many things we don't need or over-pay
for the value received or are not relevant to defense or don't simply belong. My only concern is that we don't hack-and-slash the military side of the budget blindly, without considering the ramifications of expenditures which are legitimately needed for national defense. Again, I point out that national defense is by definition a function of federal government, and is constitutional mandated. Many (most?) aspects of domestic (e.g. entitlement) spending are NOT. I'd like you to concede the domestic budget has similar problems - i.e., things we don't need (not consititutionally required) or over-pay for the value received (whee!) or are not relevant to proper government ("pork") or don't belong in the federal budget (too many to list). If so - we can jointly agree - THE BUDGET IS BROKEN and move on. (And leave this for another discussion later).

2. I think you may have misinterpreted my post on TYRANNY. Number one - I wasn't talking about LAWS. I was talking about the forced implementation of social policy objectives - which you implied was a proper function of government with "enforced generosity"). If I implied that LAW was subject to equal treatment (civil disobedience?), I erred in my presentation. I *do* think we have moved FAR away from where government should be with respect to personal conduct. Government should apply the LAW as a means of protection of Individual Rights, not as a means of imposing social policy goals. Kaczynski BROKE THE LAW - and, interfered with the rights of other individuals: his motivations for doing so are irrelevant. In a similar way, using the force of government to "enforce" specific social policy ideals upon others - who may legitimately disagree with the policy (which are not, nor be considered to be, The LAW) - is WRONG.

3. I remind you of a quote attributed to our friend Bernardo de la Paz... "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free, because I know that
I alone am morally responsible for everything that I do."


4. "...
you are an individualist and I am a collectivist? Is this a comment on what each of us think government should do, or what government should be? The distinction is important. Without doubt, I have a more liberal view than you of what government should do. So far I have proceeded on the assumption that this is the entire basis upon which we differ. But - do we have a more fundamental difference?"
I think the "fundamental differences" in our viewpoints drive how we view government for what it is and for what it should be. So the answer is YES. Thus, we justify the continued existence of this blog. :)

5. "...As for myself, except for (an admittedly arbitrary) requirement of age, I think every citizen should be allowed to vote and that our system of government is just fine as it is." Not surprisingly, I think the age limit is unnecessary. In simple terms, I would prefer that the "right to vote" be limited to people who pay the bill (e.g., taxes). I see no reason why someone on the dole should have a voice in deciding WHO will run things (i.e., write the check), while - for example - an employed teenager, generating tax revenue to support government, should not. The "Golden Rule", if you will: "he who has the Gold, makes the Rules." Of course there are obvious implications to this approach, and it certainly needs to be fleshed out beyond this simple statement - but you get the idea. (another thread?)

That said, I believe our Founding Fathers did a spectacularly Good Job. I think our system of government is fine - at least, as originally defined and designed; but not necessarily what it has become. Clearly, the government we have today has severe and significant problems with the feedback mechanisms. But it *can* be fixed. We just need the will and courage to make some tough choices by defining the proper scope of government (what is can, cannot, should and should not *DO*), get it established with proper and functional checks-and-balances in place, and - most importantly - leave everything else alone.

Monday, May 18, 2009

Not So Fast...

Steve,

I'm a little puzzled by your request: "Please don't waste our collective time wandering down a litany of military budget items...", especially after you yourself imposed on my time with a litany of budget items in your post two doors down, to wit:

"- $1 billion for Amtrak, which hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years
- $2 billion for child-care subsidies
- $50 million for that engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts
- $400 million for MORE global-warming research (sorry, Al, but isn’t there already a
“consensus”? isn’t it true “the discussion
is over”?)
- $2.4 billion for “carbon-capture demonstration projects
- $650 million (on top of billions already doled out) to pay for digital TV conversion coupons (at
about 120 million homes, it would have been cheaper to just byone from Wal-Mart send it
to every household in the country)
- $600 million for the federal government to buy new cars
- $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities
- $150 million for the Smithsonian
- $81 billion for Medicaid
- $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
- $20 billion for food stamps
- $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don’t pay income tax
- $66 billion on education (because it is obviously working so much more effectively than our
military)
- $6 billion to weatherize “modest income homes”
- $6 billion to provide internet in “underserved” areas
- $6 billion for “higher education modernization.”- $20 billion in health information technology to “prevent medial mistakes.”
- $600 million for satellite development and acquisitions, including climate sensors and climate
modeling.
- $250 million “to address long-term economic distress in urban industrial cores and rural areas
distributed based on need and ability to create jobs and attract private investment.” (thanks
for being so specific)
- $300 million for the National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatcheries
- $400 million for “ready-to-go habitat restoration projects”
- $120 million to provide subsidized community service jobs to an additional 24,000 low-income
older Americans
-$1.5 billion to help local communities build and rehabilitate low-income housing using green
technologies.
- $500 million to rehabilitate and improve energy efficiency at some of the over 42,000 housing
units maintained by Native American housing programs
-$10 million for “rural, high-need areas to undertake projects using sustainable and energy-
efficient building and rehabilitation practices”
…etc., etc., etc…"


Now, assuming you have not changed the rules in the intervening two posts - to the extent that "litanies of budget items we don't like" are now no longer sanctioned (which is uncharacteristic of you) - you leave me with no other conclusion than that I must chose between two options: Either you are conceding, without argument, my contention that the military budget can be cut by 50%, or, that you do not concede this but are not willing to confuse the issue with facts. Which will it be?

