From the home office at the U.S. Treasury Department...

<a href='http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32044' target='_blank'>Top Ten Outrageous Federal Expenditures List</a>

:wave:

From Friday's New York Times.

Roads Not Taken

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Congressman Richard Gephardt's new proposal

Quote:Never mind the details; why shouldn't the typical citizen, faced with a choice between Bush-style tax cuts and a plan to provide health insurance to most of the uninsured, choose the latter?

"Never mind the details"? I disagree that the choice provided above is a mutually exclusive one. If you marry this article with the article I provided (and there are certainly more than just 10 sources of wasteful spending), you can certainly lower taxes by eliminating a lot of the bloated waste, and still consider Mr. Gephardt

Quote:I disagree that the choice provided above is a mutually exclusive one.

It's not, of course. He's simply framing the issue for simplicity's sake, which is what Gephardt has done.

Quote:If you marry this article with the article I provided (and there are certainly more than just 10 sources of wasteful spending),

But, see, waste is a matter of perspective. Some of those examples in that article were lame. And even if they hit on a couple of decent examples of government waste, I think anyone could come up with spending they disagree with in a multi-billion dollar budget.

As for the examples:

"Giving $170 million to a pornographer who wants to hand out condoms around the world...."

Obviously, the condoms are intended to combat AIDS in Third World. The Libertarian Party seems more concerned that a "pornographer" is handing them out then the fact that they are being handed out. Distributing condoms in the Third World can save lives, and inexpensively. I have no problem with the United States footing some of the bill for this.

Quote:"Funding a $1.8 million study of algae in hot water. The funding, contained in an omnibus appropriations bill, was given to the Bozeman, Mont., Center on Life in Extreme Thermal Environments, according to Citizens Against Government Waste.

The scientific value is obvious to me. This could help scientists get a better sense of how life could develop on other worlds. This isn't as fruity as it sounds, either. Jupiter is way too far from the sun to gather sufficient heat from the sun for photosynthesis. But gravity and/or volcanic activity produce thermal energy on the moon, Europa. Many suspect water flows freely underneath its ice surface. If so, life could be underneath that ice -- and these experiments could help give scientists a better idea of where to look.

Quote:"Authorizing a $1 million program at Auburn University to train dogs to spot terrorist activity. The money was earmarked by Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., in a bill funding the Veterans Administration and Housing Department.

Could this be bomb sniffing dogs? Are we against them?

Quote:"Spending $3.6 million for 'team-building' exercises for the Postal Service. At a series of employee retreats, hundreds of Postal workers played children's games, sang 'We Are Family,' wrote Christmas carols, went on treasure hunts, dressed in cat costumes, took scat singing lessons, and talked to imaginary wizards, magicians and mad scientists at staff meetings.

All kinds of private corporations do the same thing. The postal service is the equivalent of a massive, massive corporation. $3.6 million is a drop in the bucket.

That was the first four items cited. I'm not going to go on with this.

You may disagree with my take on some of these items. But, even if you do, these pockets of waste do not render government useless.

Most government spending makes perfect sense and helps us all. When your toilet flushes, when you drive on ice-free, smooth freeway on a snowy day, when your grandmother isn't eating cat food because she has no pension, that's government working for all of us.

[quote]The NYT article clearly doesn

Quote:It's not, of course. He's simply framing the issue for simplicity's sake, which is what Gephardt has done.

True. But, naturally, the 'real world' cannot be framed for simplicity's sake. It's okay for an ECON 101 textbook to provide a graphs and charts where they isolate one variable "and hold everything else constant" in order to help students understand basics. Not very viable for politicians playing with real money and real issues. In other words, I'm questioning his "health care reform or low taxes, take your pick" mantra. It doesn't have to be that way.

Quote:But, see, waste is a matter of perspective.

BINGO. You just, in a roundabout way, proved my point. Why force those who believe a government project is a waste, pay? If you and I want to help pay for Jupiter moon experiments, then let's send in a check to help fund it. But if someone else doesn't, they shouldn't have to. Maybe they believe their hard-earned income is better suited for material inside their home (food, clothing, phone bill, cable TV, etc) rather than on hot water algae. If the Jupiter moon project goes belly up, then it proves there was no market to support it.

And, yes, I do make a clear distinction between this sort of expenditure and a fire department or road repair.

Quote:The Libertarian Party seems more concerned that a "pornographer" is handing them out then the fact that they are being handed out.

