State government finances are a wreck. The drop in tax receipts is the worst in a half century. Fewer than 10 states ended the last fiscal year with significant reserves, and three-fourths have deficits exceeding 10% of their budgets. Only an emergency infusion of printed federal funny money is keeping most state boats afloat right now.
Most governors I’ve talked to are so busy bailing that they haven’t checked the long-range forecast. What the radar tells me is that we ain’t seen nothin’ yet. What we are being hit by isn’t a tropical storm that will come and go, with sunshine soon to follow. It’s much more likely that we’re facing a near permanent reduction in state tax revenues that will require us to reduce the size and scope of our state governments. And the time to prepare for this new reality is already at hand.
The coming state government reset will be particularly wrenching after the happy binge that preceded this recession. During the last decade, states increased their spending by an average of 6% per year, gusting to 8% during 2007-08. Much of the government institutions built up in those years will now have to be dismantled.
[blockquote]Much of the government institutions built up in those years will now have to be dismantled.
[/blockquote]
While the reason may not be the best, this is not a bad idea.
I can’t speak for other states, but I know that’s true here in South Dakota as well. Last year, there was a sizable deficit that was patched by using all the federal bail out money. This year, there isn’t going to be any bailout money unless Congress passes another round of TARP which I don’t think they have the stomach to do this time. And, like the article says, that means on the state level either deficit spending on borrowed money or, more likely, drastic cutting to services and/or massive state tax hikes. Both of which will be big hits with the electorate.
I find it fascinating, sick though it be, of watching the Federal government systematically making states completely dependent on the Federal government. I don’t know if there is malicious intent or not, but if I was a despot set on undercutting and phasing out any form of local/state control, I couldn’t think of a better way to go about it that the ways the Federal Government has been going about it. And its not just TARP/money appropriations, etc., its the systematic applying of the US Constitution rights to states, and a whole lot of other things.
Its not unlike how a drug lord in a cartel operates with his minions. All smiles and free samples at the beginning to get you hooked and then before you know it, the drug lord has you by the nose because your addicted.
States have completely become subservient to the US Government not unlike the way counties exist at the pleasure of State governments. I think this goes beyond the wildest dreams of even the early Federalist Party advocates in the late 1700s. Truly amazing. No balance of power whatsoever exists between State/Federal government.
But what’s disturbing about all this is the fact that the Federal Government is the one massively in debt. With all the centralization, if the Federal Government goes backrupt or collapses, what happens on the State level? Either the balance will shift the other way and States will reverse the role and become larger and sovereign again as powers unto themselves, or complete anarchy in the form of “chop off the snake’s head and the body will die.”
Either way, this sets a bad precedent on all levels of government in my opinion.
And this at a time when “conservatives” argue that the federal government should do less and the state governments more.
And when you are in a state like Texas, where “conservatives” have dominated state government for decades, the “solution” is always either for the state to rely on the federal government or to require local government to do more.
Meanwhile infrastructure, education and medical care deteriorate. State regulation is lax, for which insurance companies, home builders and others rejoice. Yea! Texas has a balanced budget. Never mind that we are funding highways with revenue bonds (read debt–borrowing against future revenues) and local school districts have exhausted their reserves and are adopting deficit budgets.
Never mind that Texas public schools rank in the lower half among the states. And never mind that America’s schools are lagging behind the industrialized nations of the world, with the consequence that America is quickly becoming a second rate country.
What happens when the federal and state governments push education down on the local school districts? Well, the quality of education becomes dependent on where one lives. If one lives in a “property rich district”, the taxpayers get lower taxes and better education; if one lives in a “property poor district”, the taxpayers get higher taxes and poorer education. This is, of course, something that the courts have held violates the 14th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution (and in Texas the state constitution).
1. ScottW+ wrote:
[blockquote][blockquote]
Much of the government institutions built up in those years will now have to be dismantled.[/blockquote]
While the reason may not be the best, this is not a bad idea.[/blockquote]
[i]Quod erat demonstrandum.[/i]
Let’s see how fast the U.S. can become a third rate power.
A few years ago governors were gloating about how they were the real drivers in U.S. society, and it’s arguable that we have gone unbalanced in the federal structure. This country was not designed to function as one giant whole, but as a federal alliance run at multiple governmental levels. Concentrating functions at the national level concentrates power, and that certainly serves the purposes of some folks, Republicans as well as Democrats. Does it serve the best interests of the American people, though?
This is good news, if so. As I was sharing with a new business acquaintance last week, when times were good, governments should have been doing what any good businessman does — storing up slush funds for when tax revenues would inevitably fall from a recession or depression. But no, all they did was grow their commitments.
The US was a first rate power when the size of Gov’t was smaller than it is now. We started declining when the Federal Gov’t started grabbing more power, and the States got onto the bandwagon.
I think the smaller the gov’t, and the more responsibility “we the people” take on, the better our standing in the world market once again.
JE
A modest proposal: reduce every state legislature by 50% and the staffs by 50%. Do the same for the executive branch of the government. It’s amazing what kind of money will suddenly be freed up for schools, libraries and people needing medical care. Unfortunately, it would mean a lot of Republicans and Democrats would be out of “work”, a blessing in itself.
[blockquote]And this at a time when “conservatives†argue that the federal government should do less and the state governments more.[/blockquote]
I’m not a conservative, but I’m all for the former and not very enthusiastic about the latter. I’m of the view that the faster government gets out of the way, the better off we’ll be.
[blockquote]Meanwhile infrastructure, education and medical care deteriorate.[/blockquote]
Medical care isn’t a matter for government to provide, IMHO, so the faster it gets out of that business, the better. Education spending has skyrocketed for decades, so I’m not panicking at the thought of it taking a little increase hiatus. That ought to free up plenty for government-controlled infrastructure like roads. Situation resolved!
