Maastricht Treaty revisions needed?

[--Pete]

Hi,

New York may have received 23 times the funds, but it has over 30 times the population. Since per capita measurements are the only ones that make sense I think the point stands.

To that, let me add: North Dakota gets back twice as much per dollar paid as does New York. Indeed, NY loses money on the deal and ND gains. So, who is supporting and who is supported?

--Pete

[kandrathe]

New York may have received 23 times the funds, but it has over 30 times the population. Since per capita measurements are the only ones that make sense I think the point stands - New Yorkers are paying out, and North Dakotans are collecting.

You are missing my point, and misunderstanding what I said. Per capita does not always make sense when the expenditures are not distributed for per capita consumption, or are not consumer usable.

I think it is senseless for the Federal government to shell out anything to the States. The revenue was collected from US citizens as a federal tax who happen to reside within a particular state. The purpose is to fund Federal needs, not to kick back benefits to other states. Now, certain Federal needs, such as missile silo's in North Dakota may require them to expend some of their federal defense money in North Dakota, but it is for a federal purpose.

But, let's for fun suggest the Federal government built equal thingamabobs in each state. New Yorkers would get much more per capita use out of their thingamabob, than would the North Dakotans. If the thingamabob was a necessary component irregardless of population, then it really doesn't matter if its in a state with 10 people or 10 million. For example, border defense.

To me it would be sensible for the Fed to stop outlays to States, and let the states fund their own needs. So, similar to our discussion about pouring money into the wilderness to build an economy where one is not forthcoming, so too, it makes little sense for the Feds to dump extra money into North Dakota.

[Jester]

You are missing my point, and misunderstanding what I said. Per capita does not always make sense when the expenditures are not distributed for per capita consumption, or are not consumer usable.

What you said seemed to have a perfectly clear meaning in plain English. I answered what you wrote. What I don't understand is how what you're saying now changes matters. The Federal government takes from all states, and gives to all states. The question is in what balance - and we have our answers, both absolute and per capita. States like New York put in more than they take out.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

The Federal government takes from all states, and gives to all states. The question is in what balance - and we have our answers, both absolute and per capita. States like New York put in more than they take out.

... which is unfair, right? New Yorkers should retain the benefits of their own income, rather than have it siphoned off and poured into a back water hole due to some back room congressional deal making. I want to stop Oberstar as well, the Minnesota congressman who chairs the transportation committee. It is embarrassing to have federal transportation money pumped into multi million dollar boondoggle projects that are literally in the wilderness of northern Minnesota. Meanwhile, the nations infrastructure remains in abysmal condition.

[kandrathe]

And there lies the root of the problem. You have repeatedly claimed that you are an involved, responsible citizen, and I have no reason to doubt you. And yet, even you do not wish to be involved with the school system except during the time it benefits you directly. Judging from their actions, most people are apathetic and irresponsible (look at voter turnout numbers). Do you really think we can run a school system, or anything else, for the whole population on the basis of the contributions of the responsible minority for the period they are benefiting?

Like most people, I go where I can make an impact, and where I feel I'm needed. Our schools are not very welcoming of outsiders these days, especially when those outsiders don't have kids in the district schools. There is a cultural paranoia now, where schools have become walled institutions with razor wire to prevent the perverts, and gun toting wacko's from destroying our civilization. We even team teach Sunday school now, to prevent "problems" with those perverts and even false accusations. There are plenty of opportunities for a citizen like me to give some time to benefit the community, and even to help educate children. It's just that these days, it's easier to visit a convict in a state prison, than it is to bring your child a forgotten lunch pail.

[eppie]

And there lies the root of the problem. You have repeatedly claimed that you are an involved, responsible citizen, and I have no reason to doubt you. And yet, even you do not wish to be involved with the school system except during the time it benefits you directly. Judging from their actions, most people are apathetic and irresponsible (look at voter turnout numbers). Do you really think we can run a school system, or anything else, for the whole population on the basis of the contributions of the responsible minority for the period they are benefiting?

