Maastricht Treaty revisions needed?

[--Pete]

Hi,

A simple example would be that the department of agriculture in Arizona would be intimately familiar with water resources, . . . but that hardly needs a federal agency to manage it, nor billions per year of spending.

Really? May I point out the Colorado River? Not only do Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and California compete for that water, but so does part of Mexico. Yes, the Colorado River Compact was instituted by the seven states. But it took the federal government to make the treaty with Mexico. And it has been to the federal courts that disputes were taken.

More importantly is that they already exist within the 50 states, for this very reason of specialty, so we have the 50 state sized agencies plus the humongous federal agency. This is not consolidation, it is eliminating the superfluous one grand papa agency . . .

I'm sorry, but how are the educational requirements of a ten year old in Wisconsin different from those of one in New Jersey? And which is superfluous? The one federal agency or the fifty state agencies? The US Department of Education has about 5000 employees. I couldn't find numbers for the administration at the top level for any state, but I bet it is more than 100.

. . . that becomes a temptation for Congress to abuse for their benefit.

And that is the reason this is pointless. Rather than looking at the issues, looking at the facts, looking at the trade offs and coming to a conclusion, you start with your conclusion and work back to rationalize it. Underlying all your arguments is a simple, strong, "I believe." It kinda makes discussion pointless, indeed, impossible. Polemics and absolutes are not conducive to exploring a situation or a viewpoint.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

But this is just ideology. There is no economic rationale for doing agriculture, transportation, education, health, and so on exclusively at the State rather than Federal level. Your own logic of consolidation saving money would imply the opposite, but yet, you oppose it. Why? What's so much better about State governments than the Feds?

The Feds do not do the same things that the States do. Yes, there are some things which probably should remain, like food safety regulations, and ensuring that the inspection of food products does not reveal hazards. The original point was that there is plenty of fat here with very little meat or bone. So, let's slim down these departments to what is crucial, and set aside the less needed parts.

[kandrathe]

But it took the federal government to make the treaty with Mexico. And it has been to the federal courts that disputes were taken.

But, none of that requires a sustained federal department.

I'm sorry, but how are the educational requirements of a ten year old in Wisconsin different from those of one in New Jersey? And which is superfluous? The one federal agency or the fifty state agencies? The US Department of Education has about 5000 employees. I couldn't find numbers for the administration at the top level for any state, but I bet it is more than 100.

As I said to Jester, the Feds don't do the same things as the states. The Feds 1) establish policies relating to federal financial aid for education, administer distribution of those funds and monitors their use. 2) collects data and oversees research on America’s schools and disseminates this information to Congress, educators and the general public. 3) identifies the major issues and problems in education and focuses national attention on them. 4) enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal funds and ensures equal access to education for every individual.

Each of these goals can be handled outside of a Federal structure.

Rather than looking at the issues, looking at the facts, looking at the trade offs and coming to a conclusion, you start with your conclusion and work back to rationalize it. Underlying all your arguments is a simple, strong, "I believe." It kinda makes discussion pointless, indeed, impossible. Polemics and absolutes are not conducive to exploring a situation or a viewpoint.

I don't see it that way. Yes, I'm making a broad claim, and no, I'm not producing the 20 pages of research necessary to for you or Jester to debunk my claim. Sorry about not doing the research for you, but I'm just not up for the extra home work right now.

Simply put: It is possible to cut a ton of waste out of some Federal departments, which are redundant at State levels. The activity at the State level is where the crucial activity occurs. For example, our State department of Education is the agency that supervises teacher education, and certifies that teachers are good enough. They also, are the ones who set standards on curriculum, measure the educational productivity of schools, and intervene if necessary to correct problems. They are the place where new schools are started, and where the school district lines are drawn.

[--Pete]

Hi,

But, none of that requires a sustained federal department.

Once again, that is the key to your thinking. The underlying assumption that supports all the rest. The question shouldn't be if a federal department is required. The question should be if a federal department can do the job better. Your ideal seems to be minimum government, and that at the lowest level. That consideration seems to trump everything else. I would love to see minimum government, and at the lowest level, but first I want to see efficient government that meets the needs of the people.

As I said to Jester, the Feds don't do the same things as the states. The Feds 1) establish policies relating to federal financial aid for education, administer distribution of those funds and monitors their use. 2) collects data and oversees research on America’s schools and disseminates this information to Congress, educators and the general public. 3) identifies the major issues and problems in education and focuses national attention on them. 4) enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination in programs and activities receiving federal funds and ensures equal access to education for every individual.

Each of these goals can be handled outside of a Federal structure.

Can they? Item one only by eliminating federal financial aid to education, but I'm sure the residents of New York will voluntarily support the schools in Idaho. Item two would require more than 50 (D.C. and territories and possessions) agencies to do the work in cooperation -- why don't I think that would be efficient. The same is true for item three, but they'd have to come to some agreement -- is the major problem immigrants, poverty, gangs, race tensions? And as to four, anyone who lived through the late '50s and '60s will forever distrust the states on issues of civil rights.

I don't see it that way. Yes, I'm making a broad claim, and no, I'm not producing the 20 pages of research necessary to for you or Jester to debunk my claim. Sorry about not doing the research for you, but I'm just not up for the extra home work right now.

I'm not asking you to do the research to debunk your claim, I'm asking you to do the research to support your claim. Or, at the very least, give arguments based on more than the unsupported claim that all government is bad, and that the best government is the least. Yes, we've seen totalitarian governments collapse under the burden of trying to do everything. But we've also seen governments (e.g., the USA under the Articles of Confederation) fail because they tried to do too little. You have taken the extreme, minority, position. It might be right, but it does require support.

Simply put: It is possible to cut a ton of waste out of some Federal departments, which are redundant at State levels. The activity at the State level is where the crucial activity occurs. For example, our State department of Education is the agency that supervises teacher education, and certifies that teachers are good enough. They also, are the ones who set standards on curriculum, measure the educational productivity of schools, and intervene if necessary to correct problems. They are the place where new schools are started, and where the school district lines are drawn.