Uh, Ken, the last time I checked, per pupil expenditures in public schools had little or no correlation with student achievement. If it did, Washington D.C. would have the best schools in the country, instead of being the complete joke that it is.
10. Daniel wrote:
[blockquote]Uh, Ken, the last time I checked, per pupil expenditures in public schools had little or no correlation with student achievement. If it did, Washington D.C. would have the best schools in the country, instead of being the complete joke that it is.[/blockquote]
The highest correlation between student academic success and anything else is the social-economic status of the parents and community. It beats even IQ as a predictor of academic success. The obvious conclusion is that if we are serious about boosting national school achievement–even in D.C.–we will do what is necessary to boost the social-economic status of the communities and parents from which the children come.
But, that being said, there is a reason why the citizens who live in advantaged socio-economic communities support more per pupil expenditures than districts comprised of mostly low socio-economic status families; and it isn’t entirely a matter of the “poor” families not wanting the sort of education that “rich” families expect from their schools.
Let me give an example. For years “research” showed that reducing class size does not improve student achievement–something that every classroom teacher knows is crazy. For a number of years I taught in public education. The average class size was around 35 or 36. Some were larger. One year I had a class of over 40 students and, if they all happened to be present on any given day, there were not enough student desks for them all. That same year, due to a horrendous foul up in schedules, I had a class with 20 students; both these two classes were the same subject. The teacher was the same. The text books were the same. The instruction was the same. The tests were the same. Yet the smallest class consistently did better on tests than the biggest class. And this, in spite of the fact that the smallest class met earlier in the day than the larger class so that usually the larger class could learn what was on the test that day.
Then somebody somewhere decided to do yet another class size experiment aimed more at trying to determine what the “optimal” class size was. Not even my class size of 20 showed a statistically significant improvement; but where one did see a statistically significant improvement is when class size was 20 or less.
I also taught in an elite private school where just the tuition was well above the state average for per pupil expenditure. My largest class was 12. There is a reason why well-to-do parents will pay big bucks for a private school. And class size, along with the resulting academic superiority, is near the top of the list.
Now what does this mean. It means, for example, that in order for Texas to get class size down from the 35 or so I experienced to 16, they would have to double the number of teachers–which is always the most expensive item in a school’s budget, bar none. It also means that local districts would have to undertake massive capital improvement projects to double the number of classrooms.
It is true that in Texas the state tried to reduce class size in the lowest grades–not to the 16 I mention, but to 21. The state largely dumped the cost on local districts which, because of the obvious restraint of tax base and lack of the necessary classrooms generally applied for and got exemptions. So it looked nice on paper, but not in reality.
It may be that, for whatever reasons, D.C. schools are a poster child for “money isn’t everything.” But I will guarantee you that reducing per student expenditure in D.C. will not miraculously cause them to be sterling examples of academic excellence. There may be a lack of correlation in this case between expense and result. But as any statistician will tell you, correlation is not causality.
Perhaps the Hummer is an example of “more expensive” isn’t always “better.” Hummers were notorious for breaking down and terribly expensive to operate. My comparatively inexpensive Honda Accord hasn’t required repair in over 5 years and is far cheaper to operate. It provides better transportation than a Hummer would have. Now if we sort of generalize on this, if I spend proportionately less on a car than the difference between the Honda and the Hummer, would I get proportionately better performance? Get real.
There is a reason why parents and students will go deeply in debt to go to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, M.I.T. or even my Alma Mater instead of to the relatively inexpensive community college or even a “second tier” state university.
[blockquote]The highest correlation between student academic success and anything else is the social-economic status of the parents and community. It beats even IQ as a predictor of academic success. The obvious conclusion is that if we are serious about boosting national school achievement—even in D.C.—we will do what is necessary to boost the social-economic status of the communities and parents from which the children come.[/blockquote]
There’s a very high correlation between the sun going down and the number of lights turned on in my house. So, the obvious conclusion is that if I want the sun to go down, I need to turn on the lights in my house. Translation: I think you have your causation backwards, Ken.
and to follow #12, the best way to “boost the social-economic status of the communities and parents from which the children come” would be through lower taxes, and a less regulatory environment, which generates economic growth and social economic status. But such is inimical to our present ruling political party, which appears to have concluded that more government programs and higher taxes will boost social economic status – I am not aware of a single instance in recorded history where such an approach has been successful.
13. Chris wrote:
[blockquote]and to follow #12, the best way to “boost the social-economic status of the communities and parents from which the children come†would be through lower taxes, and a less regulatory environment, which generates economic growth and social economic status.[/blockquote]
We did exactly that under the previous administration. The result was not economic growth and enhanced socio-economic status of the poor. The result was a greater gap between the very rich and the very poor, a stagnant middle class, corporate corruption, the collapse of the financial system, and eventually soaring unemployment, home foreclosures and bankruptcies.
[blockquote]But such is inimical to our present ruling political party, which appears to have concluded that more government programs and higher taxes will boost social economic status [/blockquote]
The policy of the present political party is that spending and lower taxes along with arbitrarily low interest rates will stimulate economic recovery and growth, signs of which we are beginning to see. The long term policy will be to improve regulation, raise taxes and reduce spending, along with higher interest rates to prevent the economy from producing another boom-bust cycle. It’s Economics 101: in a recession/depression have a loose monetary policy, lower taxes and increase spending (the latter two producing a deficit) and in a boom cycle have a tight monetary policy, raise taxes and reduce spending (the latter producing a surplus used to pay off the debt).