Like most people, I go where I can make an impact, and where I feel I'm needed. Our schools are not very welcoming of outsiders these days, especially when those outsiders don't have kids in the district schools. There is a cultural paranoia now, where schools have become walled institutions with razor wire to prevent the perverts, and gun toting wacko's from destroying our civilization. We even team teach Sunday school now, to prevent "problems" with those perverts and even false accusations. There are plenty of opportunities for a citizen like me to give some time to benefit the community, and even to help educate children. It's just that these days, it's easier to visit a convict in a state prison, than it is to bring your child a forgotten lunch pail.

But what is your answer to Pete's question?

[Jester]

... which is unfair, right? New Yorkers should retain the benefits of their own income, rather than have it siphoned off and poured into a back water hole due to some back room congressional deal making.

Fine and good, but you might want to stop using New York as your example of a state sucking at the Federal teat when the opposite is happening.

For the record, I have no problem with regional redistribution, especially in a country as vast as the US. Just that the states that take in more than they pay out are hypocrites if they start kvetching about having to bail out California or New York, when they themselves have been propped up year after year.

Meanwhile, the nations infrastructure remains in abysmal condition.

This is where stimulus money should be going - to deferred infrastructural projects, or making improvements that will last a long time. I believe the catchphrase was "shovel-ready". But, of course, the powers that be have determined that the vague threat of inflation is more relevant than 10% unemployment and deteriorating infrastructure. So, I'm not holding my breath waiting for infrastructure spending.

(I'm not really sure about the methodology at that site... what are they comparing the US' infrastructure to, that it barely earns a D in most categories, consistently for the last 12 years? What's an A?)

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

New Yorkers should retain the benefits of their own income, rather than have it siphoned off and poured into a back water hole due to some back room congressional deal making.

When did you stop beating your wife?

OK, let's deconvolve that sentence and try again:

New Yorkers should retain the benefits of their own income, . . .

They do. It's not like *all* their income above a certain level is confiscated. And it's not like *all* the money from New York is sent to an out of state swamp.

. . . rather than have it siphoned off and poured into a back water hole . . .

Depends. A simple grammar question: which is correct, 'The United States are . . .' or 'The United States is . . .'? Answer: prior to 1861, the former; after 1865, the latter.

Why does that matter? Well, let's consider this. The back water hole is part of the same nation as the big city. Improving the back water hole improves the nation which will improve the city (a rising tide . . .). But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that your viewpoint is right. Where does it end, if at all? Do the people in urban Western Washington stop supporting the infrastructure of rural Eastern Washington? Do the residents of Redmond stop supporting the costs of unincorporated King County? Do those of us with an income stop supporting the school system because it also benefits those without?

Or is it 'The United States are . . .' and every man for himself? And if it is, are you flying the American flag today? Why? Wouldn't it make more sense to fly your state, county, city, or even family flag -- whichever you feel loyalty to and membership in?

. . . due to some back room congressional deal making.

In as much as this is true, it is wrong. There should not be back room deal making with public funds. However, I suspect this is a much smaller issue than some make it out to be. When I've seen the typically slanted discussions of this topic, it is clear that the arguments are aimed at those for whom 'millions', 'billions', and 'trillions' all just mean 'a big number'.

I keep going back to the shoplifting analogy. If a store is losing 10,000 a year to shoplifting, then they may be able to afford to spend money on video surveillance and those tags that set off the monitors at the doors. But they can't justify spending 15,000 a year for a security guard. It's a simple, easy to understand concept. But when it comes to the government, many seem to be willing to spend any amount, no matter how large, to prevent the misuse of any amount, no matter how small.

So, yes, pork is bad. It is also small. Let's keep it, and the measures to control it, in perspective.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

But what is your answer to Pete's question?

The answer is more complicated than rallying the masses to contribute more volunteer time to education. Yes, it takes a village... but, we are not that. We are a transient association of disaffected strangers, mostly unwilling to acknowledge or understand the plight of the family next door, and each household navigates the tides of requirements, rules and regulations alone. The modern US is not the America portrayed by Norman Rockwell.