Each of these goals can be handled inside of a Federal structure. By one organization instead of 50+. With uniform standards that mean a child from New York can move to New Mexico and be neither ahead nor behind his new classmates. Standards that mean a person who has earned his teaching credentials can move from Florida to Alaska and not have to re-certify. With standards that mean an A student from Redmond WA and one from south Chicago have equivalent knowledge, at an equivalent level, and an equal probability of success in college. Not to mention an equal probability of getting to college.

But, hey, anything to keep the government, especially the federal government, small.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I would love to see minimum government, and at the lowest level, but first I want to see efficient government that meets the needs of the people.

I would be satisfied with the same three requirements. An objective of efficiency would mean that someone were measuring their results for a change. Minerals Management Service, or FEMA, for starters.

Can they? Item one only by eliminating federal financial aid to education, but I'm sure the residents of New York will voluntarily support the schools in Idaho.

Being that HEA Title IV began in 1965, and the Dept of Ed didn't begin operating until 1980, it seems we got by without it for managing financial aid. That is also setting aside the inflationary effect that federal financial aid is having in driving up the costs of tuition. #2 has also been done, and is in fact being done voluntarily in many other areas outside the government (such as the NSLC, now the National Student Clearinghouse). If you go get the US News and World Reports guide to colleges and universities, they contain 10 times more data than IPEDS collects.

The same is true for item three, but they'd have to come to some agreement -- is the major problem immigrants, poverty, gangs, race tensions?

That really depends on the State. This is where a state or district specific plan can focus on a problem. Just as with transportation, and agriculture, there aren't that many issues that uniformly affect every locality, city, or State.

And as to four, anyone who lived through the late '50s and '60s will forever distrust the states on issues of civil rights.

Again, this isn't wholesale destruction of the civil rights act, nor a return to Jim Crow. The government functioned all through the civil rights time period without a Department of Education. It started after I graduated from High School, and I can't say that they've made any big impact in improving civil rights or even on education.

You have taken the extreme, minority, position. It might be right, but it does require support.

It's not that extreme and has been proposed for awhile, and it might be in the minority presently. My view is that someday soon, we need to trim back on some of the "nice to haves", just to get the deficit under control, otherwise, we will be cutting back on shelter, food, health care and medicine for seniors, and poor people.

Each of these goals can be handled inside of a Federal structure. By one organization instead of 50+. With uniform standards that mean a child from New York can move to New Mexico and be neither ahead nor behind his new classmates. Standards that mean a person who has earned his teaching credentials can move from Florida to Alaska and not have to re-certify. With standards that mean an A student from Redmond WA and one from south Chicago have equivalent knowledge, at an equivalent level, and an equal probability of success in college. Not to mention an equal probability of getting to college.

Each of these things does happen already, without the federal government being involved. Teachers can be trained and certified in one state, and then work in any other state. This reciprocity is coordinated by NASDTEC and includes all 50 states, DC, territories, DOD, and Canadian Provinces. It began in the early to mid 1950's. The original incarnation of GWB's "No Child Left Behind", was Lyndon Johnson's 1965 ESEA act. So, again, no need for the Department of Education here either. You'd be surprised at what can be done to bring together educators across 50 states, without the need for a federal mandate.

Yes, I believe that less government is better government, but that is secondary to the original topic of this thread... How do we trim back on spending to avoid going the way of Greece? This question is being asked throughout the EU as well. We seem to be one of the few nations on seven continents who believe we can spend borrowed money as a path to prosperity.

[Jester]

Telling me that your position is not extreme because Mona Charen at the National Review says so?

Amusing, but not convincing.

-Jester

(FWIW, I'm not convinced there is any profound necessity of keeping the Dept. of Education open. I think it serves an important equalization function, but it's not crucial. You're right, the states could handle it. Would shutting it down save money? Maybe a little, but I'm not thinking a lot.)

[kandrathe]

Telling me that your position is not extreme because Mona Charen at the National Review says so?

Amusing, but not convincing.

Yeah, this is the kind of debate tactic that gets really really old. She is so extreme. She's a Republican, and former speech writer for that extremist Nancy Reagan. Whoa! I guess compared to extreme leftists , then yes she's pretty far out there. You know, appearing on CNN and all. Back during the Clinton/Newt Gingrich days, these ideas were pretty mainstream for the conservatives. Now they are extreme. Uh, huh, right. I see. So, yeah, she's not so main stream like Noam Chomsky, George Soros, or Van Jones.

(FWIW, I'm not convinced there is any profound necessity of keeping the Dept. of Education open. I think it serves an important equalization function, but it's not crucial. You're right, the states could handle it. Would shutting it down save money? Maybe a little, but I'm not thinking a lot.)

If your choices were to cut back on some of the fluff we don't really need, or cut benefits to social security and medicare, what would be your choice? I think we might be able to reel in a few hundred thousand troops, and close down a hundred bases or so to extricate ourselves from having to police pretty safe places like Europe. How about they step up and defend themselves for awhile? In my view of a compassionate nation, we'd make sure that invalids and old folks starve last.

[Jester]

So, yeah, she's not so main stream like Noam Chomsky, George Soros, or Van Jones.

The first time I claim my position is "mainstream" because it is shared by Noam Chomsky, feel free to call me out on it. In fact, please do.

But, if your concept is that the *National Review* represents anything but the hard right, then you're dreaming. You might be right that your opinion, specifically pertaining to the Dept. of Education, is not extreme. Citing Mona Charen certainly does not in any way demonstrate that. Your opinions about government overall *are* extreme.

If your choices were to cut back on some of the fluff we don't really need, or cut benefits to social security and medicare, what would be your choice?

If cutting out the Department of Education was going to save much money, that might be important. But it wouldn't - efficiency gains would be a few billion, tops. Most of the DoDE budget is going into education funding - transfers, grants, scholarships, etc... All that slack funding would simply have to be picked up at the state level, or education would have to be cut back. For the moment, that's a huge problem, because states can't borrow like the Feds can, and if they had to pick up the slack, they'd come up short, because they're in crisis. Contrariwise, if you cut back funding, it would undermine economic recovery, and cause problems for the future.