It is clear that the repeal and lax enforcement of Depression era regulations designed to prevent a recurrence of anything like the Great Depression contributed to the economic collapse of 2008.
[blockquote]I am not aware of a single instance in recorded history where such an approach has been successful.[/blockquote]
One might cite the period after World War II to the present, in which “taxes and regulation” (along with spending on the general welfare and labor unions) helped produce the most prosperous era in American, if not world history.
Before you cite the Laffer Curve, let me remind you that it is a theoretical curve which says that at 100% taxation, no revenue will be produced and that at 0% taxation, no revenue will be produced. That somewhere along a tax/revenue curve between 0% and 100% is a point where a given tax rate yields a maximum revenue. What the Laffer theory does not tell us is where on the curve that point is. What the reports I’ve seen indicate is that most people pay around 16%-17% in income tax, regardless of what income bracket they are in. This seems to agree with the anecdotal evidence I’ve seen; my income tax runs 16%-17% and those public figures whose income runs in the millions and whose tax returns are, for various reasons, made public seem to run around 16%-17%.
The Reagan-Bush theory is that if you reduce the highest marginal tax rates, the wealthiest folks will rush out invest in capital production capacity instead of yachts and speculate in the stock and futures markets, that the capital production capacity will result in more goods and services produced and more jobs producing and selling those goods and services, and that the “good times” will “trickle down” to the poorest of the poor. The evidence is that the Reagan-Bush tax cuts did no such thing. Both produced major recessions with little or no benefit for the poor or even the middle class. There was some stimulus when Reagan cut the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%. (Tax reduction for the middle class was largely offset by increases in payroll taxes.) And deregulation contributed to the Savings and Loan collapse in the 1980s.
The Law of Supply and Demand would indicate that no sane entrepreneur is going to sink money into capital production capacity to increase the supply of something for which there is no demand. It makes no sense to manufacture widgets if there is no demand for widgets; and if people cannot afford to buy widgets, there will be no demand for widgets, even if widgets are very desirable things to own. When people could not afford to buy new homes last year, the production of new home plummeted; and no amount of tax breaks for building new homes would induce a home builder to build new homes for which there was no demand. When people could not afford to buy new cars last year, the demand for new cars plummeted; and automakers cut back production, laid off workers and still lost money. And yes, both the demand for new homes and new cars fell because the deregulation of financial institutions led to the collapse of the credit markets, so that business large and small could not get loans to meet payroll and inventory, leading to workers being laid off and orders for stock to be cancelled, leading to yet less demand for goods and services.
The Republicans were dragged screaming into the 20th century at the time of FDR. They have continued screaming throughout the rest of the 20th century and continue screaming in the 21st century, in spite of the general prosperity of the nation after WWII.
But such is inimical to our present ruling political party, which appears to have concluded that more government programs and higher taxes will boost social economic status – I am not aware of a single instance in recorded history where such an approach has been successful.
Actually, no, what we did under the previous administration was to lower taxes and BOOST spending and gov’t programs. THAT was a failure. We have to go back to Reagan to find an example of the “lower taxes, limited gov’t” program, and that DID work.
As to taxing luxury items, remember when they did tax the ‘luxury yacht’ business? They practically went out of business. Once the tax was repealed, they thrived again. If a product is made too expensive through excessive taxation, people, even rich people, will stop buying it. Same with corporations. Tax them too high, so that their margin of profit approaches “0” or negative numbers, and they will a) go out of business or b) move to where the taxes are lower. AND they will take their jobs with them!
The general prosperity following WWII was NOT a result of the policies of the New Deal, but of wartime spending, the GI bill and other industries productivity as a result of the war. Most historians agree that FDR’s policies did help in the short term (food, low wage work), but not in the long term, when most people employed went back to unemployment once a project was finished.
15. libraryjim wrote:
[blockquote]Actually, no, what we did under the previous administration was to lower taxes and BOOST spending and gov’t programs. THAT was a failure. We have to go back to Reagan to find an example of the “lower taxes, limited gov’t†program, and that DID work.[/blockquote]
Sorry, I was responding to Chris, whose magic formula for prosperity of the poor was “lower taxes and a less regulatory environment”. For whatever reason, he did not mention “lower spending”. While that was part of Reagan’s campaign promise, it was one which he broke in a major way. His actual policy of “lower taxes and high spending” produced significant deficits which we are still paying for.
It also did very little to help the poor or even the middle class. There was a major recession during his administration too.
As for deregulation, that was a factor in the collapse of the Savings and Loans during his administration.
[blockquote]The general prosperity following WWII was NOT a result of the policies of the New Deal, but of wartime spending, the GI bill and other industries productivity as a result of the war. Most historians agree that FDR’s policies did help in the short term (food, low wage work), but not in the long term, when most people employed went back to unemployment once a project was finished.[/blockquote]
What a curious argument. “After World War II” means “[b]after[/b] World War II”, not “[b]before[/b] World War II”. In case you didn’t notice, the New Deal ended as WWII was starting up; and FDR was dead by the time it was over. Actually one would expect a contraction of economies after a major war. (Consider the period after World War I, especially in Europe.) There should be increased unemployment because of returning troops and the ending of war time production of armaments.
I would point out that the G.I. bill involved federal funding for things–college education and purchase of new homes. So it hardly would support your thesis. Perhaps we need to end the Bush wars and provide the returning veterans with a similar G.I. bill. But that’s government spending, Jim.
One could cite another Republican program–Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway system. That was another massive federally funded and regulated program.