Read up on the ideological platforms. Considering libertarians support the legalization of marijuana, legal prostitution, and gay marriages, I highly doubt their problem with this expenditure is because a pornographer is involved.

Quote:Distributing condoms in the Third World can save lives, and inexpensively. I have no problem with the United States footing some of the bill for this.

Since when did the US Government get into the business of Third World health care? And some may have a different perspective over whether $170 million is "inexpensive". And while you have no problem with footing the bill, do you speak for everyone? Recall that some conservatives in the US are - for some reason or another - against birth control. You and I disagree with their position, but why should their money be thrown into a overseas fund they are vehemently against?

Before I go on, remember that it isn't an 'all or nothing' game. US charities and private donations are massive and unmatched around the world. So it's not that it's $170 millon or nothin'.

Quote:But, even if you do, these pockets of waste do not render government useless.

Of course not, and I never meant to imply as such. Please don't confuse me with an anti-government anarchist nut. I'm for limited government and responsible spending. I think we're still far better than most countries, but we just have to keep an eye on things and make adjustments were necessary (the spending on the 'War on Drugs' and military bases all over the globe would be a start). There are many areas of government useful, including some of your examples. Remember the film "Dave", whereas they went through all the bloated fat of the government to save the city shelter? They slashed the budget and saved the shelters. Hollywood simplistic gloss, of course, but not a ridiculous idea.

Quote:More moral than letting bankrupting uninsured families

Well, who would be "letting"? Since the 18th century, friends, family, relatives, private charities, and/or religious affiliations have been the primary source of helping each other out. And it worked quite well, too. Besides, these people know the downtrodden person, and his individual needs, far more than a government agency does. No, I'm not saying to get rid of welfare, and I'm even willing to consider a modified and reformed health plan. But those on the left often forget about these other variables.

Quote:The whole "golden goose" idea is a stretch, too. I mean, seriously, American taxes on the wealthy are the lowest in the industrialized world.

As they should be, as well as for all income segments.

As for the 90s expansion, much of it had to do with Greenspan's lowering interest rates and massivly inflating the money supply (in which people got fat and happy on phony money). But that's a whole topic for another day.

Quote:I hardly think that's a disincentive to for rich people to work.

We got a bit off-topic from the health care thing, but the majority of the rest of my post had everyone in mind. Not just rich people. You may meet "half way" in saying that you believe in low taxes for those with lower-and-mid level incomes. But I just believe that low taxes are essential for everyone (and believe me, I'm not even close to being rich).

Quote:So, yeah, I think the superrich who are pining for tax cuts right now are greedy and selfish. No question.

IMO, a greedy and selfish person is a thief, whether it's a purse-snatching punk on the street or a CEO dipping into the company funds. Greedy and selfish because they are trying to take what they didn't earn for themselves in the first place (you know, respect for property rights and such). People who simply want to keep what they earned as a result of a mutual agreement between employee and employer = greedy? How? Be it a greasy spoon waitress or the 'super-rich'?

To clarify, I did mention that I'd give Gephardt an ear, and that I'm interested in the details of his plan. I do admit that I could agree to some reformation of the health care system. So I'm not totally closed off to other ideas. My primary point was that an increase in state-sponsored health care does not necessarily mean that low taxes were out of the question. My secondary point was that we need to be careful in not allowing this plan to become a "stepping stone" that will result in problems associated with a socialized health nightmare. A lot of the "exaggerations" you charged me with have and do indeed occur in plenty of other countries.

Here's a brain-tweaker I thought of mentioning...

In the strictest economic view, even taxation for road repair/snow removal is - in its current form - unfair. For instance, let's say Person A lives in a tiny town in the backwoods of Michigan and drives only 1 mile to work. On weekends, he just walks to his friends, or the store, or the park because it's all so close. Compare this to Person B, who lives in Detroit and drives 20 miles to work. He also drives 2 hours up to his cottage every weekend.

Shouldn't Person B pay more road-related taxes than Person A?

The quick answer would be 'yes'. This is what I like about toll roads. They charge user fees, and the more you use their "product", the more you pay. If you don't use the Ohio Turnpike, no charge.

Now, the reason why an equally shared tax does make sense in this case is because, short of installing toll booths on every streetcorner in the state, it would be a logistical nightmare any other way. The only other method would be to tax according to how many miles are driven on your car per year. But even that wouldn't take into consideration miles driven out of state, etc. It would be beyond difficult to figure out how to charge frequent drivers moreso than infrequent drivers. Therefore, state taxes work in its present form.

