01-17-2017, 11:24 PM
I commute about an hour on either side of my work day, which in Minnesota can vary depending on the weather. I tend to listen to MPR, which while liberal biased, is done pretty well, is not shock jocks making sophomoric jokes, or partisans yelling their particular brand of hate. There was some interview on this AM, of our local county attorney. They were talking about many things, one of them Philando Castile, and the school, to prison, or grave pipeline in our society. But, it got me thinking about... costs.
What do we spend to educate a child? Is it enough? Is there a point where you'd say, "that's to much to spend to educate that child"?
Then it flashed though my mind all the things we've delegated to government to do for us. Its health care, prisons, safety, security, defense, end of life care, access to medicine, housing, school lunch. Many, many things where each of us probably has our own idea on what spending is minimally enough, and then how much is too much. These are probably all the wrong questions to ask politicians to make, which is why we are failing sooo badly to make them. The answer they tell you is what they think you want to hear, and they will promise all the bells, all the whistles, you can keep your doctors, we will close Gitmo, and keep you safe from terrorists, ketchup is not a vegetable, lower costs, build more infrastructures, create jobs, get you all the stuff, and lower taxes, but maybe tax the rich 1% (just to stick it to da man -- let em know we are the majority 99%).
However, the solution we get is one that spends by what I call "the method of least common decibels" or in other words, the lowest amount of yelling and complaining, oh, and the borrowing. But, of course, the alternative is to make it private, and allow each person to decide what its worth to them. But, then again, that may be unfair too. The burden would be on the poor, and middle. Those with the most needs are often the least able to afford even minimal costs.
So you'd need some kind of voucher or minimal subsidy, yada yada yada... Free stuff sounds better. Somebody, someday will get the 19 trillion dollar bill.
I think we are living through an extraordinary time. I just don't know yet if it is extraordinarily good, or extraordinarily bad, or extraordinarily worse. But, because we cannot overcome extreme partisanship, we see this yo-yo in our policies where one group does stuff, then 4-8 years later the other group undoes it and does somethings else. Except, it seems, for war in the Middle East, everyone does that.
This is madness! What I want to do for each issue is lock Congress in a room, a dreary room, until they form a consensus, and emerge with 100% agreement on our course (OK, make it 90%, or 80%). But, this 50/50 teeter totter positioning must end! And, we need to have meaningful reasoned dialog about it. Not ignore each other to yell over each other, or call each other names, or stomp our feet, hold our breath, and toss all the toys out of the crib.
What do we spend to educate a child? Is it enough? Is there a point where you'd say, "that's to much to spend to educate that child"?
Then it flashed though my mind all the things we've delegated to government to do for us. Its health care, prisons, safety, security, defense, end of life care, access to medicine, housing, school lunch. Many, many things where each of us probably has our own idea on what spending is minimally enough, and then how much is too much. These are probably all the wrong questions to ask politicians to make, which is why we are failing sooo badly to make them. The answer they tell you is what they think you want to hear, and they will promise all the bells, all the whistles, you can keep your doctors, we will close Gitmo, and keep you safe from terrorists, ketchup is not a vegetable, lower costs, build more infrastructures, create jobs, get you all the stuff, and lower taxes, but maybe tax the rich 1% (just to stick it to da man -- let em know we are the majority 99%).
However, the solution we get is one that spends by what I call "the method of least common decibels" or in other words, the lowest amount of yelling and complaining, oh, and the borrowing. But, of course, the alternative is to make it private, and allow each person to decide what its worth to them. But, then again, that may be unfair too. The burden would be on the poor, and middle. Those with the most needs are often the least able to afford even minimal costs.
So you'd need some kind of voucher or minimal subsidy, yada yada yada... Free stuff sounds better. Somebody, someday will get the 19 trillion dollar bill.
I think we are living through an extraordinary time. I just don't know yet if it is extraordinarily good, or extraordinarily bad, or extraordinarily worse. But, because we cannot overcome extreme partisanship, we see this yo-yo in our policies where one group does stuff, then 4-8 years later the other group undoes it and does somethings else. Except, it seems, for war in the Middle East, everyone does that.
This is madness! What I want to do for each issue is lock Congress in a room, a dreary room, until they form a consensus, and emerge with 100% agreement on our course (OK, make it 90%, or 80%). But, this 50/50 teeter totter positioning must end! And, we need to have meaningful reasoned dialog about it. Not ignore each other to yell over each other, or call each other names, or stomp our feet, hold our breath, and toss all the toys out of the crib.