And of course there were things like the space program, food stamps, massive military spending for the Cold War, free and reduced lunches for poor school children, increased funding for education, purchase of farm commodities, etc. etc. etc. And you know what, some Republicans love many of these programs. Republican farmers love food stamps, surplus commodities programs, boondoggle defense contracts, keeping the local unnecessary military base open, etc.
Ken, I should have added that there needs to be a corresponding spending decrease. It is one reason why I consider myself a conservative these days and not a Republican (though I do vote for Republicans, but not always the incumbent). No less than an authority than Rep. Jack Kingston of GA replied to me without hesitation, and in the affirmative, when I posited that the Don Young and Jerry Lewis types (old bulls in the House) had pretty much destroyed the Republican governing majority with their reckless spending policies and unethical conduct.
Actually, the Reagan years saw debt equal to that of all the administrations prior. He raised spending at a rate greater than the revenues generated by his tax cuts.
Gosh, how ever did the United States get along for about 125 years without an income tax?!? What massive government invasion of privacy and manipulation of the population the income tax is! The IRS is reviled by the vast majority of Americans. The tax code is over 44,000 pages long! A whole vampiric industry of tax services, lawyers, and software development has come about just to aid the poor citizen from being an accidental felon. Where is the presumption of innocence? Where is the protest by the ACLU and the minions of the left against the violation of such a basic right as the presumption of innocence? The State of CT taxes charitable contributions, including those made to religious institutions. CT has had a democrat controlled legislature for decades. Where is the outrage at the state suppressing religion through the vehicle of taxation? MA refused to acknowledge the Catholic Church’s right to practice their religious beliefs in the placement of orphans…and so the state pushed them out of the process. Where were the howls of outrage at such government intrusion into the Church?
For some reason, this did not post the first time:
Why is it that the one room school house model worked so much better than the $10,000 per year per pupil model? Why did mixed grades all in one room with only one teacher produce a superior education to the stupidity mills that pass for public schools these days? Why can’t a public schools, with teachers that have Masters degrees, produce literate students after having them for 6+ hours per day for 12+ years; while literacy volunteers with a high school education achieve a 91% success rate?
We home school. We refuse to let something as important as the education of our children depend on the state.
I will be very happy when the “reset” occurs and the state shrinks back within it’s intended role.
[blockquote]We did exactly that under the previous administration.[/blockquote]
If you believe that, you are woefully uninformed. The Bush 2 administration saw regulation skyrocket in an unprecedented way.
19. Sick & Tired of Nuance wrote:
[blockquote]Gosh, how ever did the United States get along for about 125 years without an income tax?!?[/blockquote]
Well, for one thing it didn’t fight two world wars, a Cold War, a Korean War, a Vietnam War, a couple of Iraq Wars and a war in Afghanistan.
Several things were also revealed by all those wars. For example, we needed a vastly improved national infrastructure–read Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System. The wars also revealed that we needed to try to improve the nation’s education system, admittedly something we’ve not done particularly well–partly due to the fractured structure of public education. We found it necessary to spend billions on the development of nuclear weapons, intercontinental missiles and a Star Wars defence system to protect against both (something we are still trying to get to work).
Hey, wait…don’t fuel taxes, license fees, and vehicle taxes pay for the roads?
Also, I think that you neglected to mention Johnson’s Great Society and the generational Welfare obligations that we paid for…you remember, we paid people not to work for about 30 years, destroying the role of fathers in the family, paying for drug addiction, higher crime rates, increased out of wedlock births, and the general destruction of our society. I think the unconstitutional socialist agenda cost far more than the constitutionally mandated defense of our nation.
20. Sick & Tired of Nuance wrote:
[blockquote]Why is it that the one room school house model worked so much better than the $10,000 per year per pupil model? Why did mixed grades all in one room with only one teacher produce a superior education to the stupidity mills that pass for public schools these days?[/blockquote]
Well, the fact of the matter it didn’t. If you are at all familiar with the history of public education in the U.S., both World Wars, the Spanish American War and even the Civil War, revealed large numbers of young men who lacked the basic skills necessary to make suitable foot soldiers. That’s one reason for the long standing federal involvement in public education.
Secondly, the idyllic “one room school” was largely a feature of rural America. And, in case you haven’t noticed, rural America is a minority these days. Most people–and children–are found in the urban and suburban centers of U.S. population, where the “one room school” never existed. Those idyllic “one room schools” were found in sparsely populated areas with quite few children. Can you imagine the cost of providing five million one room schools?
Those schools did not provide much of an education past the 8th grade, if any. They did not serve all the children. Most children dropped out to work on the family farm around puberty. And in urban areas, they dropped out to join the labor force in the factories, mines and shops.
Nor did they provide biology, chemistry or physics labs. Nor did they provide vocational training. Nor did they even attempt to educate the blind, the deaf, the health impaired or the retarded.
So, lets pose some alternative questions. Why is it that the best private schools do not (and to my knowledge never have) operated on “the one room school” model? Why do not those same schools operate on the “mixed grades all in one room” model? Why did parents who had the financial resources opt for the graded, multi-classroom, multi-teacher private schools over the one room mixed grade model?
Early in my ministry I served a group of missions in rural West Texas. Most of the adult members were quite wealthy ranch owners whose families had lived in the area for generations. Most of the adult members did not attend a one room, mixed grade school. Instead the boys were sent by their parents to Texas Military Institute and the girls to St. Mary’s Hall in San Antonio, where the children were in graded classes, taught by a “multi-disciplinary” staff of teachers.
P.S.: I’m 72 years old. I never attended any “one room, mixed grade” school. I did attend graded public schools taught by multiple teachers and, by all accounts received an excellent education. The same can be said of my brother who is 77. We both went on to colleges and universities, both earned graduate degrees and have had professional careers.