You have to factor in the fact that our educators are union employee's, and so much of the clamor is union noise trying to get more teachers on the payroll, and increase teacher salaries, which thereby promotes the power of the union itself. You need to consider what I wrote about k-12 campus security. And, you need to factor in which tasks being done for our kids are superfluous, and can be eliminated freeing up time, money, and energy for things that are crucial.

Teachers here are doing without textbooks, in favor of getting some popular programs new sport equipment. Things are just wrong in our bureaucratic system. Ad infinitum.

[kandrathe]

Depends. A simple grammar question: which is correct, 'The United States are . . .' or 'The United States is . . .'? Answer: prior to 1861, the former; after 1865, the latter.

Why does that matter? Well, let's consider this. The back water hole is part of the same nation as the big city. Improving the back water hole improves the nation which will improve the city (a rising tide . . .). But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that your viewpoint is right. Where does it end, if at all? Do the people in urban Western Washington stop supporting the infrastructure of rural Eastern Washington? Do the residents of Redmond stop supporting the costs of unincorporated King County? Do those of us with an income stop supporting the school system because it also benefits those without?

Or is it 'The United States are . . .' and every man for himself? And if it is, are you flying the American flag today? Why? Wouldn't it make more sense to fly your state, county, city, or even family flag -- whichever you feel loyalty to and membership in?

Being willing to defend the flag and territory of the USA, is not necessarily related to our willingness to rollover and shell out hard earned income for the whims of some 500 or so, so-called representatives in Washington, DC.

The question here is who would be a better judge of spending your money, you, your neighbor who owns a small business, or your congressman who uses it to buy influence and votes? Not all boats are worth lifting. Some boats are only worthy of scuttling.

I just don't think you'd ever hear a politician declare they are willing to quit spending on any back water hole. As a general principle, it rarely works to have the clueless congressman wielding the shotgun approach to looking for the best opportunities for investing our wealth. It's a great way to maximize spending, and minimize productivity. The best answer I can think of is to limit the amount of money in their control to only what is absolutely necessary.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . willingness to rollover . . . whims of . . . so-called representatives . . .

Do you buy them that way, or do you load those words yourself?

The question here is who would be a better judge of spending your money, you, your neighbor who owns a small business, or your congressman who uses it to buy influence and votes?

Well, let's see. What are the conditions and needs in, say, Fargo, ND? Would a little federal help there bring in more commerce? Perhaps enough so that at some time in the future they'll be able to contribute more than they need and help somewhere else? I know I don't know -- it's not my job to know, and there are too many Fargos to keep track of it as a hobby. And my neighbor, who's business is yard work and handyman, couldn't find Fargo on a map if you marked it with a glowing push pin. Don't get me wrong -- he's a good man, a hard worker, and easy to talk to. But, no, I wouldn't want either of us determining how much Washington (state) money goes to North Dakota. We're far from qualified. That's why we have a representative form of government. So that those running the country can pay attention to the details those of us having a different life cannot.

If you have problems with the *people* in the government, then I have to agree -- although I don't think they are all as bad as you seem to think. If you have problems with how we select them, how they get into office, how they stay in office, again I agree. But if you have problems with our form of government, then I ask you for one that would be better (and actually work for real people -- not some Utopia based on a race of ants).

Not all boats are worth lifting. Some boats are only worthy of scuttling.

True, but meaningless. Or would you keep from lifting any because some aren't worthy?

. . . spending on any back water hole. . . . the clueless congressman . . . the shotgun approach . . .

Did you get a new auto-loader?

The best answer I can think of is to limit the amount of money in their control to only what is absolutely necessary.

Everybody agrees to that. Where the question comes in is 'absolutely necessary'. My 'absolutely necessary' may be (probably is) your 'communistic enslavement'.

--Pete

[Jester]

I just don't think you'd ever hear a politician declare they are willing to quit spending on any back water hole. As a general principle, it rarely works to have the clueless congressman wielding the shotgun approach to looking for the best opportunities for investing our wealth. It's a great way to maximize spending, and minimize productivity. The best answer I can think of is to limit the amount of money in their control to only what is absolutely necessary.