On a somewhat related note, it looks like you have arrived at so amorphous a definition of tyranny that the whole exercise of using it as a criticism is almost pointless. You say, "Using *Force* to impose the will and judgment of one over the wishes of another is TYRANNY."

Why of course it is. But in view of the fact that the "will and judgement" is the result of a fairly and democratically elected government, this sounds more like a child confusing authority with tyranny when told by his parents to clean up his room. Furthermore, I doubt if there is any workable system of government which allows each of the governed to pick and choose between which laws they will obey and which they will not. Otherwise, Jefferson would have substituted "tyranny" for "just powers".

I assume what you mean is that you want a government which places less responsibility on itself and more on the individual. You are not alone - but your condition is relative. Ted Kaczynki, the "Unibomber" (and prominent Neo-Ludite) would probably consider you as much of a liberal as you do me.

Look. No one is going to be happy with every single law our elected representatives enact. But saying the laws you don't like are a form of tyranny gets us nowhere. Liking you personally as much as I do, I would rather you not jump onto Texas Governer Rick (Neo-Secessionist) Perry's space ship and head off into the wild blue yonder of whacked out ideas.

Last but not least, what do you mean when you say you are an individualist and I am a collectivist? Is this a comment on what each of us think government should do, or what government should be? The distinction is important. Without doubt, I have a more liberal view than you of what government should do. So far I have proceeded on the assumption that this is the entire basis upon which we differ. But - do we have a more fundamental difference?

I was honored some time ago to have a letter of mine printed in the AJC - responding to a person who suggested that voters should pass a basic literacy test before being allowed to vote. Others have suggested additional qualifications, such as the ownership of property, as a condition of enfranchisement. Still others have suggested more radical changes in our entire system of government. As for myself, except for (an admittedly arbitrary) requirement of age, I think every citizen should be allowed to vote and that our system of government is just fine as it is. What do you think?

-Chris

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Quick Thoughts on "Let's Get Serious Part 1"

Quick Thoughts on "Let's Get Serious Part 1"

1.
Please don't waste our collective time wandering down a litany of military budget items. If you will agree to take just as sharp a scalpel to domestic spending as you propose to do for Defense, I will agree that a complete re-visit of the entire budget process is needed. Keep in mind that when it comes to domestic (entitlement) spending, an across-the-board re-evaluation means there are no 'sacred cows' - everything (and I do mean everything) is on the table. If it doesn't work or isn't *really* needed - out it goes. Hint: Be careful what you wish for.

2. A paraphrase of an old quote: "There is no more expensive military than a second-class military."
I also suggested - against my better judgment, but I can think of nothing better that would produce FAST results - a complete two-year FREEZE on *all* spending, including the military budget. What's wrong with that? The first step to implementing reductions in spending is to stop the increases (all of them).

3. If you want to close military bases around the world - fine. But I suspect we'll run afoul of some treaty obligations. That also means our ability to respond quickly and effectively around the world (as needed to protect legitimate US interests) *will* be negatively affected. (Let's not argue over WHAT constitutes a 'national interest' and just recognize they *do* exist, all over the world.)

4. On the Medicare issue - which will lead us back to Health Care, another looming boondoggle, IMHO - I'll start by stating the obvious: "Heath Care" is not a "Right". It is NOT mentioned in the Constitution. But - Is it a real political issue? Sure. So how about this idea (proposed elsewhere, but I like it)... BTW, This is not applicable for Defense spending, for obvious reasons.

Congress has absolute power over D.C. They can, quite literally and legally, do whatever they want. So... Congress can/should develop a plan for whatever 'experiment' in health care they like. Put it in operation in D.C. Let's see it work for five-ten years. Then, honestly e
xamine the Real World FACTS - No 'wishful thinking' allowed. If their solution is so wonderful, it will be blindingly obvious to all. If it *doesn't* work, then why should something that cannot work in the D.C. "lab" be applied blindly to the entire country? Come to think of it, you could use the same approach with education and many, if not most, domestic (e.g. entitlement) programs. Short form: If they have all the answers, prove it in D.C. first.

"...This attitude has so poisoned the atmosphere that a rational public review of defense spending has become almost impossible in this country. And Steve, if you are the advocate of limited government you claim to be, why shouldn't we have that review?"

Like I said, I'm willing. So are most others... Provided we don't LIMIT the review to Defense.
The ENTIRE budget process is broken. There is a very Real Danger to reducing our military capacity. So tread softly. That's enough for now...

- Steve

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

What is TYRANNY?


I’m going to try and stay on ONE POINT and use multiple posts when needed – that doesn’t mean they’ll be shorter, however…


By my definition – “TYRANNY” occurs when a ruler (whether a single person or committee) places *their* interests above those of the individual or society at large. By that definition, if a government decides what *I* should believe or where in its judgment *I* should place *my* priorities, without consideration of or in direct opposition to *my* views on the subject and thereby uses the force and power of government to accomplish that goal – that government is being tyrannical.