23. Sick & Tired of Nuance wrote:
[blockquote]Hey, wait…don’t fuel taxes, license fees, and vehicle taxes pay for the roads?[/blockquote]
Well, as a matter of fact, they don’t.
[blockquote]…we paid people not to work for about 30 years, destroying the role of fathers in the family, paying for drug addiction, higher crime rates, increased out of wedlock births, and the general destruction of our society.[/blockquote]
What utter nonsense.
[blockquote]I think the unconstitutional socialist agenda cost far more than the constitutionally mandated defense of our nation.[/blockquote]
Wrong.
If fuel taxes, license fees, and vehicle taxes don’t pay for the roads…what the heck are they for?
If Johnson’s Great Society was so good, why did all the problems it was intended to fix get worse? Since 1964, we have spent about $7 Trillion on the War on Poverty. According to the US Census Bureau, there has been no noticeable impact on the poverty rate! Try selling your rebuttal to someone else.
My Mom did attend a one room school house. She did quite well, thank you very much. If the one room school model was so bad…how did folks run businesses and farms with such a meager education?
I wish I had more time to debate you, but I have to go to work now.
I’ll tell you why the US did so well for 125 years without an income tax: a mostly decentralized Federal government that allowed (pretty much) the States to have the rights not specified in the Constitution. And that with fighting the Franco-American War, the war on the Barbary Pirates, the Creek Wars, the Mexican War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and the First World War.
However, after the Federal Gov’t won the Civil War, that’s when it started grabbing more and more of the State’s powers for itself.
As to the list you mention: the [b]space program[/b] is pretty much over, sure we put a man on the moon 7 times, but what since then? R/C cars on Mars! Private companies have pretty much paid for our efforts with their communications satellites. [b]Food stamps/WIC[/b]: a lot of fraud in there, no accountability and losing money. [b]War on poverty[/b]? Failure, yet the bureaucracies it created are still sucking money in at a speedy rate with little to show for it. [b]Education[/b]? 30% drop out rate, 34th (or less) worldwide in quality of education since the 1970’s, community colleges having to have remedial reading programs because high school grads don’t know how to read. [b]Interstate Highway system[/b]? Have you driven on these roads lately? Besides, they require matching funds from the States. But regulation of interstate transportation/commerce IS mentioned in the Constitution.
I’ll add: [b]Medicare/Medicade/VA/Social Security[/b]? Broke, bankrupt, and robbed! The first three provide sub-standard care and the latter won’t last another decade.
The only two gov’t programs that have been a success up to this point are Libraries (but they are mostly state and county run) and the Post Office — and even they are in trouble from private competition. Up until the Clinton Administration messed them up, the FBI and CIA functioned pretty well, too, but needed improvement, which they haven’t gotten yet.
No, like the old saying goes: If you think the problem is bad, wait until you see the Government’s solution!
26. Sick & Tired of Nuance wrote:
[blockquote]If fuel taxes, license fees, and vehicle taxes don’t pay for the roads…what the heck are they for?[/blockquote]
They are for roads; they do not pay for roads. Transportation funds are exhausted, new roads are being built by going into debt and old roads are falling into disrepair.
[blockquote]If Johnson’s Great Society was so good, why did all the problems it was intended to fix get worse?[/blockquote]
Probably because it was never allowed to work. It was always underfunded, partly because of the Vietnam War and partly because of “conservative” opposition which eventually ended it.
[blockquote]Since 1964, we have spent about $7 Trillion on the War on Poverty.[/blockquote]
That’s pretty amazing, considering that the [b]entire[/b] federal outlays when LBJ was President was $727 [b]billion[/b], of which about 60% was for the Department of Defense. If you add to that the [b]entire[/b] federal outlays when Nixon-Ford were Presidents ($2,076 [b]billion[/b])–during which administrations the War on Poverty was largely killed, you have a grand total of less than $3 trillion. [url=http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/pdf/hist.pdf]SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS[/url]
[blockquote]My Mom did attend a one room school house.[/blockquote]
Lucky her. She probably wasn’t Black, Hispanic, deaf, blind or retarded.
27. libraryjim wrote:
[blockquote]As to the list you mention: the space program is pretty much over, sure we put a man on the moon 7 times, but what since then?[/blockquote]
Probably the main reason for the demise of the space program is simply that we have done about all we needed to do to deliver nuclear bombs any place on earth. What is left will be military spy satellites which I doubt that even the most “conservative” folks would like to outsource to China.
[blockquote]Food stamps/WIC: a lot of fraud in there, no accountability and losing money.[/blockquote]
Of course the among the folks who strongly support Food stamps, WIC, free/reduced price school breakfasts and lunches are, gasp, conservative Republican farmers. Wholesale and retail grocers also like these programs. Losing money? They never were intended to be money making programs. As for fraud, let me tell you an interesting story. The Republican legislature in Texas decided it would be A Good Thing to outsource application for welfare benefits and. along with other things, the IT used by the state attorney general’s office. Contracts went to reputable companies, including IBM. To make a long story short, the companies screwed up. The state had to rehire hundreds of caseworkers to process applications. Oh, and IBM screwed up the attorney general’s files, losing vital information needed to process–you guessed it–welfare fraud.
[blockquote]Education? 30% drop out rate, 34th (or less) worldwide in quality of education since the 1970’s, community colleges having to have remedial reading programs because high school grads don’t know how to read.[/blockquote]
Actually far more that 30% never graduated from high school in the “Good Old Days.” And I’m always amused about the college remedial classes. My mother was a college English professor back in the 1950s, when only a minority of high school graduates (which was a minority of a minority of the population) went on to college. And even with that very select group of incoming freshmen, roughly 50% flunked out their first year of college.