As Pete has already pointed out, the amount of money wasted on pointless government spending is really quite small. The largest chunks of the budget are spent where they are for obvious reasons, on perfectly justifiable things: The military. Health care. Social security payments. Debt service. You can't stop making those payments without breaking contracts, or cutting back on the military in wartime. This is not the "clueless congressman" with a "shotgun approach". These are obvious expenses that exist for perfectly coherent reasons. The amount of money spent on wacky random crap is, at most, a few percent. If you killed every last pork earmark, the US fiscal situation would not look noticeably different.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

As Pete has already pointed out, the amount of money wasted on pointless government spending is really quite small. The largest chunks of the budget are spent where they are for obvious reasons, on perfectly justifiable things: The military. Health care. Social security payments. Debt service. You can't stop making those payments without breaking contracts, or cutting back on the military in wartime. This is not the "clueless congressman" with a "shotgun approach". These are obvious expenses that exist for perfectly coherent reasons. The amount of money spent on wacky random crap is, at most, a few percent. If you killed every last pork earmark, the US fiscal situation would not look noticeably different.

Sometimes its called earmarks, sometimes its called pork, but mostly its business as usual. Can you tell me why we need 737 military bases around the world? Then we can begin to dismantle much of the social spending for those who are able to take care of themselves (including health insurance, social security, and tax breaks). Then we can look to consolidating the duplication; at just the federal level we have 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; 72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water; 50 homeless assistance programs; 45 federal agencies conducting federal criminal investigations; 40 separate employment and training programs; 28 rural development programs; 27 teen pregnancy programs; 26 small, extraneous K-12 school grant programs; 23 agencies providing aid to the former Soviet republics; 19 programs fighting substance abuse; 17 rural water and waste-water programs in eight agencies; 17 trade agencies monitoring 400 international trade agreements; 12 food safety agencies; 11 principal statistics agencies; and 4 overlapping land management agencies. We could slash departments wholesale that are mostly handled at the state level, such as the department of education, department of agriculture, department of transportation, etc.

[Jester]

Can you tell me why we need 737 military bases around the world?

No, but it's patently obvious that they aren't there because some congressman decided they'd like a boost for their constituency... in Korea or Germany. The Pentagon's massive global reach and commitment is a strategic decision that the US has consistently made. I don't agree with it, and I think many of those bases could be shut down in favour of a more multilateral strategy, based more on diplomacy than military force. I don't set the US strategic posture, and neither does your average congressman. But that's not waste - that's a conscious military decision, and its costs are the inevitable consequence.

Then we can begin to dismantle much of the social spending for those who are able to take care of themselves.

Yeah, lots of people have promised this. But there are two problems they invariably run in to. First, the number of people who really don't need these programs but get benefits are dwarfed by the number who do. Second, auditing to sort out the first from the second is a costly and unpopular process. Recouping actual expenditures by cutting back on the undeserving is not likely - if you want to save money, you're going to have to actually scale back benefits, and that's going to hit people who aren't able to "take care of themselves."

Then we can look to consolidating the duplication; at just the federal level we have 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; 72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water; 50 homeless assistance programs; 45 federal agencies conducting federal criminal investigations; 40 separate employment and training programs; 28 rural development programs; 27 teen pregnancy programs; 26 small, extraneous K-12 school grant programs; 23 agencies providing aid to the former Soviet republics; 19 programs fighting substance abuse; 17 rural water and waste-water programs in eight agencies; 17 trade agencies monitoring 400 international trade agreements; 12 food safety agencies; 11 principal statistics agencies; and 4 overlapping land management agencies.

I don't know how accurate this copy-paste from the Heritage Foundation is, but boy does it sound impressive! (I know this isn't college, but would you mind actually citing your sources before copying them wholesale?)

Perhaps there is some money to be saved by consolidation. But I doubt it is very much. It sounds ominous to list things like "400 international trade agreements", but I can't imagine how you'd consolidate them, at least without pushing some major global trading pact - they're negotiated with other countries. You could consolidate all the statistical agencies, but to what end? They measure different things for different people - putting them all under the same roof would just be pointless reorganization.