You said… And if society, by the agency of government, accepts the responsibility of caring for the least fit of its constituents, well then so what? If government, by law, forces a man to participate in that responsibility, I would rather consider it an enforcement of generosity rather than of tyranny.


Chris, I *sincerely* hope you are not serious. I’m guessing you’re just pulling my leg or trying to push my buttons. And you did a Good Job, because… I don’t think you could have chosen a better way to clearly define what I consider to be the most despicable and insidious form of TYRANNY in the modern world. It is *not* society’s responsibility to “care for others”. That action must be taken at a personal level. Individuals have responsibilities; groups (e.g., “society”) do not and CANNOT.


Let’s play the Definition Game for a bit… “Charity” - which is the concept you are promoting – cannot and should NEVER be “imposed” upon the unwilling. Why? If participation in such an action must be FORCED, it’s not “charity”. By definition, charity is a VOLUNTARY action. As such, while desirable, Charity is not a Responsibility – it is a CHOICE. “Responsibility” is an aspect of “Duty” and “Obligation”, which are also Freely Chosen. And, above all, “Choice” is an action taken at an Individual level. Even if the decision is promoted by a group (“we think this should happen”), the Individual *chooses* to follow that Recommendation - voluntarily. And will reap or suffer the consequences accordingly.


This key point is where I have serious philosophical issues with the Left. And, to be sure, I have the same problem with some who stand on the Right, too. It’s not a Left-vs-Right or Democrat-vs-Republican thing… It’s much more Basic.


I *do not* believe that voluntary participation in a group releases (or transfers) *MY* Responsibility and Accountability. I may choose to “work with others” with the object of accomplishing greater things and expanding the scope of my efforts. But, ultimately, the Responsibility remains MINE… Let’s take the next step: people may choose NOT to acknowledge a Responsibility and attempt to re-assign or abdicate their Accountability. This is just as Wrong as trying to impose your will upon another.


Now - There *are* responsibilities one acquires by participating in a group (i.e., being a member of the group has Rules). In that case, and in that case only, the group *may* be justified in questioning one’s continued participation. There is (or should be) the option of expulsion from the group as an alternative. Simply, if you are going to receive the BENEFIT of being part of the group, you must be appropriately ACCOUNTABLE. The decision to submit, leave or be kicked out *must* remain with the INDIVIDUAL – it is *not* up to the group to “decide” what action to take beyond expulsion. (You can also ask the Rules be changed, but let’s keep it simple.)


Chris – you cannot ENFORCE a sense of GENEROSITY… You either have it or you don’t… Using *Force* to impose the will and judgment of one over the wishes of another is TYRANNY.


If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck; odds are - it’s a duck… What you described as being an acceptable aspect and function of government is TYRANNY, plain and simple… Call it a “Bed of Roses” if that will let you sleep at night, but that doesn’t change what it *IS*.


C’mon, pal - you *know* where I am headed… It goes back to that glorious Jeffersonian prose:


“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”


These Rights are granted by God – not by “groups” or “governments” or “courts” – they are inherent with existence. And - These rights are granted to individuals, and not because they belong to some favored group, or passed a litmus test, or rubbed blue mud in their navels while chanting “Ommm”… And no, some are *not* more equal than others – it says *ALL* MEN…


“…to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government,…”


The government works FOR the people, government is a Servant, NOT a “Master”. There are *WAY* too many people who use the power of government to enforce THEIR opinions and THEIR motivations onto others. It is reasonable and just for The People to rise up in revolt when this happens…


“…laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”


There is NO GUARANTEE such Safety and Happiness will be achieved. Note that what constitutes being “safe” and “happy” are, BY DEFINITION, based on one’s Individual judgment. *YOU* cannot *force* me to accept what YOU define as “what makes ME ‘safe’ or ‘happy’”. But we’ll try our best – “as to them shall seem”, e.g., in OUR judgment, by voluntary agreement.


“…Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed...”


You don’t change things frivolously or because “it doesn’t seem right (to me)”. And you *certainly* don’t change things, just because YOU are the one in charge at this moment. Nor do you use your (temporary) wielding of power to impose YOUR judgment and YOUR wishes onto others…


I could go on and on… But let’s get back to the point:


It is clear that I promote Individualism while you (apparently) promote Collectivism. These are diametrically opposed philosophies. I doubt we will change the other’s mind; I still have the hope you will one day reject the Dark Side. ;-) The key difference between us is that YOU have chosen to subordinate your own judgment to whatever is deemed to be “in the best interests of the ‘collective’”. There are many that agree with you; like Rousseau. Bully for you: I hope you are happy with your choice. Have fun…


But, I respectfully disagree. THAT is not a choice I am willing to make. However, I will defend your right to make that choice for yourself. It goes without saying that you are welcome to attempt to convince me to go along where we share a common ground or have the same objective - just as I will ask you to follow my lead on occasion… If we agree, wonderful – if not, maybe next time… And it ends right there.