Not really meant for debate bait, but just a passing thought...



<!--EDIT|Motown Bronco|Apr 28 2003, 03:12 AM-->

Quote:True. But, naturally, the 'real world' cannot be framed for simplicity's sake. It's okay for an ECON 101 textbook to provide a graphs and charts where they isolate one variable "and hold everything else constant" in order to help students understand basics. Not very viable for politicians playing with real money and real issues. In other words, I'm questioning his "health care reform or low taxes, take your pick" mantra. It doesn't have to be that way.

All this said, that's exactly how George Bush is going to frame his call for a massive, massive tax cut. Our economic future is at stake, he will say.

Yet, the CBO says the tax cuts being considered in Washington will have very little effect on the U.S. economy. And I believe the CBO.

Quote:BINGO. You just, in a roundabout way, proved my point. Why force those who believe a government project is a waste, pay? If you and I want to help pay for Jupiter moon experiments, then let's send in a check to help fund it. But if someone else doesn't, they shouldn't have to. Maybe they believe their hard-earned income is better suited for material inside their home (food, clothing, phone bill, cable TV, etc) rather than on hot water algae. If the Jupiter moon project goes belly up, then it proves there was no market to support it.

There is merit to this argument.

On the other hand, if the science in this country is only going to be limited to the applied sciences that market forces will pay for, then I've got to think we as Americans lose something.

It seems likely that market forces would not have paid to lift the Hubble Space Telescope into orbit. One can argue the entire space program is a waste of money. I've heard arguments from both the right and left on this, and some of the logic makes sense. The shuttle program has never really worked out as envisioned. I concede that.

But how does one put a price on the knowledge human kind gained from the presence of the Hubble Space Telescope? It is difficult to put into dollars and cents, but certainly there is a value to better understanding the history and composition of the universe.

And some of this pure science does lead to applied science.

Quote:Read up on the ideological platforms. Considering libertarians support the legalization of marijuana, legal prostitution, and gay marriages, I highly doubt their problem with this expenditure is because a pornographer is involved.

I know where the libertarians are coming from, but the wording is clearly pandering to those who would have such a problem.

Quote:Since when did the US Government get into the business of Third World health care? And some may have a different perspective over whether $170 million is "inexpensive"....

Our government supplies billions to Israel. In that context, $170 million doesn't look so large.

Foreign aid is a reality, for diplomatic and political reasons. And, in fact, U.S. government foreign aid, on a per capita basis, is much lower than that of other industrialized countries.

Quote:Before I go on, remember that it isn't an 'all or nothing' game. US charities and private donations are massive and unmatched around the world. So it's not that it's $170 millon or nothin'.

I'm not ready to assume that American charity blows the doors of the rest of the world off. Again, look at how we do on a per capita basis in terms of government aid.

But, more to the point, I think the evidence shows that charity, alone, is not enough -- certainly not at home, and the same lesson can be aborbed when considering aid abroad. Leaving charity to market forces means people will starve. If we took away all domestic social welfare programs, private charity could never fill the gap.

Quote:And while you have no problem with footing the bill, do you speak for everyone? Recall that some conservatives in the US are - for some reason or another - against birth control. You and I disagree with their position, but why should their money be thrown into a overseas fund they are vehemently against?

Shall we give religous zealots a veto on every program that might help help people?

I have a problem with this. No one is strapping a Southern Baptist into a chair and forcing him to wear a condom (kinky as that might sound). All that is being done here is to supply condoms to people who would like to use them, something that very clearly could save lives.

The same objection is raised when it comes to allowing Medicaid to pay for abortions, and I have the same problem with a religious veto used in this scenario.

This religious veto, after all, could be turned on its head. Example: Most people in New York attend public schools. Yet the state has long required local school districts to supply transportation to children attending parochial schools. For the non Catholics in our community, isn't this objectionable?

And the same relgious veto could be exercised in the school vouchers debate.

Now, don't get me wrong, New York's school bus policy has long been established as constitutional and I believe school vouchers are also established as constitutional. But that's not the issue. Medicaid abortions are also constitutional.

Quote:Well, who would be "letting"? Since the 18th century, friends, family, relatives, private charities, and/or religious affiliations have been the primary source of helping each other out. And it worked quite well, too.