[blockquote]Interstate Highway system? Have you driven on these roads lately?[/blockquote]
I will confess, other than a short stretch between here and Denton, I’ve not driven the interstate for about a decade. I-35 from Dallas to San Antonio was in such disrepair that I don’t do that any more. But the failure to maintain what was once a superb highway system is one of the consequences of “conservative frugality”–let’s not raise taxes to do the necessary maintenance.
[blockquote]Medicare/Medicade/VA/Social Security? Broke, bankrupt, and robbed![/blockquote]
Medicare and Social Security are hardly bankrupt. There are more than sufficient in the trust funds to cover shortages for years to come. The problem is, however, the “conservative mantra”–let’s not raise taxes, we’ll just borrow the money from those trust funds. Well, the time to pay the debt is now at hand. And all the “conservatives” can do is gripe about their government instead of offering any sort of realistic constructive solution.
Um, Ken, there is NO trust fund. It’s been ‘tapped’ many many times over the past 30 years to pay for other programs. That there is a trust fund is a government fairy tale. It’s an empty vault. You can hear the echo when you sneeze from the dust left behind.
As to offering realistic solutions, I suppose you wouldn’t know about the proposals and amendments and such that the Republicans put out if all you listen to is CNN and MSNBC. All I’ve heard from my Democratic friends over the last few months is that “Republicans only complain about the Health Care bill, they never offer solutions” and when I post the YouTube videos of Republicans offering their solutions or links to [url=http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=SponsoredBills.HealthCareFreedomAct]workable plans[/url], or statments in committee hearings that Speaker Pelosi has shut them out of offering solutions, amendments, and debate, they have no come-back except “That’s just from right-wing sources!” as if that negates the validity of the proposals, etc.
When it comes to committees, which is based on seniority rather than the ruling party, the Democratic members did their best to block any Republican reforms all along. Now they don’t have to hide it, though, and are fairly blatant about their disdain for the other party. There is no pretense at ‘bi-partisanship’ in this administration, it’s “We won, now roll over and play dead!”
And yes there is just as much blame to offer on the Rep side of the aisle as on the Dem. It may interest you to know that ‘conservative talk radio’ offered just as harsh criticism of the Bush Administration’s spending and laissez-faire attitude towards social security and other programs as they did towards Clinton’s policies.
Anyway, the only way to move forward to regain our standing is if we limit the powers of the Federal Government once again, as well as state powers over our freedoms and rights. Which is why I’m participating in a Tea Party Patriotic Rally this Saturday on the steps of the Old Capital in Tallahassee. Care to join me, if not in person, then in spirit?
Jim Elliott
Oh, and by the way, don’t confuse the Republicans en masse with the Conservatives. There are conservatives in both parties. The conservative mantra is NOT “let’s not raise taxes, we’ll just borrow the money from those trust funds”. That’s another myth from the left-wing media. Speak a lie loud enough and long enough and it will be believed as the truth?
A true conservative mantra is “Less taxes, less spending, less government, more individual freedom and responsibility.”
[blockquote]Wrong. [/blockquote]
Uh, right. Transfer payments make up about 2/3 of the federal budget, over $2 trillion. The DoD is $534 billion for FY2010. Right as usual, Ken.
I’ve attempted to keep up with some of your inaccuracies and errors of fact, but you churn them out at such a pace that it becomes tiresome and irrelevant as the posts get longer and longer, like drinking from a fire hose of nonsense. You need to do your homework before you become worth debating again.
[blockquote]Um, Ken, there is NO trust fund. It’s been ‘tapped’ many many times over the past 30 years to pay for other programs. That there is a trust fund is a government fairy tale. It’s an empty vault. You can hear the echo when you sneeze from the dust left behind.[/blockquote]
Indeed, having a SSTF is just like not having a SSTF. Once payroll taxes are insufficient to meet outlays for SS recipients, we’ll have to sell those bonds in the SSTF. If we didn’t have those bonds there, we’d have to create and sell them just the same. The only difference is that the American people have had a couple of trillion clams picked out of their pockets in the meantime, and spendthrift politicians have piddled away those trillions to purchase their seats in Congress.
We put Enron scumbags in jail for far less.
[While we are sure that commenters are enjoying debating with each other on this thread, may we remind all to please reply courteously and respectfully to each other and keep the debate to the issues in the thread. Otherwise please carry on – Elf]
32. Jeffersonian wrote:
[blockquote]Uh, right. Transfer payments make up about 2/3 of the federal budget, over $2 trillion. The DoD is $534 billion for FY2010. Right as usual, Ken.[/blockquote]
We were discussing LBJs Great Society and its cost. Remember LBJ? He was President 1963-1969. During his presidency the total federal outlay was $1,661 billion. DoD outlays for the period were $452,728 or 59% of the total federal budget.
If one considers that the Great Society continued after that until Nixon-Ford essentially killed it, along with soaring inflation, the entire federal outlays for 1970-1979 were $5,992 billion. DoD spending was “only” $912 billion–in spite of the end of the Vietnam War.
But since the entire federal outlay from 1963-1979 was $7,653 billion the Great Society hardly cost $7 trillion as was claimed. This was the era when Senator Everett Dirksen is said to have remarked, “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.”