So, for the moment, the Dept. of Education should probably stay where it is, and worry about actual problems, rather than trying to nickel-and-dime the budget during a period of 10% unemployment. Once that storm has passed, then it might be wiser to think about maximizing efficiency. I seriously doubt de-consolidation is a good way to do that, but it would at least be on the table.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Your opinions about government overall *are* extreme.

Not really. Compared to US politics, I'm not centrist. But in the big world of politics, I'm pretty mainstream. I find in the rules for radicals, one of them is to marginalize, and then ridicule your opponent as off on the lunatic fringe. "Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." I wouldn't describe my views much divergent than the average libertarian, and perhaps a bit more thought out than your average tea party activist. According to CNN, the estimated population that identify with this point of view is between 35 and 40%. That's not really very fringe.

If cutting out the Department of Education was going to save much money, that might be important. But it wouldn't - efficiency gains would be a few billion, tops.

A few billions here, and a few billions there, and pretty soon we're talking some real money.

All that slack funding would simply have to be picked up at the state level, or education would have to be cut back.

Take the $100 billion currently being doled out, and start scaling it back by $10 billion per year over the next 6 years (adjusted for inflation) to bring spending back into line with FY 2000 levels. This gives schools, students, and States time to figure out how to either fund it, or do without it. That saves you $210 billion over 6 years, just to bring spending in line with FY 2000 levels.

For the moment, that's a huge problem, because states can't borrow like the Feds can, and if they had to pick up the slack, they'd come up short, because they're in crisis.

Thankfully, no, the States cannot deficit spend. Now, if only we might curb the Feds. Deficit spending should be a rare measure used at times of national emergency, not the status quo.

Contrariwise, if you cut back funding, it would undermine economic recovery, and cause problems for the future.

Um, I believe our issue is that yearly spending is passing by GDP. Then at some point, it just becomes impossible to repay the debt, without resorting to devaluation of our currency. I think simply put; I see government spending as a part of the problem, and I think you see it as a part of the solution.

So, for the moment, the Dept. of Education should probably stay where it is, and worry about actual problems, rather than trying to nickel-and-dime the budget during a period of 10% unemployment. Once that storm has passed, then it might be wiser to think about maximizing efficiency. I seriously doubt de-consolidation is a good way to do that, but it would at least be on the table.

Perhaps the problem with the recovery is that the tick is bigger than the dog. Maybe what needs to happen is that government needs to get off of the economies back, to allow it to recover. Now is not the time to increase the rate of sucking that dog dry. But, you are right on one account, I wouldn't go put 100,000 government workers out of a job this year. Drastic change is what devastates economies.

[Jester]

Not really. Compared to US politics, I'm not centrist. But in the big world of politics, I'm pretty mainstream.

In the "big world of politics," everyone is mainstream compared with somebody else. There's always a crazier crazy.

In the world in which you live, the developed world circa 2010, no, your beliefs about government are not mainstream.

A few billions here, and a few billions there, and pretty soon we're talking some real money.

A few billions here, a few billions there, and you'd maybe amount to a few % of the Federal budget.

ATake the $100 billion currently being doled out, and start scaling it back by $10 billion per year over the next 6 years (adjusted for inflation) to bring spending back into line with FY 2000 levels. This gives schools, students, and States time to figure out how to either fund it, or do without it. That saves you $210 billion over 6 years, just to bring spending in line with FY 2000 levels.

Now we're no longer talking about efficiency gains, but budget cuts, which is exactly the point: you can get the program, provided at any government level, or you can get the money used to fund it. That's the tradeoff. It doesn't matter if it's the States or the Feds.

Thankfully, no, the States cannot deficit spend. Now, if only we might curb the Feds. Deficit spending should be a rare measure used at times of national emergency, not the status quo.

This is status quo to you? 10% unemployment? Frozen credit markets? The deepest worldwide recession since the 1930s? This is *exactly* when the government should be using deficit spending: during an economic crisis!

Um, I believe our issue is that yearly spending is passing by GDP. Then at some point, it just becomes impossible to repay the debt, without resorting to devaluation of our currency.

No. Here are the numbers:

US GDP: 14 trillion.

US yearly Federal Spending: 3.5 trillion.

I think you mean that the *debt* is passing GDP. I also think people make far too big a deal out of the 100% mark. There is nothing magical about that number. It's already comparing a stock to a flow, which is meaningless enough. The real question is whether the US can repay its debts. The answer to that question is "obviously, yes." Debt service currently costs the Federal Government only 5% of its expenses, not quite 10% of revenue. Sucks to have to pay, but it's not going to break the back of the economy.

If it was having trouble borrowing money, then that might be some kind of problem, even so. But the US isn't having trouble borrowing. Quite the contrary, rates are at absurdly low levels. The future cost for borrowing now is far lower than it would ordinarily be, and it is that cost, rather than the size of the debt per se, that matters.

Now, the US probably should devalue its currency, at least a little. It would increase exports, which would assist recovery. The only problem is, interest rates are already at the 0% bound. So, how do you decrease the interest rate below 0%, or something to that effect? Fiscal stimulus. The government "prints money" by borrowing. As a big bonus, you also get to fix bridges that need fixing, educate people who need educating, and research things that need researching.

Perhaps the problem with the recovery is that the tick is bigger than the dog. Maybe what needs to happen is that government needs to get off of the economies back, to allow it to recover. Now is not the time to increase the rate of sucking that dog dry.

To a man with a hammer, everything is a nail. Is there a problem that decreasing the size of the Federal Government *doesn't* solve, to your way of understanding?

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

To a man with a hammer, everything is a nail.

To a man with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
If the hammer is big enough, everything *is* a nail.
(Magi's edit) If the nail is small enough, everything is a hammer.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

In the "big world of politics," everyone is mainstream compared with somebody else. There's always a crazier crazy. In the world in which you live, the developed world circa 2010, no, your beliefs about government are not mainstream.

I'm no more odd than Ron Paul. There is about 1/3 of the electorate over here with me, so no I don't feel all that extreme. Let's just say, I'm not as extreme as say Jefferson was. I actually believe in having a standing army and navy.

A few billions here, a few billions there, and you'd maybe amount to a few % of the Federal budget.