Programs aren't always separate for good reasons, but they often are. Usually, they're just labels for different functions of the same department. The amount of money to be saved here might, generously, amount to a few % of the budget, and could only be saved with a massive and costly auditing and reorganization effort.

Everyone is always in favour of eliminating government waste, and everyone universally fails to do it. The cynic could, I suppose, argue that government simply corrupts everyone it touches before they can affect any real change. I think the answer is simpler: it's an easy political target (who wants waste?), but a very difficult economic one. There is simply not much money to be saved there, and attempts to do so inevitably fall short.

We could slash departments wholesale, that are handled at the state level, such as the department of education, department of agriculture, department of transportation, etc.

Sure, if you want to devolve the overwhelming majority of government functions to the States, you could do that. Is there any evidence whatsoever that they would be accomplished more efficiently there? Or is this just an ideological change? It seems to contradict the logic of your argument above - how are you going to save money by multiplying every department and program by 50? That's a lot of de-consolidation!

-Jester

[kandrathe]

But that's not waste - that's a conscious military decision, and its costs are the inevitable consequence.

I'll take that as "no". The question is to what extent we should project our power beyond our borders. Perhaps Europe is desensitized to seeing empires with warships, colonies, and bases all over the world, but it was a world view our nation sought to escape. Now ironically, we've become the empire. The US needs to back off, and let people take care of their own issues.

Yeah, lots of people have promised this. But there are two problems they invariably run in to. ... people who really don't need these programs but get benefits are dwarfed by the number who do... ...auditing to sort out the first from the second is a costly and unpopular process.

I agree there are problems, but not the two you cite. The problem is in politicians having a spine, and actually changing the systems to require people to apply for their handouts (where they would need to detail their assets and income). Any system where you give away money has the problem of fraud, and nothing changes here except the amount of cash you are handing out.

Perhaps there is some money to be saved by consolidation. But I doubt it is very much. It sounds ominous to list things like "400 international trade agreements", but I can't imagine how you'd consolidate them, at least without pushing some major global trading pact - they're negotiated with other countries.

The point was that 17 different agencies are working on the 400 trade agreements.

You could consolidate all the statistical agencies, but to what end? They measure different things for different people - putting them all under the same roof would just be pointless reorganization.

Why would corporate mergers ever save money? Of course consolidation would remove duplication and increase coordination of effort.

Everyone is always in favour of eliminating government waste, and everyone universally fails to do it. The cynic could, I suppose, argue that government simply corrupts everyone it touches before they can affect any real change. I think the answer is simpler: it's an easy political target (who wants waste?), but a very difficult economic one. There is simply not much money to be saved there, and attempts to do so inevitably fall short.

Our economy is in the toilet, and a record number of people are losing their homes, unemployed, and going bankrupt. The government doesn't have enough money to pay its bills, nor can it continue to borrow a trillion or so per year to keep up paying for all we spend. Not to mention, that all those trillions we borrowed will need to be paid back. I'd say it's time to justify every expenditure, and be very thoughtful about where our money is spent. Or, we might adopt your attitude and go the way of Greece.

Sure, if you want to devolve the overwhelming majority of government functions to the States, you could do that. Is there any evidence whatsoever that they would be accomplished more efficiently there? Or is this just an ideological change? It seems to contradict the logic of your argument above - how are you going to save money by multiplying every department and program by 50? That's a lot of de-consolidation!

Every State already has these departments, and the bulk of the work is done at this level. If you add up enough billions, you get to a trillion. Just the departments I cited would redirect 22 billion for the Department of Agriculture, 78 billion for the Department of Transportation, and 58.5 billion for the Department of Education. I wouldn't call it de-consolidation, so much as getting the federal fingers out of the states business.

[Taelas]

Those departments do not just spend that money sitting on their hands. I would say they make sure each department on the state level is doing what they're supposed to do. They probably inspect them to make sure they keep to safety and other minimum standards, for instance.

[kandrathe]

Those departments do not just spend that money sitting on their hands. I would say they make sure each department on the state level is doing what they're supposed to do. They probably inspect them to make sure they keep to safety and other minimum standards, for instance.