Actually the Federal Budget for 2010 shows Department of Defense spending to be $707 billion or 20% of the total [b]including[/b] Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, TARP, other additional financial stabilization efforts, interest on the national debt, disaster costs and everything else. (The interest on the national debt for 2010 alone is $136 billion–4% of the total budget.) [url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/summary.pdf]THE PRESIDENT’S BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010[/url]
I see nothing in the original post that indicates the subject was the budget 40 years ago. We’re talking about the Frankenstein’s monster these entitlements have become and how it’s indisputable that they are bankrupting the nation.
My apologies about the misquotation of the defense budget, I was citing the number from [url=http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/budget/defense.pdf]here[/url]. If you look just below the DoD figure you cited, you’ll see just a few of the transfer payment programs called out, which total over $2 trillion per year. Add the other programs not called out there, and it’s 2/3 of the budget, just as I said.
We’re crushing the productive sector of our nation with a round-robin purse snatching contest.
I see where I misinterpreted…I took the “included” to mean that the $534B was inclusive of the figures below it…it wasn’t.
Oh, to have a President like Grover Cleveland again, a good Democrat:
[blockquote]I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should I think be steadfastly resisted to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the government the government should not support the people.
The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthen the bonds of brotherhood conduct which strengthen the bonds of a common brotherhood.[/blockquote]
He’d never make it in today’s era of kompassion fascism.
The War on Poverty costs the US taxpayer about $1 Trillion per year.
Source: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2310
Nine years ago, back in 2000, we spent about $434.3 Billion to run over 70 major interrelated, means-tested welfare programs, through six federal departments and various state run programs. Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test030701b.cfm
So, if spending stayed absolutely flat (which it didn’t) we have spent $3.9 Trillion on Welfare since 2000. The War on Poverty started back in 1964, so I rather think my quoted assertion of $7 Trillion was quite low.
By the by, here is a link to a source asserting that we have spent over $7 Trillion on the War on Poverty:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_events_050107_IA_GOP
Well, break time is over. Back to my labor on this fine Labor Day evening. Don’t let the facts get you down. Remember, Paul taught us that if a man doesn’t work, he should not eat. Makes good sense in light of that whole “In the sweat of thy brow shall you eat your bread” thing that God said to mankind. This eating by the sweat of other people’s brow just wasn’t meant to work out.
Oh yeah…
That statement you made about my assertion that fuel taxes, license fees, and vehicle taxes are supposed to pay for the roads: “They are for roads; they do not pay for roads.”…
Dude, that’s priceless! LOL Sort of like, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.†That’s a howler!
38. Sick & Tired of Nuance wrote:
[blockquote]The War on Poverty costs the US taxpayer about $1 Trillion per year.[/blockquote]
LBJ’s War on Poverty was essentially ended in the Nixon-Ford years and never revived. Total federal outlays, both on and off budget combined, [b]never[/b] exceeded $342 billion when LBJ was President; it [b]never[/b] exceeded $909 billion when Nixon-Ford were President.
[blockquote]Nine years ago, back in 2000…[/blockquote]
Yeah. And 222 years ago the Continental cost us over a trillion dollars a year. Why just in FY 2008 their creation cost us $3 trillion, including
– $682 billion for Medicare and Medicaid (23%)
– $613 billion for National Defense (21%)
– $612 billion for Social Security (21%)
– $520 billion for “Other Discretionary” (17%)
– $303 billion for “Other Mandatory” (10%)
– $249 billion for Interest (8%)
[url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png]U. S. Federal Spending — Fiscal Year 2008 (Source: Congressional Budget Office)[/url]
Fiscal Year 2008 ran from October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008–so it doesn’t include the $700 billion welfare for the banks program (TARP) requested by the Republican Administration and which did not become law until October 3, 2008.
Ken, I’m not sure you’re aware of this, but you’re not talking about the same thing as S&T is. You’ve limited your rebuttal to Johnson’s relatively small War on Poverty initiative, whereas S&T was talking about the entire Great Society program, most of which is still with us and threatening to sink the entire nation in a sea of debt.
41. Jeffersonian wrote:
[blockquote]Ken, I’m not sure you’re aware of this, but you’re not talking about the same thing as S&T is. You’ve limited your rebuttal to Johnson’s relatively small War on Poverty initiative, whereas S&T was talking about the entire Great Society program, most of which is still with us and threatening to sink the entire nation in a sea of debt.[/blockquote]
And exactly which of the other Great Society measures do you propose to dump.
– The Civil Rights Act of 1964
– Voting Rights Act of 1965
– The Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965
– The Civil Rights Act of 1968
– Medicare (Note: this one is currently paid for by payroll taxes. Unfortunately Congress has been borrowing from the trust funds for decades, so that in a few years it will be necessary to start paying back the debt to meet Medicare obligations.) Most of us seniors will fight you if you want to steal the benefits we paid for through our payroll taxes.
– Medicaid
– National Endowment for the Arts (Yes, I know this is one that “conservatives” love to hate–unless they go to the Symphony, the Opera, the Ballet, the Art Museum, etc.)
– National Endowment for the Humanities (Ditto. Both NEA and NEH are drops in the federal budget. Your senators and congress person probably brings home more bacon than these two programs combined.)
– The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. (If I’m not mistaken PBS and NPR are private, non-profit corporations under the law.)
-John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (Actually this was part of Dwight Eisenhower’s “Great Society” that got renamed.)
– Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. (This was actually planned in 1939, so I guess it’s part of the New Deal.)
– The Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964. (This is actually something that can help us become energy independent, something I thought “conservatives” thought is critical to our national security and prosperity.
– National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (This is important for interstate commerce, something that is a federal responsibility.)