Perhaps 30%.

Now we're no longer talking about efficiency gains, but budget cuts, which is exactly the point: you can get the program, provided at any government level, or you can get the money used to fund it. That's the trade off. It doesn't matter if it's the States or the Feds.

We haven't talked about cutting anything the States were doing. They will probably want to do that as well, since their spending is also unsustainable. If you want to pay for health care, Social Security, and poverty programs, you are going to need to find the money somewhere. Debt is not the answer.

This is status quo to you? 10% unemployment? Frozen credit markets? The deepest worldwide recession since the 1930s? This is *exactly* when the government should be using deficit spending: during an economic crisis!

Unless the debt and other government meddling is what is causing the crisis.

I think you mean that the *debt* is passing GDP.

Yes, that is what I mean.

The real question is whether the US can repay its debts. The answer to that question is "obviously, yes."

You are missing the 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Now, the US probably should devalue its currency, at least a little. It would increase exports, which would assist recovery. The only problem is, interest rates are already at the 0% bound.

The liquidity trap. Devaluing the currency makes everyone holding the currency poorer, especially seniors on fixed incomes where their holding are in US$. It in effect makes the prices, and cost of everything appear to increase since the value of a dollar is less. That would certainly hurt our poor recession strapped populace.

So, how do you decrease the interest rate below 0%, or something to that effect?

You don't

Fiscal stimulus. The government "prints money" by borrowing. As a big bonus, you also get to fix bridges that need fixing, educate people who need educating, and research things that need researching.

OMG. You really need to be locked in a room with some Austrian economists for awhile until I convert you. Keynes was right on some things, and very very wrong on others.
"Keynes said three things in the General Theory. First: the labour market is not cleared by demand and supply and, as a consequence, very high unemployment can persist forever. Second: the beliefs of market participants independently influence the unemployment rate. Third: It is the responsibility of government to maintain full employment."

BUT... "Keynes thought that consumption depends on income. Two decades of research on the consumption function, following world war two, led to a different conclusion. Consumption, and this is two thirds of the economy, depends not on income but on wealth. This is no small matter: the theory of the multiplier and the implication that fiscal policy can get us out of the current crisis rests on exactly this point." {emphasis by me} Over the past 2 years, 20 to 25% of US wealth disappeared (if it ever existed). No one is even looking at the costs anymore. I haven't seen real numbers for awhile on how badly things have slid. Consider just housing, and all the foreclosures, where the banks have been dumped assets and are getting back pennies on the dollar for them. Then, the home owner who used to have equity (wealth), but now only has their increasing debts, less or no income, and a devalued dollar.

To a man with a hammer, everything is a nail. Is there a problem that decreasing the size of the Federal Government *doesn't* solve, to your way of understanding?

I said "tick", not "tack".

Or... Are you asking, can the government be too small? Sure. When we are threatened by foreign invasion, or getting bullied on treaties, and trade agreements. Is there a role for a federal government; yes, as clearly expounded by positive rights granted by the Constitution. But, not, by the ways Federal power has been manufactured by construction by certain court decisions.

If you like to force people to do what you want, then a bigger government is a good solution. Yes, it might be better for them, if you force them to do it your way. What are the ultimate long term costs? I believe it splays open the system for abuse, which is what we are seeing now. If you instead desire people to have more freedom, then a smaller government is better. Less power is less power abused, and the result is that people will need to take care of themselves, and each other directly without being forced to do it.

What does the lack of freedom look like? Hundreds of thousands of pages of rules that are made to control our actions, and our money taken away to give away to others who've not earned it. It looks like the President of the US telling major corporations what to do, or else. It looks like the Presidents top aides and advisers arm twisting, and threatening people to do things their way, or else. I've never seen such outright and bold coercion and extortion used in government... ever. Not even in Chicago.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . and the result is that people will need to take care of themselves, and each other directly without being forced to do it.

You believe that's possible. I no longer do. But it doesn't really matter. My emotions are controlled by my intellect. Pictures of starving Colombian children break my heart. But I refuse to send them aid as long as the organizations that distribute that aid don't make birth control their first priority. Otherwise, my contribution would not be to the solution but to the problem.

If we had a society that would allow a person to die because he'd been injured in a motorcycle accident without a helmet unless he had insurance to cover it, then some of what you propose makes sense. If we were, as a society, willing for the bulk of the population to be uneducated, then some of what you propose makes sense. If we were, as a society, willing for the houses and properties of those without fire insurance to burn down unchecked, then some of what you propose makes sense.

The problem with practical politics is that you have to work with the people as they are and not as you wished they were. You have to work with the tools and resources you have, and not some ideal set. Indeed, politics *is* the art of the possible.

--Pete

[Jester]

I'm no more odd than Ron Paul.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

There is about 1/3 of the electorate over here with me, so no I don't feel all that extreme.

1/300th, certainly. 1/30? Possibly. 1/3? Heck no. The whole Republican party barely pulls in those kind of numbers, let alone the minarchist/libertarian wing. At the very least, most who would agree with you on drawing down the worldwide military would disagree on massively scaling back Federal programs, and vice versa.

Perhaps 30% (of the Federal Budget)

A trillion bucks a year in efficiency savings? Riiiight.

Unless the debt and other government meddling is what is causing the crisis.

Um, no. That's quite obviously not what is causing the crisis. Were you around in 2008? The valueless paper being held by every major financial institution in the world? The multi-trillion dollar flight to safety? The collapse of global trade? You know, the things that actually happened in this crisis?

A government debt crisis would show interest rates spiking and bonds going unsold as investors lost confidence in US debt. We are seeing precisely the opposite: investors fleeing from a collapsing private financial sector into the safety of US government bonds.

But hey, just because the evidence doesn't fit the narrative, that doesn't mean you should stop believing it. After all, it has to somehow be the fault of the US Federal Government, right?

100 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

"Unfunded liabilities" in the sense that the US is not currently sitting on a pile of money to pay off every expense it will owe for the next fifty years? Yes. But the US government also has this marvellous thing called "tax revenue" that comes in every year, that pays for these "unfunded" liabilities.