In this respect, I agree with many aspects (but *not* all) of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism – which regards man - every man - as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. (And in spite of his occasional ‘irrational’ actions.)


A truly civilized society - or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men - can be achieved *only* on the basis of the recognition of Individual Rights. A “group” has no rights other than the individual rights of its members. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations.


When it comes to governance, I hold that the State *must* - as it’s *first* priority - take clear and distinct actions to protect the freedoms and liberty of Individuals to act as they wish as long they do not infringe on the freedoms and liberties of others. Despite their posturing to be “fighting for the Little Guy” or “representing the oppressed”, what Collectivism really wants is True Democracy – where the ‘group’ leadership decides who gets thrown to the wolves, and the ‘winner’ goes along joyfully. Obviously, this is Great for the leadership; not so good for everyone else… This is dishonest governance at best.


The downfall with Collectivism – which Rand points out ad nauseam - happens when it becomes apparent that “the collective goal” requires *MY* participation in order for “things to work”. When I refuse, Collectivism mandates the use of FORCE to IMPOSE the will of the collective. (Otherwise, if it were to fail – it could not be due to flawed logic or poor implementation or that the thesis flatly ignored common sense - it can only fail because *I* sabotaged it by failing to participate.) It is a very short step to Totalitarianism, which I think is Very WRONG – and one of the few things worse than simple, misguided Collectivism.


In my view, only an Individual can possess rights; so the expression "individual rights" is redundant. The expression “collective rights” is a contradiction in terms. Individual Rights are not (and should never be) subject to a public vote. A majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority (although that truism rarely stops some from trying).


In essence, the political function of RIGHTS is to protect minorities from oppression by majorities: and the smallest minority is the individual. That is not to say that we will not err, or make no mistakes… “I’m messed up, You’re messed up, we’re all messed up” … but those mistakes – or successes – to cherish or learn from, will be OURS and ours alone.


If you believe there is an inherent goodness in mankind – a positive value represented by each and every one of us - then you can believe nothing less than the ultimate rights, responsibility and accountability which reside with the INDIVIDUAL.


Let me close by repeating the simple fact because that we are able to maintain a sense of honesty and a humble recognition of our differences, we are allowed to rationally and critically evaluate each other’s desires and motivations with respect and honor. It is to our joint credit. Thank you.


- Steve

Monday, May 11, 2009

Let's Get Serious, Part 1

Steve,

Well Steve, now that you've established your "knuckle dragging" conservative principles, let's see if we can put them to the test.

Its hard to know where to begin, since all you are doing is railing at different spending programs. To a point, I even sympathize with you. Now it may be sufficient to assume that government wastes people's money because Ayn Rand Said So. But before making arbitrary, "faith based" cuts or spending freezes, I think it is best to first determine specifically how society is going to deal with the social or economic consequences. To your credit you say: "I will admit *some* of the entries on that list are arguably “needed”. But is there no room for eliminating THINGS THAT DON’T WORK?..." - And I heartily agree.

Now clearly, programs like Amtrak and the The National Endowment for the Arts are easy targets. On the other hand, Medicaid requires a good deal more consideration. As I am sure you are aware, Medicaid is restricted to children, pregnant women, the elderly and the disabled - who are, or are in families below the poverty level. Some would want to know how many children, pregnant women and the elderly would be turned out of hospitals and nursing homes as a result of cutting this program by 162 billion (81 plus 81 in state matching funds).

My goodness, if we live in a country which accepts the responsibility of building schools, hospitals and power plants in far off Iraq, how could you expect we would be able to stomach the medical emergency which would result from abandoning our most vulnerable citizens right here at home? Personally, I'm not a very big fan of Nietzsche style of social Darwinism. And if society, by the agency of government, accepts the responsibility of caring for the least fit of its constituents, well then so what? If government, by law, forces a man to participate in that responsibility, I would rather consider it an enforcement of generosity rather than of tyranny.

Now if you are serious about small government and lower taxes - and eliminating "THINGS THAT DON'T WORK" - why not start from the top with the most expensive of all government programs, that being National Defense? But before we get started, I can't resist pointing out a little bit of Faux News chicanery which surfaced in your post. From that post:

"To begin, I must apologize… The President *has* called for cuts in spending – and (surprise!) it was Defense Spending! Back in January, 2009, he asked for an 11% cut in Pentagon spending. Given the challenges we are facing in the world from a military point-of-view, that action seems potentially dangerous. But, for the moment – let’s go with those making those cuts (which would total about 55 Billion, I think)"

Huh? The President did no such thing. This "11% cut" baloney originates, as near as I can tell, from a Faux News article from January 30th of this year. From that article:

"The Obama administration has asked the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon's budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billion -- a senior U.S. defense official tells FOX News.

Last year's defense budget was $512 billion. Service chiefs and planners will be spending the weekend "burning the midnight oil" looking at ways to cut the budget -- looking especially at weapons programs, the defense official said."


I figure you read that article - or something like it - and assumed it to mean that the Obama administration wanted to cut defense spending by 55 billion, which is precisely what Faux News wanted you to think. But that isn't true. Which means it is false - or, as ill mannered louts like myself would say, a lie.