I'm not sure I'm ready to return to the 18th century. I just don't accept the idea that private charity could possible fill the gap that would be created if government social programs were eliminated. I wish I had a study handy that backed me up -- I have read of such studies -- but I don't.

Quote:As for the 90s expansion, much of it had to do with Greenspan's lowering interest rates and massivly inflating the money supply (in which people got fat and happy on phony money). But that's a whole topic for another day.

I accept Greenspan's management of interest rates was perhaps the single biggest factor in the expansion. (I'm not sure how you get "massively inflating the money supply," though. I'm not an economist, but I do know that interest rates have remained low in post World War II terms). But, if you accept that too, then can't you also accept that hiking taxes on income over $200,000 was mostly irrelevant to the economy?

I firmly believe that it was. Other forces -- such as the Federal Reserve System -- were far more important to the state of the economy that the tax hikes of Bush the 41st and Clinton.

So, too, would be the tax cuts proposed by Bush the 43rd.

In the context of the Fed, tax hikes or cuts are almost irrelevant to the economy. I believe this.



<!--EDIT|RochesterFalcon|Apr 28 2003, 08:23 AM-->

Just a few "quickie" responses to some subjects, since it's a typical Monday morning at work. So if I bypass a few of your comments at this time, it isn't because I'm ignoring your thoughts. :D

Billions of aid to Israel

I don't think we should be sending billions to Israel. While I believe that their neighbors have generally been on the wrong side of history in that powder keg of a region, I disagree with the flood of aid we send to that country on a yearly basis.

Religious zealots being able to veto a program that may help people

Zealot or not, it is still Opinion A versus Opinion B. If you and I want to support a birth control fund for the Third World, the "zealots" cannot stop us. But why, via force, should they help foot the bill? What if some people wanted the feds to subsidize a Sunday religious class (a program that may help people), a clear violation of church and state separation? Why should we help pay?

On the flip side, (for example) I wouldn't want nor expect the German government to order all their citizens to help pay for a US Sex Ed class. Shouldn't the Average Jakob have a say?

In other words, there are donations I give (a mix of religious and non-religious affiliated) that I wouldn't expect someone to contribute to by force.

Elimination of social services

I know you're probably just speaking generally, and not talking specifically about me. But I've said all along that I don't want them eliminated. Tweaked, but not wiped out.

I believe that welfare is - and should be - a small component, or a complement, of private assistance. You may believe the opposite.

I believe the total taxation on a person's income should not exceed 25%. You may believe it should be higher.

I believe in individual freedom, as everyone has unique traits, characteristics, interests, and morals. Freedoms ranging from the choice of earning millions playing basketball or selling widgets to paying for sex (if that's yer thing), with government there for necessary taxation, reasonable regulation, and protection - via police and courts - from harm from others. You may feel government's role should be far greater than that.

I realize we both - deep down - believe our "method" results in the best end result for everyone. Things we'll just have to agree to disagree on.

90s income tax hike on the wealthy

Economists are divided over how immediate government tweakings of economic variables are, and the timeframe of impact. Some contend that those tax hikes caught up with everyone as 2000 hit, and that the "Reaganomics" of the 80s actually had a small part to play in the 90s expansion. (I'll concede that points of view - i.e. slant - depend greatly on the political leanings of the analyst. True for writers you and I both likely read).

To be fair, and to show that I recognize "good deeds" regardless of political affiliation, Clinton's North American free trade initiatives is to be applauded. Dubya's tariff hikes on imported steel is a groaner. And the ugly recession of the late 1970s, which was far worse than it is now, cannot be entirely blamed on the Carter Administration. Decisions put forth by the administrations prior to his had threw some pre-emptive gasoline on that fire.



<!--EDIT|Motown Bronco|Apr 28 2003, 03:07 PM-->

Quote:Zealot or not, it is still Opinion A versus Opinion B. If you and I want to support a birth control fund for the Third World, the "zealots" cannot stop us. But why, via force, should they help foot the bill?

But why, by force, are my tax dollars used to bus kids to parochial schools?

The argument runs both ways. We use public money in New York to bus kids to parochial schools because, despite possible objections on religious grounds, we figure the safety of the kids is more important. We ship condoms to the Third World because, despite objections from a minority on religious grounds, we figure the safety of the Third World is more important.

Also, I believe in freedom. Seriously.

For instance, many people want to coat my desire for a single payer health insurance system into obliterating freedom. Not at all.