There is a *projected* future budget problem, if tax levels stay the same, and medical costs continue to increase at their current rates. But that is a very different, and much more long term problem than the current debt, which is not unsustainable. If you wiped out both the debt and the deficit with a magic wand, those future problems would still have the same dimensions, because they are not driven by current spending, but by anticipated future cost increases.

(Once again, the big hint: Fix your #*#$ing health care system!)

The liquidity trap. Devaluing the currency makes everyone holding the currency poorer, especially seniors on fixed incomes where their holding are in US$. It in effect makes the prices, and cost of everything appear to increase since the value of a dollar is less. That would certainly hurt our poor recession strapped populace.

Yes, the liquidity trap.

The effect of inflation is rather the opposite of what you are suggesting, at this point. The number of people who survive entirely on cash savings are very few, relative to the number who are paid in wages or stipends which adjust with inflation. Now, inflating the currency to the point where grandma can't pay her rent is unneccessary - a few % a year should do just fine. It will generate growth, decrease the burden of debts, improve exports (and the trade balance) and increase employment - all things which are vastly more pressing than price stability.

People with dollar-denominated debts *want* the currency to inflate. If you're underwater on your house, the absolute *last* thing you want is the dollar to appreciate, because you owe a hell of a lot of them! So, it's no use arguing that indebted people don't want to see their savings inflated away - they have negative savings.

OMG. You really need to be locked in a room with some Austrian economists for awhile until I convert you.

Best of luck with that.

What does the lack of freedom look like? Hundreds of thousands of pages of rules that are made to control our actions, and our money taken away to give away to others who've not earned it.

If the US today is what "lack of freedom" looks like, then you seriously need some historical perspective.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

You believe that's possible. I no longer do. But it doesn't really matter. My emotions are controlled by my intellect. Pictures of starving Colombian children break my heart. But I refuse to send them aid as long as the organizations that distribute that aid don't make birth control their first priority. Otherwise, my contribution would not be to the solution but to the problem.

I do. I do believe that the true "correct" position is for people to attempt to take care of themselves wherever possible, and if altruistic people want to step in to help those who cannot help themselves, that is their choice (one I wholeheartedly support). What we see now, however, is the sensitive caring altruists insensitively using "government" as a means to fund their every whim. I just don't see "care-taking" as a role for government. I think it leads to a child like state of dependency (a form of self enslavement). So, using your example, feeding the starving as a form of altruistic compassion, would need to be coupled with a community health program which requires the people receiving the aid to voluntarily assent to practice birth control. However, this is only the half that prevents a tragedy. Now, there needs to be a mechanism which allows them to be prosperous (often poverty is coupled with government repression). Kofi Annan has famously linked prosperity to security, and security to human rights. He also said, "Today, no walls can separate humanitarian or human rights crises in one part of the world from national security crises in another. What begins with the failure to uphold the dignity of one life all too often ends with a calamity for entire nations."

As I've said before, I DO believe in an active mechanism by government which people would need to qualify and sign up for which would help prevent starvation, homelessness, and even the lack of dental and health care. But, this mechanism should be a process which results in people again taking care of themselves. Not all people will be able to function as able bodied adults in our society, and for the ones who are perpetual dependents, there must be a mechanism for care which begins with their family, and in my opinion, stopping at the State level.

This recession was partially caused by government interference, and not only by the formation of credit default swaps (also a bad idea). CDS were just the grease that helped hide the risk of home foreclosure in a trade-able loan portfolio. In a period of economic growth, and home price appreciation, everything worked fine. It was government, through FHA, and other programs who kept pumping more demand into a system with over consumption. New housing starts are used as a key indicator of economic growth, so the government does everything they can to promote them. However, these programs are blind to the underlying fundamentals which create the statistics. New housing is needed for new families at local levels, which should come at the birth rate + the net immigration rate to the locality. Government programs and regulations exacerbate the disconnected nature of the financial incentives creating either a glut of unoccupied homes, or high demands (over inflated prices) where housing cannot be built.

Beyond the housing bubble our nation is plagued with decades of inaction on creating a sustainable energy policy, and a decade on dithering and inaction in dealing with unfair global trade and harmful financial manipulations by foreign governments. We want a computer (or ten) in every home, vehicle, and classroom, but we don't consider the power needed to sustain them. Practical? It is the US government that gave BP the oil lease to drill in deep water, without regard to safety. And, why doesn't the Coast Guard, or FEMA own the ships necessary, or require the industry to own the ships neccesary for containing an oil spill? Isn't this like allowing your renter to mess around with fire, but not to have any extinguishers handy. I'd say collectively, from a practical stand point, WE, the people, have our heads up our rears. AND, the congress WE elect to represent us, are a special interest and money diluted sample of our collective stupidity.

I want poor people to own a home, buy health insurance, send their kids to college, and have a good retirement. But, I think the best way to do that is to help them to not be poor anymore, and let them choose how they might spend their own earned wages. When the government helps fund, or reduce the price of these things, like homes, like health care, like education, it creates an increase in the price, and potentially a bubble in the appreciation of that "asset". The increase in price that is caused by government can be in the form of inefficiency, increased demand, regulatory constraints, and fraud.

How can government help? As I said earlier, above, government should focus on helping to enable the creation of wealth. So, yes, things like the coordination of some major building projects, like a dam, which provides power and irrigation. Like high speed freight, and interstate freeways, which promote commerce, and the rapid movement of goods to markets. Like, technology projects which result in world wide boons like the internet. With space exploration, and someday the exploitation of extraterrestrial resources. If we are to "build" a society, then it is these things that will propel us forward. What we don't need are egoists building modern equivalents of the pyramids to celebrate their glory. Heck, why not create some *real* incentives (like zero taxes for ten, or twenty years) for some companies to built a few thousand wind mills in SE Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa? If they do it correctly, the bulk of that land can still be farmed at the same time. There is no need to worry about taxing carbon, if you focus on making electricity much, much less expensive. Eventually, people will not want to pay the high prices for carbon based energy, when they can spend much, much less for transportation and heating. There was a time when people burned coal in their homes, but they chose to move to fuel oil or natural gas by economic (and perhaps ecologic) choice. I would rather see the move to electrical generation, and distribution, rather the the return to home coal use.