The truth is, Obama's 2010 budget requested an 8% increase in defense spending, to 527 billion - from last year's budget request of 488 billion (actual direct expenditures later came to around 512 billion). And he didn't make this request because the media "called him out" on it. Obama actually campaigned on a strong defense platform and was good to his word.

So how was Faux News able to manufacture the 11% cut? Read the article (above) again. The way it is worded, you think Obama was planning on cutting defense spending from last year's level of 512 billion, to 457 billion. Even the math on this works out: 55 billion is almost 11% of 512 billion. Now read it again. What the article really says is that Obama was considering cutting the Pentagon's budget request. That request was 584 billion dollars! And that's no surprise either - every year, the Pentagon always requests more funds than it expects to receive. That's just the way the game is played.

Now please - don't come back and tell me your comment was, like the Faux News article, technically correct. By the same logic, you could claim that Obama "cut" all sorts of entitlement spending because his budget asked for less money than their respective departments proposed. Any reasonable person reading the Faux News article would conclude that Obama was going to propose an 11% cut in defense spending for 2010 from the level in 2009 - your comment went a little further by saying he actually made this request - neither of which is or was true. I rest my case on that little tidbit. Now back to your conservative principles...

Obama didn't cut the defense budget because, like most every politician today, he didn't want to get tarred and feathered with the "weak on national security" brush. Oh and by the way, thanks for confirming this with your comment: "But taking a shotgun approach to the Left’s whipping boy – while ignoring the very serious foolishness in other parts of the budgeting process - is insane at best and could place the country as a whole in significant danger." What? Is a person who dares to ask practical questions about defense spending, by definition, treating the DOD as a "whipping boy"? And just out of curiosity - how can you "at best" be "insane" to do this. Is there some more dysfunctional condition of mental incapacity which corresponds to "at worst"?

This attitude has so poisoned the atmosphere that a rational public review of defense spending has become almost impossible in this country. And Steve, if you are the advocate of limited government you claim to be, why shouldn't we have that review?

Eisenhower (one of my favorite presidents - surprise!) said a great many things in his Farewell Address which you and I will both heartily agree with. From that speech:

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Now in the impassioned close of your last post, you propose we start by cutting "tyranny". Well, let's do that by following a Republican president's advice. Let's get started...

Counting the supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, it looks like the 2010 defense budget is going to come in at around 664 billion dollars. But just to be clear - this number does not include veteran's benefits (94 billion), or foreign military aid (9 billion). This brings total defense spending projected for 2010 to around 767 billion dollars.

Now thatsa some spicy meatball, yet even this figure is a little deceptive. Other defense expenditures are buried in spending for other programs, like the AEC (nuclear weapons and research), NASA and Homeland Security, to name just a few. For this reason, some estimates put actual total defense spending for 2010 as high as a trillion dollars. A more conservative figure would be about 830 billion. Is this too much, too little, or as Goldilocks would say - just right? Let's take a look...

First, some perspective. Most estimates put world military spending for 2009 at somewhere between 1.3 and 1.4 trillion dollars. For reference, the same estimates put U.S. military spending at around 45 to 50% of this amount. Thus, a country of 300 million (our's) commits roughly $2500.00 annually per capita to military spending, as opposed to the rest of the world, which spends on average just over a dollar per capita.

But what of our potential conventional adversaries? Well, China, a nation of 1.3 billion, spends about 70 billion, or around 60 cents per capita. The Russian Federation? They spend a whopping 40 billion, or about 282 dollars per capita.

Communist China's entire military budget would not even cover our country's expense for veteran's benefits. China doesn't operate one single aircraft carrier of any kind. The United States operates 11 nuclear powered super carriers, each at an initial cost of around 4.5 billion each . China operates 4 ballistic missile armed submarines with 12 SLBM's each. The United States has 18, each of which is capable of devastating any nation on Earth with 24 submarine launched nuclear missiles.

For a real eye opener, you can go to the DoD's own, 2007 Base Structure Report World and do the math yourself: World wide, the United States military occupies over 5000 bases, including over 800 bases abroad, which in total comprise over 50,000 square miles of land: an area larger than the combined areas of Indiana and Tennessee put together, and including huge bases in Korea, left over from a war which ended 56 years ago, as well as Japan and Germany, left over from a war which ended 64 years ago. Except for a few minor exceptions, no other country on Earth other than the United States has a single military base outside its internationally recognized borders. We have 800.


The United States Military maintains a total of around 1.4 million soldiers, sailors and airmen. By comparison, China has 3.8 million and Russia has 1.5. These numbers are deceptive however, because no other country, especially China and Russia, employs civilians like we do. This includes over 450,000 DoD civil service employees and over 200,000 contractors. Largely, civilian employees and contractors perform services which in most other foreign military establishments are performed by uniformed personnel. Thus, counting all personnel expense, the U.S. Military's annual cost per soldier is a staggering $160,000.00 each. And this doesn't even count equipment.

Everything about the U.S. Military is huge. One more example: The United States Military is far and away the largest owner of golf courses in the world, and operates 224 of them in 11 countries worldwide. Go here for tee times...