Some are oversight, but most of the money is for federal programs, such as "Soil Bank", where they pay farmers to not use their land. The original program was repealed in 1965, but re-emerged as the Conservation Reserve Program. 70% of the USDA budget is devoted to a nebulous octopus called the "Nutrition Assistance Program". The bulk of that spending is where our federal government provides breakfast and lunch to school children, and again, mostly without very good oversight on separating those who need assistance, from those who do not.

On the face of it, it sounds mean to question whether school children should get good nutritious lunches. But, if this is an issue of poverty, then we need to means test the delivery of the aid. Then, we can focus on reducing the cost of the aid, by reducing the number of people who are poor. Which is less brutal; Treating the symptoms of poverty, or vastly reducing poverty all together? When I was young, we went home to eat lunch. Then when I was in high school, they had a school lunch program, but it was too expensive so I brought my lunch to school.

[kandrathe]

We're far from qualified. That's why we have a representative form of government. So that those running the country can pay attention to the details those of us having a different life cannot.

If you have problems with the *people* in the government, then I have to agree -- although I don't think they are all as bad as you seem to think. If you have problems with how we select them, how they get into office, how they stay in office, again I agree.

Mostly, I think they tend to be slightly better than this guy. But not much. Occasionally, a bit of the slime mold of corruption is revealed, and there is a show of some house cleaning, but generally, political corruption exudes from the Republican, and Democratic machines in most every state, and oozes freely from our nations capital.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The US needs to back off, and let people take care of their own issues.

And this relates to taking money from state A and spending it in state B how?

. . . politicians having a spine, . . .

Do you have x-rays supporting this claim?

. . . changing the systems to require people to apply for their handouts (where they would need to detail their assets and income).

Have you ever applied for any type of government assistance? Because all who I know that have applied had to do exactly that -- document that they qualified for the assistance they were requesting. If there's a government office that one can just walk into, ask for money, and walk out of with cash, then I've missed seeing it.

Any system where you give away money has the problem of fraud, and nothing changes here except the amount of cash you are handing out.

Is the problem helping people or is the problem fraud? Because to stop the one in order to prevent the other is, IMO, a vast overreaction. Like closing the roads because some people drive drunk.

And I have no idea what the second half of that sentence refers to.

The point was that 17 different agencies are working on the 400 trade agreements.

Why would corporate mergers ever save money? Of course consolidation would remove duplication and increase coordination of effort.

OK, so you are *for* consolidation.

Our economy is in the toilet, and a record number of people are losing their homes, unemployed, and going bankrupt. The government doesn't have enough money to pay its bills, nor can it continue to borrow a trillion or so per year to keep up paying for all we spend. Not to mention, that all those trillions we borrowed will need to be paid back.

True or false, what does this have to do with to taking money from state A and spending it in state B?

I'd say it's time to justify every expenditure, and be very thoughtful about where our money is spent.

At what cost? Since we've gotten to that part in the thread where we're recycling our arguments, let me reiterate; "But when it comes to the government, many seem to be willing to spend any amount, no matter how large, to prevent the misuse of any amount, no matter how small."

I wouldn't call it de-consolidation, so much as getting the federal fingers out of the states business.

So, you're *against* consolidation.

Let's see: Consolidation is good when the federal government does it. No, consolidation is bad when the federal government does it. No, consolidation is good when industry does it.

"Alex, I'd like a clue for 200."

--Pete

[Jester]

On the face of it, it sounds mean to question whether school children should get good nutritious lunches. But, if this is an issue of poverty, then we need to means test the delivery of the aid.

But this money doesn't go to families. It goes to schools. So, if you managed to completely eliminate this type of fraud, what would the effect be? A net savings? No, just a cut in education funding. If you wanted to keep education funded at the same level, you'd save nothing at all.

Then, we can focus on reducing the cost of the aid, by reducing the number of people who are poor. Which is less brutal; Treating the symptoms of poverty, or vastly reducing poverty all together?

You're going to "vastly reduce poverty"? Without redistribution, or "treating the symptoms"? I'd love to hear this one.

-Jester