This is why, in my opinion, excessive regulation, subsidies, and government involvement in passing around money (borrowed or taken) is a very bad thing. Recessions happen as a result of a shock whereby people either cannot, or choose not to continue spending as usual. When government gets so huge, seemingly small things result in many people being crushed.

If we had a society that would allow a person to die because he'd been injured in a motorcycle accident without a helmet unless he had insurance to cover it, then some of what you propose makes sense. If we were, as a society, willing for the bulk of the population to be uneducated, then some of what you propose makes sense. If we were, as a society, willing for the houses and properties of those without fire insurance to burn down unchecked, then some of what you propose makes sense.

Right, but we don't even let people die, who are terminally ill, and want to die with dignity. McDonalds is responsible for serving hot coffee, that spills and burns someone. 22 states have banned text messaging while driving, and yet they also offer traffic awareness services by text messaging. How about the laws in some States preventing atheists from adopting? There are laws on how long I can leave my children alone without adult supervision, but it's considered fine if parents let their kid climb Everest, or attempt to sail around the world?

My point is that our laws and legal system is 1) often unfair, 2) often idiotic, and 3) no longer based on individual liberty or common law (let alone common sense). Also, I would point out that as for education, *want* has nothing to do with it. We have an uneducated electorate, and we can't seem to be able to cram the learning into their darned skulls.

The problem with practical politics is that you have to work with the people as they are and not as you wished they were. You have to work with the tools and resources you have, and not some ideal set. Indeed, politics *is* the art of the possible.

Yet, if a once in a lifetime event happens, impractical idealists pass laws trying to prevent it from ever happening again. How is it practical to attempt to create social and financial equality by force? I don't see much "practical" or pragmatic in what happens in our Congress. It seems driven by unrealistic ideals of giving everyone "the American dream". But, they don't realize that the dream is not to be given it, but to live in a society where you can easily earn it and maintain it. I'll take the government that seeks to guarantee my rights to seek prosperity, over one that attempts to give me unearned prosperity. I'll take the government that seeks to protect my property and my rights to use it (and within reasonable stewardship for land). I want the government that let's me live my life as I see fit, and gets the heck out of the way, as long as I don't harm anyone, or their property.

I see our modern politics as the practice of like minded bands of opportunists using events (even natural cyclical ones) as a means to seize power, money, and freedom from individuals. Whatever government gives people, it first had to take it from someone else. Governments don't give us freedom, they can only defend it for us. But, they surely can take it away from us.

Edit: I'm just reading The Constitution in Exile.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I do believe that the true "correct" position is for people to attempt to take care of themselves wherever possible, and if altruistic people want to step in to help those who cannot help themselves, that is their choice (one I wholeheartedly support).

Yes. And in principle, I agree with you. But I didn't ask you whether it was 'correct' behavior. I asked you if it was behavior you thought was reasonably possible to expect from the majority of the population.

That is what I mean by "the art of the possible". Is the average person capable of knowing, understanding, and doing what is right? Or does he need guidance, perhaps even force, to do right? It's still the old Jefferson-Hamilton argument. I wish that Jefferson had been right, but history falls squarely on Hamilton's side. Indeed, even Jefferson fell on Hamilton's side when it suited him.

I cannot embrace an economic or social structure that is based on what I consider an incorrect assessment of human nature.

As to the rest, there are two questions that need to be considered independently. The first is whether we have a good form of government. If we do, we should try to preserve it and improve it. If we don't, we should replace it with whatever is better. And if we don't, the second question is moot.

The second question, if our government is of a good form, is it working as it should. I think you mix those two questions.

Finally, I have to ask; if the United States started out with a (relatively) good government, and if that government has become worse, doesn't that imply that the people of the United States have failed in their limited responsibility of electing their representatives? If they are not competent to practice their limited responsibility, how do you conclude that they should be given more?

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Yes. And in principle, I agree with you. But I didn't ask you whether it was 'correct' behavior. I asked you if it was behavior you thought was reasonably possible to expect from the majority of the population.

I believe it to be, and in some respects, the area where I live seems higher than average in civics awareness (e.g. high voter turn outs, and civic participation). I feel well represented in my locality, and my representatives at the state level are representative of my locality. The MSP metro area, however, unfairly dominates State politics, and so some changes are needed to ensure that rural areas get equal "rights". In general, I feel the suburban, and rural areas have more authentic representation, while the urban areas suffer from partisan politics. This often leads to stalemate. Our legislature tends to be progressive, being that most State senators, and representatives comes from the more urban areas. However, our governor has tended to be conservative, or libertarian. Our taxes are a bit too high, and we don't do enough to encourage business growth. We spend too much on social welfare. But, generally, things are pretty well run, and there isn't much corruption (we are probably pretty comparable to Scandinavian countries). The difference is our cultural attitude.

That is what I mean by "the art of the possible". Is the average person capable of knowing, understanding, and doing what is right? Or does he need guidance, perhaps even force, to do right?

Yes, I believe with the proper education. The one thing we should make really, really clear as part of compulsory education (after literacy), would be the role and responsibility of the individual within their society. I dare anyone to ask the average high school student to define or describe "inalienable rights"..**

It's still the old Jefferson-Hamilton argument. I wish that Jefferson had been right, but history falls squarely on Hamilton's side. Indeed, even Jefferson fell on Hamilton's side when it suited him.

If it were only that simple. I feel they were both right, and both wrong, but unwilling to seek a reasonable truth together. They were victims of their own egos, and yet very well educated and had great insights from which we can learn. Jefferson in many ways was a disastrous President, but what I respect about him is his ideas about limiting federal power. Had he been more effective, we might have solved the problem of constructing a republic which allows States more rights, or outlawed slavery soon after the Revolutionary war (preventing the Civil War altogether).

I cannot embrace an economic or social structure that is based on what I consider an incorrect assessment of human nature.