Next, in part 2 - can the U.S. Military budget really be cut by 50%? ....

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Capitalism by Lemmings

Allow me to depart, for a short while, from attempting to stay above the ideological fray… (I need a break anyway; I can only do this for so long…)


Fair Warning - This is going to be a L-O-N-G post…


To begin, I must apologize… The President *has* called for cuts in spending – and (surprise!) it was Defense Spending! Back in January, 2009, he asked for an 11% cut in Pentagon spending. Given the challenges we are facing in the world from a military point-of-view, that action seems potentially dangerous. But, for the moment – let’s go with those making those cuts (which would total about 55 Billion, I think) As a matter of fact, about 75% of the budget "cuts" he has requested come from the Defense Budget. So, while we’re busy using that scalpel you suggested (instead of my butter knife) – here’s a few non-military cuts to consider - many are taken directly from the American Recovery & Reinvestment Plan :


- $1 billion for Amtrak, which hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years

- $2 billion for child-care subsidies

- $50 million for that engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts

- $400 million for MORE global-warming research (sorry, Al, but isn’t there already a “consensus”? isn’t it true “the discussion is over”?)

- $2.4 billion for “carbon-capture demonstration projects”

- $650 million (on top of billions already doled out) to pay for digital TV conversion coupons (at about 120 million homes, it would have been cheaper to just by one from Wal-Mart send it to every household in the country)

- $600 million for the federal government to buy new cars

- $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities

- $150 million for the Smithsonian

- $81 billion for Medicaid

- $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits

- $20 billion for food stamps

- $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don’t pay income tax

- $66 billion on education (because it is obviously working so much more effectively than our military)

- $6 billion to weatherize “modest income homes”

- $6 billion to provide internet in “underserved” areas

- $6 billion for “higher education modernization.”
- $20 billion in health information technology to “prevent medial mistakes.”

- $600 million for satellite development and acquisitions, including climate sensors and climate modeling.

- $250 million “to address long-term economic distress in urban industrial cores and rural areas distributed based on need and ability to create jobs and attract private investment.” (thanks for being so specific)

- $300 million for the National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatcheries

- $400 million for “ready-to-go habitat restoration projects”

- $120 million to provide subsidized community service jobs to an additional 24,000 low-income older Americans
- $1.5 billion to help local communities build and rehabilitate low-income housing using green technologies.

- $500 million to rehabilitate and improve energy efficiency at some of the over 42,000 housing units maintained by Native American housing programs
- $10 million for “rural, high-need areas to undertake projects using sustainable and energy-efficient building and rehabilitation practices”

…etc., etc., etc…


WHOA! Steady there! Calm down!... I will admit *some* of the entries on that list are arguably “needed”. But is there no room for eliminating THINGS THAT DON’T WORK? (which, BTW, are his exact words to justify cutting the Defense budget) In the midst of a recession, does ALL of this really qualify as CRITICAL “investing”? NOTHING on that list can wait – not even for One Year? Do these spending proposals really expand and encourage PRIVATE SECTOR jobs (or just create temporary public sector jobs)? Short form: Do we *really* need to increase spending across the board? I DOUBT IT. (I could go on and on, and so could you).


A quote attributed to good ol’ Senator Everett Dirkson states it nicely– "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money".


Yes, there *are* legitimate ways and reasons to enact carefully considered cuts in the Pentagon budget. But taking a shotgun approach to the Left’s whipping boy – while ignoring the very serious foolishness in other parts of the budgeting process - is insane at best and could place the country as a whole in significant danger. A 50% cut – without corresponding cuts in domestic spending - is a recipe for disaster. (You can’t wait for the “need” to surface before you start the R&D.) And, like it or not, there ARE people and countries out there who DO NOT LIKE US. They don’t care how much we “want to talk” or “feel a need to understand their issues”. There is no guarantee any kind of dialogue will remove the gun he has pointed at our head. (But pointing a better gun at HIS head will at least get his attention. If he is willing to kill himself to make his point, we lose nothing by being prepared - and still have the option of taking him out first.)


Cuts to the Defense budget is a move than should be taken cautiously and with careful consideration. You don’t do it just because “times are tough” and because “we all have to make sacrifices”. (Really? Unions, too? Government employees? Companies deemed “too big to fail?”)


OK… maybe I was being too obtuse about making specific cuts. So, let’s make it real simple and jump back out of the funnel and look at the Big Picture…


Immediately FREEZE *all* federal spending at the 2009 budget level. Do it for one year, no… make that TWO YEARS. That means 2010 and 2011 will have *NO* increases, whether previously planned or not. No COLA adjustments in benefit payments to individuals. No raises for staffers. No new jobs ‘created’ at the public teat. No pay raises for ANYONE; not even the military… THAT is “controlling runaway spending” in a very real way we can all understand.


If you want to get technical, how about formally locking federal spending to a defined percentage of collected tax revenues in the previous year (and that percentage can’t be more than 100%). And then mandate that any – repeat *any* - department that exceeds it’s budget will have its NEXT annual budget reduced by the amount of the overage… THAT will drive people to seek “efficiency” in government like nothing else.