This is my model, I guess: From cradle to grave, the government would pay for health care to the extent that a typical government or Fortune 500 employee now receives such care through his or her insurance policy.

I don't see how this reduces freedoms. Doctors may doctor, nurses may nurse and hospitals may continue to accept patients as they did before. The only difference is the government assumes the burden now placed on employers.

If the wealthy find this level of health insurance isn't adequate, they would be free to buy more.

The cost for this wouldn't be nearly as big as many would assume. Most Americans are already in a health insurance system. The goal is simply to get protection for people lacking insurance -- and in most cases, we'll find these people are the working poor, the kidn of people trapped working for cheap, labor antagonistic outfit like Wal-Mart.

Such a national plan could actually benefit corporations, who already shoulder these costs for present -- and in many cases, former -- employees.

Quote:But why, by force, are my tax dollars used to bus kids to parochial schools?

Good question. Now you're learning!

IMO, the parents of the parochial school kids would subsidize the bussing. In other words, whatever (x) cost they are paying for tuition now, they'd pay (x + transportation cost). Or they might not pay any premium at all. Some local churches may ask for, and receive, an extra donation during church services to cover the cost.

At any rate, you personally would not have to pay for a service you don't receive. And the ones who do receive this benefit (the parents), do.

The safety of the kids never leaves the equation.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I'll take a little time and read more about Gephardt's plan before I comment further. I naturally get suspicious, but I'll give the idea a thorough read.

Quote:...and in most cases, we'll find these people are the working poor, the kind of people trapped working for cheap, labor antagonistic outfit like Wal-Mart.

Trapped? Didn't one party submit an application, the other party accept the application and offer a job, and both parties agree to the terms of employment?

Heath care policy notwithstanding, Wal-Mart is a God-sent for:

1. Those who didn't go to college and high-school dropouts, and could not expect to find a better-paying job.

2. Transients.

3. College kids home for the summer looking for a few quick bucks while working a relatively easy job (like Blockbusters was for me).

4. Senior citizens who don't want to be stuck at home and want to be among people, and earn some money on top of that.

5. Rural residents (since many Wal-Marts are in the middle of small towns) who don't have the means to set out to the larger cities yet.

Not to mention that half of Jonesboro, Arkansas gets their paychecks from Wal-Mart's HQ. I don't know their what their insurance policy is, but I wouldn't say Sam Walton is completely "antagonistic" to laborers.

Now K-Mart, on the other hand... :rolleyes:

I don't think people should not receive health insurance because they are stupid.

(I'm busy. Sorry. I don't have time for more).

If someone can institute a health care proposal that...

a) covers everyone;

b) doesn't transform the hospitals into massive waiting lists (see link below);

c) doesn't get abused in terms of people running into the doctor's office for every sniffle, cough, and headache, resulting in "b";

d) doesn't get abused in terms of people claiming massages and accupuncture and calling it "health care";

e) doesn't simply soak "the rich", but soaks those who chain smoke, chew tobacco, overeat to the point of obesity, engage in unprotected sex, likes to enjoy "extreme" sports and dangerous stunts, etc. (I know it's generally impossible to know who does what, but I'm just mentioning this to prove a point);

and,

f) Taxes stay roughly the same for all income segments of the population. Heck I'll even compromise and let it raise a little bit.


If the above happens, I'm all for it. If Gephardt's plan results in this, sign me up.

I know health care needs some sort of reform, on some level. I do sympathise with children and others who have an accident and are stuck with a hideous bill. As for other workers who get laid off and don't want to spend money on health insurance... maybe giving up "necessities" such as your cell phone, Internet access, TiVo, cable, PlayStation2, that new pair of shoes, that "bar night out with the guys", etc, and instead covering yourself with health insurance for a few months might be a good idea.

-----

As waiting lists turn "toughing it out" into a treatment option in Canada, more patients are willingly paying for prompt medical care in the US. Thanks to managed care and increased competition, the cost of care south of the border is dropping and referral brokers can often offer discounted prices to Canadians. Milan Korcok reports that American facilities are actively soliciting medical business from Canadians who have grown frustrated at having to wait for hospital beds, tests, referrals and treatment.

<a href='http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/201/300/cdn_medical_association/cmaj/vol-157/issue-6/0767.htm' target='_blank'>Excess Supply meets Excess Demand</a>







<!--EDIT|Motown Bronco|Apr 28 2003, 10:19 PM-->

Ugh. I wouldn't whipe my *** with the New York Times.