We have more than one nature. On the one hand, if our daily sustenance were derived from our own hard work, then we'd be motivated to get out and take care of ourselves. This is our primal drive for survival, and it makes us industrious and inventive as we seek to be efficient in the reducing our hardships and maximizing our benefits. On the other hand, we can be as kept cattle, willingly staying in our beds and getting fat, while sustenance is provided to us. This too is in our nature. If it rained manna from heaven, why in the world would you ever till a field again?

As to the rest, there are two questions that need to be considered independently. The first is whether we have a good form of government. If we do, we should try to preserve it and improve it. If we don't, we should replace it with whatever is better. And if we don't, the second question is moot.

It might be, if people understood it. We don't teach our people the underlying philosophies (e.g. Locke), and our school teachers seem to view basic civics as akin to imposing fascism.

The second question, if our government is of a good form, is it working as it should. I think you mix those two questions.

I fear it is not working. I fear we are on an unsustainable path, fueled only by borrowing. If, we did not have the .com bubble burst, exposing the sham that was "the emperor has no clothes" of seemingly unlimited technology potential. If, we did not have the housing bubble burst, exposing the sham that was again, "the emperor has no clothes" of seemingly unlimited demand for commercial, and residential growth. Then, with the GDP growth evidenced over the past 15 years, perhaps the borrowing was justified for that growth. But, the growth I believe to be a sham, which actually only transferred wealth from those that had little, to those that already have too much. We cannot make wealth out of thin air, by borrowing at 0% interest with no prospects for where to invest. Even then, the tree needs time to grow, before it bears fruit. This recession was a 20% or so correction (15 year setback) in the perception of that wealth. Today, we have 1990 wealth, with 2010 prices.

But, it goes deeper, back to the early 1900's too. During the WWI, WWII period, we became the war machine of the world, and I don't feel we've ever divested ourselves from that role, nor refocused our energies toward beating our swords back into plowshares. The world is fully exploited. We can no longer look (much) to newly unowned, unexploited lands for wealth. We need to turn our energies into construction, and stop building to mechanisms of destruction. Again, this is the way of the Pharaohs, and the Romans. As long as the conquests continued, and new wealth was brought home in the form of gold, jewels, and slaves, then the empire was growing, and the wretched excess was expressed in lavish building projects, many of which had no economic use. Such as, in the Twin Cities, we are again debating whether to fund the Vikings new football stadium. If football, is a lucrative venture, then building, owning, and maintaining the stadium, should be the team owners responsibility. We might certainly help to make it easier for this venture. Now one might look at the cycle of football, selling tickets, merchandise, hot dogs, beer, and whatever increased economic activity happens for their 7 or so home game days a year, but my gut says I don't think it is probably worth it.

So then, no, I don't see Federal borrowing as justified, if it is not an investment in future productivity. And our current malaise (and probably previous ones), makes sense, since the bulk of our spending sustains people, but does not invest for future prosperity.

Finally, I have to ask; if the United States started out with a (relatively) good government, and if that government has become worse, doesn't that imply that the people of the United States have failed in their limited responsibility of electing their representatives? If they are not competent to practice their limited responsibility, how do you conclude that they should be given more?

Yes. But, it was the death of a thousand cuts, with the Civil War, WWI era, and WWII era being fairly large gashes. There are a few dozen major SCOTUS decisions, that if revisited in reflective scholarship, would bring us back to a better Federal government that restored its original enumerated powers (e.g. Wickard v. Filburn).

There were times under Wilson, and FDR, where the government was "improved" drastically by the Congress, and SCOTUS in the name of progress, rather than by interpretation of our Constitution and at times of war, and threat to national security, we've seriously undermined the rights of citizens. I feel much of what's happened has been more knee jerk, than rational, practical, or pragmatic.

** I got 32/33 -- I missed one about the beliefs of the Puritans.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The MSP metro area, however, unfairly dominates State politics, . . .

Why 'unfairly'? We live in a representative democracy. Two centuries ago, it was founded on what was an agricultural society. At that time, the rural areas dominated the politics. Since then, the situation has reversed. Now the urban areas dominate. Democracy is majority rule. What's unfair?

Is the average person capable of knowing, understanding, and doing what is right?

Yes, I believe with the proper education.

I used to think so, too. Perhaps I still do. But how do you ensure that people are educated? Especially given the indifference, even hostility, to education so many display nowadays? And how do you keep the ones who aren't educated from dominating the process?

I dare anyone to ask the average high school student to define or describe "inalienable rights"..**

** I got 32/33 -- I missed one about the beliefs of the Puritans.

I got 33/33, but I had to answer what I knew they wanted rather than what I thought was right on a few. But, more important, I fail to see how the knowledge of some historical facts relates to civic literacy. A person who did well in school could get a perfect score, and yet not spend a second of his time following public issues or voting in elections. Someone who slept through his history and civic classes might get all those questions wrong, and yet by following the issues and voting would be more civically literate IMO. Too lazy to look up the source, but "A man who does not read is no different from a man who cannot read."

. . . if our daily sustenance were derived from our own hard work, . . .

But it is not. This is the fallacy of the 'honest work ethic'. Sometime in the last century, the human race reached a level of productivity such that the output of every member of the race was no longer needed for survival -- or indeed, for a comfortable life style.

If it rained manna from heaven, why in the world would you ever till a field again?

Because I like asparagus? Besides, can you make Scotch from manna? If I were happy living on manna, why should I ever till a field again? The point is that we're in a position to do the 'manna from heaven' for real, for everyone. People continue to work because they want something more, something different. And some, scientists, authors, mountain climbers, race car drivers, etc., work because they can not not do what they do.

. . . it was the death of a thousand cuts, with the Civil War, WWI era, and WWII era being fairly large gashes.

Why does this matter? The point is that the people of the USA allowed this to happen. They allowed the government to expand when it needed to in times of emergency (as well as other times). They allowed the government to keep those powers when the emergency was over. So, how is the population that allowed this to happen with the framework in place to prevent it capable of preventing it without that framework?

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Why 'unfairly'? We live in a representative democracy. Two centuries ago, it was founded on what was an agricultural society. At that time, the rural areas dominated the politics. Since then, the situation has reversed. Now the urban areas dominate. Democracy is majority rule. What's unfair?