As a knuckle-dragging, greedy, fiscal conservative - am I being too tough? Or too aggressively tight-fisted? Tough times require tough measures, don’t they? And let’s not forget… It’s not THEIR money – that’s MY MONEY they are spending! (and YOURS, too).


The easiest and most effective way for government to “benefit private industry” is to Get The Hell Out Of The Way. And that specifically means - Stop trying to invent new and creative ways to TAX anything that currently moves, moved at one time, or is no longer capable of moving. The transfer of Real Wealth from Private Entities to the Government DOESN’T WORK.


“I think you will find that the foreign competitors who have been cleaning our clock for so many years are the ones who have managed to make government an effective partner rather than a nagging wife (or husband - sorry ladies)…” Really? The governments of the most “successful” foreign competitors we have are run by despots and tyrants (whether by individuals or committees). The ‘successful economic’ example of exactly which country are you suggesting we follow? China?


“I'm not going to dive into the specifics of where and how Obama's budget proposals aim at backing up and augmenting private enterprise rather than leading it around by the nose.” Please try and find the time – I see a lot of nose leading and demands being made. The only ‘backing up’ I see is jerking back on the reins. The only visible “augmenting” is the addition of onerous regulation and back-seat-driving.


Let’s be serious – there are a new set of rules being set up by the current administration. The game is changing. I admit it’s not a Soviet Union / China hybrid of socialism / communism. It certainly isn’t a version of capitalism that Adam Smith or Ronald Reagan would recognize. At best, will look like the Japanese style of economic governance. Are they the international ‘clock-cleaner’ you want us to follow?


In Japan, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MITI), informally “guides” companies and basically tells them what to do. Fortunately, in the Japanese culture, a soft hand is all that is needed since a nod is a good as a command. In the rough-and-tumble US, you gotta use a hammer just to get their attention. Accordingly, the PRO’s are pulling out some Big Hammers. Either way, you could label this new goal as “Capitalism by Lemmings”.


Companies are not supposed to look out for their shareholders or their employees or even their customers. Their single focus is to watch Washington – because they will tell us what to do. Washington will control the decisions, not the marketplace.


Am I exaggerating? Look at how the mortgage ‘rescue’ plan is operating under government control and private (barely) ownership. Look at the cap-and-trade proposal and the emphasis on government mandated controls in accordance with “green” lending practices and “green” job creation, and “green” this and “green” that. (“One Fish, Two Fish, Green Fish, Green Fish”). Look at the brutal strong-arm actions leading up to the Chrysler deal…


And have you noticed how foreign nationals, especially terrorists, will have no fear of reprisal or any reason to suspect a violation of their constitutional rights – but that CEOs of US companies do *not* have the same ‘rights’? And these actions and tactics by the administration are supposed to ENCOURAGE business and private industry? Please.


Their Goal is very simple: Washington knows best.


And before you go dancing down this road, I’d like to point out: No, It Doesn’t.


Look at how wonderfully effective the Japanese economy has been for the past 20 years. They provide modern validation to the fact that government usually gets it wrong. Sometimes it fails to anticipate the market (Japan downplayed laptop computers and stressed mainframes). More often, government is so beholden to the demands of special interests that it ends up worried about dividing up the economic pie for the benefit of “the consensus” (which just happens to correspond to their political supporters).


You probably dislike this comment, but I think it has at least a grain of Truth that is often ignored - "Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others." – Ayn Rand.


As long as I am standing on my “extremist soapbox”, and before I get down from these lofty heights – what we are experiencing, what we are facing, what we are being asked to swallow and be grateful to have received - is called TYRANNY.


If you want to “cut” something - start there.


- Steve

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

You may need to lie down after this...

Steve,

Steve Steve Steve Steve Steve... oh my! Your's is the veritable Ponderosa of posts. So big I almost expected Hoss and Little Joe to come riding back from town in the last paragraph. But before I accede to your last request, I think I need to cut this flank steak up into bite size pieces first.

First off, just so we understand each other, I couldn't agree with you more that free enterprise is the engine which drives our society forward. In this connection, you have the Conservative's traditional distrust of government's capacity to add or improve. I sympathize. Entrepreneurs slug it out in the real world, where victory or defeat is swift and certain, whereas government bureaucrats operate in a sort of Looking Glass World, where results are measured in size rather than effect. What sane person could assert that Government can run General Motors or General Electric at a profit, when private citizens who rose to power by merit in those industries, could not? If I may summarize your argument, I would say that government bail-outs are having the effect of ignoring this simple axiom.

On a related issue, a man standing at the top of the tower could easily see that the massive government borrowing down there on the ground is merely a sophisticated way of transfering this year's problems to the next - with interest. Now I don't really have a problem with extending unemployment benefits to those in need. I don't think you do either. But at all times we need to be conscious of the fact that absent an effective strategy, all we are doing is asking our grandchildren to pay those benefits. No caring father would ever consider doing that, yet by the magic of deficit spending this is exactly what is happening. What kind of cowards are we, as a nation, who are so afraid of failure that we expect our grandchildren, who cannot even vote, to pay our bills?