Mostly, the tension is on roads and schools. The urban area has the most need for upkeep on their paved roads, and every person on a dirt road wants theirs paved. With schools, there is the tensions over resources devoted to big suburban schools, versus smaller rural ones. It's not as bad as it was 30 years ago.

I used to think so, too. Perhaps I still do. But how do you ensure that people are educated? Especially given the indifference, even hostility, to education so many display nowadays? And how do you keep the ones who aren't educated from dominating the process?

We could make full-citizenship something earned, predicated on passing a secondary school test, and some amount of community, or military service. It might also be something you can lose, if you don't vote, and fail to occasionally serve the community.

A person who did well in school could get a perfect score, and yet not spend a second of his time following public issues or voting in elections. Someone who slept through his history and civic classes might get all those questions wrong, and yet by following the issues and voting would be more civically literate IMO. Too lazy to look up the source, but "A man who does not read is no different from a man who cannot read."

If we were talking about driving a car from A to B, then both the one who is actively incompetent, and the competent one asleep behind the wheel are a danger to the society.

But it is not. This is the fallacy of the 'honest work ethic'. Sometime in the last century, the human race reached a level of productivity such that the output of every member of the race was no longer needed for survival -- or indeed, for a comfortable life style.

Yes, and no. There is no mechanism, other than accumulated wealth, for who must work, and who gets to lay in bed and get fat. The system needs to be fair and equitable. Therefore, it is counterproductive to penalize productivity (with substantial taxation), and reward the unproductive with handouts and free programs. By equitable, I don't mean the redistribution of wealth to ensure everyone is equal.

I'll respond to the rest later... Work intrudes.

[kandrathe]

If it rained manna from heaven, why in the world would you ever till a field again?

Because I like asparagus? Besides, can you make Scotch from manna? If I were happy living on manna, why should I ever till a field again? The point is that we're in a position to do the 'manna from heaven' for real, for everyone. People continue to work because they want something more, something different. And some, scientists, authors, mountain climbers, race car drivers, etc., work because they can not not do what they do.

Yum, Manna scotch. It's heavenly. I believe that everyone should be a contributor and earn at least what they consume. There really are so many things that need to be done, and not enough people to do them. Interestingly, that question I got wrong on the Puritans holds an answer here; From Wikipedia on Ben Franklin; "The roots of American democracy can be seen in these Puritan values of self-government. These values, which were passed on to Benjamin Franklin and other founding fathers (such as John Adams), included the importance of the individual and active indignation against unjust authority. One of Josiah's core Puritan values was that personal worth is earned through hard work, which makes the industrious man the equal of kings... Hard work and equality were two Puritan values that Ben Franklin preached throughout his own life and spread widely through Poor Richard's Almanac and his autobiography." I know you don't give a crap about Puritanical roots, but culturally, it was a basis for the American culture, and has become one of our core principles, and values. I believe our underlying objective should be to have an orderly society based on the principles of justice, not one that devolves into one of war lords where those who have the power take what they want.

. . . it was the death of a thousand cuts, with the Civil War, WWI era, and WWII era being fairly large gashes.

Why does this matter? The point is that the people of the USA allowed this to happen.

Upon the signing the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, Ben Franklin is reported to have said, “We have given the people a Republic, if they will have it.” It happened, and whether or not "the people" allowed it to happen or not, is largely debatable. There are certain principles upon which our entire government, and way of life are based. Private industry(work ethic) is one of them, as is individual liberty, equal opportunity, blind justice, and the guarantee of natural rights.

Deviations from those principles have fundamentally altered the implementation of our Federal government. It has become something unintended, and has in many ways become detrimental to peoples of the US, and to the entire world. You don't like Presidents dragging us into expensive wars and nation building? Take away the power of our federal government to easily do this. You don't like the patriot act authorizing domestic spying and warrant-less wiretapping? Take away the power of our federal government to easily do this.

To be fair, in many ways the USA has become savior, caretaker, crusader, and the defender of liberty as well. I just don't believe the later roles of caretaker and worlds policeman should be one we seek to perpetuate. I'm not discounting the possible good that has been done at the point of our bayonet, but one must wonder if it might have been accomplished via other methods of coercion.

They allowed the government to expand when it needed to in times of emergency (as well as other times). They allowed the government to keep those powers when the emergency was over. So, how is the population that allowed this to happen with the framework in place to prevent it capable of preventing it without that framework?

Wouldn't it be interesting if all entitlement programs needed to be paid off, and reauthorized every 4 years? How about making federal borrowing limits directly tied to taxation?

You see, our politics is the game of experiencing the benefits, and making the next President experience the pain. Reagan got credit/blame for deregulation that began under Carter, Carter got the blame for energy policies implemented by Nixon, Bush got blamed for the mess that Clinton left him, etc. etc. etc. You know I'm not a huge Obama supporter, but he's getting hammered now for things which are mostly out of his control. But, like the inexperienced Bush Jr., he's also justly getting hammered for his weaknesses. He was (imho wrongly) elected due to his charismatic campaign rhetoric, and some hopeful legislative goals, but that is not the bulk of what the job of governing entails.

Back to the point; Our electorate needs to choose good leadership, and as we have discussed, in order to do this they need to be involved, and understand how to choose good leadership. This is predicated on choosing the best people to lead us who have demonstrated these characteristics (not just campaign rhetoric), with their obvious flaws disqualifying them. We can't continue this partisan hot potato game of pushing off the growing bundle of pain until it explodes onto the next person. Deficit spending, and a mounting national debt is not leadership. It is not leadership to avoid common world problems, like Darfur, North Korea, or Iran. I see it as the opposite, shirking responsibility.

I'm hopeful that recent grass roots movements may be starting to choose people to represent us who are good people, with leadership skills, who are not lawyers, life long government activists, and political science majors.

Lastly, when it comes to our federal government, not all solutions need to be expressed in the form of multi-billion dollar programs, or a litany of laws. President Eisenhower's "President's Council on Youth Fitness" didn't become wildly popular until Kennedy actively promoted it, and incorporated fitness into an expectation from the top down. I still remember doing calisthenics in the gym everyday in gradeschool. Obama needs to push this kind of stuff more into the forefront.