I can just see you smirking right now - and nobody smirks as effectively as you do. To paraphrase P.G. Wodehouse, I can "read the contents of your thoughts as if you had confided them to my own, personal ear..". You are thinking how easy it is for a politician to be compassionate when he is paying for that compassion with someone else's money. Oh dear!

See, that wasn't so hard, was it? Beneath all the bluster and baloney, you and I connect on a pretty basic level ideologically. But before this turns into a disgusting love-fest, I remind you that the devil himself is in the details. So:

I submit that your approach to the problem is as with a butter knife, when what one needs is a scalpel. Ideology doesn't solve problems, not any more than wistful thinking is going to plug the hole in the life boat. This country is in the middle of a recession and we should expect government to act swiftly and responsibly. And whatever action government takes has got to be based on a useful understanding of how we got to this point. Without this understanding, all we are doing is expecting government to pay the people which private industry laid off - which as you know makes no sense. People getting paid by government for make-work jobs merely exacerbates the problem. So let's get started...

America is the epicenter of a truly global recession. In my post I offered the simplest of reasons why. For at least three decades we have been spending more and more to buy things from overseas and financing it with increasing debt, both public and private. Now I'm going to ask you to stretch your mind a bit and consider the elementary nature of this debt. It is of two kinds: that which is supported by tangible collateral and that which is supported by an intangible promise. Largely, government debt is of the latter kind, backed as it is by bonds, which are nothing more than promissory notes. The increase in private debt has on the other hand been accompanied by an increase in the value of its primary collateral, which is real estate. Now here is where I ask for your patient attention:

The steep and precipitous decline in real estate values has had the effect of converting trillions of debt backed by actual collateral into signature drafts. Almost overnight, banks in this country found themselves in possession of huge amounts of signature backed debt - which cannot be converted into currency for new loans. Like a snake eating its own tail, this giant ponzi scheme was bound to fall apart. Now you can rail all you want against politicians - you and I had a dust up over the Community Reinvestment Act (which I won by the way) - but the truth is, government's contribution to this crisis has been both passive and peripheral.

In fact, if you are looking for someone to blame, unless you are willing to say that American consumers are just plain stupid (hummm...), all you are left with is that foreign competitors are beating the crap out of us. This leads to massive trade deficits, which leads to a devaluation of the dollar, which leads to a devaluation of the dollar's collateral, which is real estate. And then you are back to square one.

So how do we break out of this cycle? Well, one sure fire way would be for government to back off and let private enterprise sort it all out. I will admit, this option has an almost poetic esprit de charme. Banks in this country will fail, businesses will go under and all of us will abruptly share in the suffering. And why shouldn't we? It is we who made the choices so it is we who should pay the piper. And isn't it better, really, that we bequeath to our grandkids an empty bucket rather than one filled with our own debts?

A better alternative I think would be for us to just grow up and start acting like adults. Commie pinko liberal that I am, I still haven't lost faith in the capacity of Americans to come together, work hard, innovate and overcome. In this respect, maybe we should take a page or two from the competition's playbook.

I think you will find that the foreign competitors who have been cleaning our clock for so many years are the ones who have managed to make government an effective partner rather than a nagging wife (or husband - sorry ladies). Now since this post is long enough as it is, I'm not going to dive into the specifics of where and how Obama's budget proposals aim at backing up and augmenting private enterprise rather than leading it around by the nose. All I will say now is that before you blast them with your righteous wrath - at least take a little time to review them.

To begin with, I think you are confusing TARP with Obama's Stimulus Plan and 2010 budget. Sure, TARP is a mess but it was born of necessity during the Bush administration and cannot be conflated with Obama's proposals. The stimulus plan, as well as the 2010 budget, includes major investments in education, infrastructure, scientific research, alternative energy and health care - to name a few. I'm not asking you now to agree that the amounts of these investments are appropriate, especially since we are indeed in a recession. But just as one example, no one can deny that private industry in this country benefits in the long term from an effective educational system. The same principle holds true for many endeavors, such as scientific research, which government may finance without the requirement (common to private enterprise) of immediate profit.

Steve, I'M NOT KNOCKING PRIVATE ENTERPRISE here! If government researchers find a cure for colon cancer and some guy in the private sector makes a million dollars on it - I say bully for him!

So let's review. You and I are in perfect agreement that deficit spending on the part of government to maintain an artificial standard of living is nothing more that an unsophisticated attempt to redistribute wealth, is counterproductive and idiotic. Where we depart is the where, when and hows that government may invest in tools which benefit private industry to the extent that it is able to accumulate greater genuine wealth, which in the end benefits all citizens. I'm going to add an expository (and possibly irritating) PS.

-Chris

PS: In your enumeration of: "What can be done? (regardless of WHO is in the Oval Office)… Here’s some EASY ones...", I was literally blown away by your circumvention of the "hugest" hole in the bucket - that being our bloated defense budget. You cite possible savings in expenses which are far less than peanuts compared to an across the board, and supportable, 50% decrease in defense spending. For example, do you know that the United States maintains 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers - each one of which equals the rest of the world's total aircraft carriers in terms of capacity? I could go on, but I think at least in this one example your neocon slip is showing...