– Clear Air, Water Quality and Clean Water Restoration Acts and Amendments
– Wilderness Act of 1964
– Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966
– National Trails System Act of 1968
– Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968
– Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965
– Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965
– Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act of 1965
– National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
– Aircraft Noise Abatement Act of 1968
– National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Most of these involve relatives small parts of the federal budget. Many come under federal responsibility for interstate commerce and the national defense. If we take Medicare and Medicaid out–which isn’t going to happen no matter what you dream–we are left with “other spending” which pales when compared to the defense budget or the Republican requested TARP funds or, for that matter, even the interest on the national debt.
[blockquote]A few months before Barton’s study appeared, I published an article showing that the correlation between eighth-grade math scores and distance of state capitals from the Canadian border was .522, a respectable showing. By contrast, the correlation with per pupil expenditure was a derisory .203. I offered the policy proposal that states wishing to improve their schools should move closer to Canada. This would be difficult, of course, but so would it be to change the parent-pupil ratio.
Indeed, the 1990 Census found that for the District of Columbia, apart from Ward 3 west of Rock Creek Park, the percentage of children living in single-parent families in the seven remaining wards ranged from a low of 63.6 percent to a high of 75.7. This being a One-time measurement, over time the proportions become asymptotic. And this in the nation’s capital. No demand for change comes from that community – or as near to no demand as makes no matter. For there is good money to be made out of bad schools. This is a statement that will no doubt please many a hard heart, and displease many genuinely concerned to bring about change. To the latter, a group in which I would like to include myself, I would only say that we are obliged to ask why things do not change.
– Daniel Patrick Moynihan, American Scholar (Winter 1993)
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/formans/DefiningDeviancy.htm
[/blockquote]
Well yes, 42, if we factor out Medicare and Medicaid it’s just a spit in the river. It’s only $770 billion. Nothing to see here.
43. William P. Sulik wrote (well actually when you get to the end you discover that William didn’t write this, rather Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote this in 1993):
[blockquote]A few months before Barton’s study appeared, I published an article showing that the correlation between eighth-grade math scores and distance of state capitals from the Canadian border was .522, a respectable showing. By contrast, the correlation with per pupil expenditure was a derisory .203. I offered the policy proposal that states wishing to improve their schools should move closer to Canada. This would be difficult, of course, but so would it be to change the parent-pupil ratio.[/blockquote]
I suspect that this tends to confirm the studies I’ve seen showing the high correlation between social-economic status and school achievement. It is a generally accepted fact that the states south of the Mason-Dixon (i.e., have capitals more distant from the Canadian border) line are, for the most part, less economically advantaged than those above it.
It also, actually flies in the fact of what Moynihan thinks he is arguing, since the per pupil expenditure is dramatically lower south of the Mason-Dixon line than north of it. And while there is no particular reason to suppose that proximity to the Canadian border has any bearing on school achievement, there are a number of reasons to suppose that there are a number of factors related to socio-economic status and per pupil expenditure that do have a bearing on it.
[blockquote]Indeed, the 1990 Census found that for the District of Columbia, apart from Ward 3 west of Rock Creek Park, the percentage of children living in single-parent families in the seven remaining wards ranged from a low of 63.6 percent to a high of 75.7.[/blockquote]
This observation by Moynihan is also informative. I dare say that there was a relationship in 1990 between D.C. “single-parent families” and lower socio-economic status. And I wonder what the percentage of “the percentage of children living in single-parent families” in Ward 3 might be. Since I’m not familiar with the D.C. wards, I’m left wondering why this one ward is omitted. And I am further left wondering what the academic achievement is in each of the [b]eight[/b] wards.
That being said, one might also ask what the relationship between the achievement of children living in single-parent families and the achievement of children living in two-parent families. My initial guess is that children living in a stable “traditional family” receive a level of nurture and home stability that others do not and that this would contribute to academic achievement.
Perhaps there is another possible correlation here. We know that there has been a dramatic rise in divorce rates and single-parent families in America since the mid-20th century and that most children today come from an unstable home environment. And this superficially seems to occur at a time when there was a general decline in achievement in American schools.
I would, however, suggest that there are also other factors involved in the problems faced by public schools. For one thing, beginning in the latter half of the 20th century–more exactly beginning with Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, and given added impetus in the 1960s by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 and most recently by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001–there has been a drive to ensure that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution actually means what it says and that no child should be denied a free and appropriate public education.
When one compares public schools before the mid-1950s with the schools of the 21st century one is comparing apples and oranges in terms of the goals of education. I graduated from high school in 1955–one year after Brown v. Board of Education. There were no blacks attending my high school. There were very few Hispanics (in spite a significant Hispanic population). Many of the children had dropped out of school around age 16, and were never seen in high school. (Note that they could find jobs as filling station attendants, wiping windshields and checking the oil and water while filling up the tank with gas–a job that is extinct in 2009–or as low skill entry jobs in construction or food services and the like.) In other words, my high school consisted of a very select body of students, a significant number of which (but not all) were college bound. (And about half of the college bound funked out of college.) There were no deaf students. There were no blind students. There were no mentally retarded students. And “behavior problems” could be and were expelled. None of this is true today. There are few jobs today for those who are not high school graduates–and we prefer to import workers for those few jobs from foreign countries. (It is also increasingly difficult for those with out at least a bachelors degree to find jobs–and even those with bachelors degrees and graduate degrees are finding employment scarce today.)
In other words, the task we have assigned to the public schools today is vastly different than it was over a half century ago when I graduated. Now you may say, “Let’s weed out the low achievers”–but the U.S. Constitution replies,
[blockquote]”No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”[/blockquote]
Now I realize that some “conservatives” yearn to return the country back to 1860 or before–but it isn’t going to happen.
There is, presumably no correlation between per pupil expenditure and pupil achievement. So be it. Then explain why many those parents who can afford it chose to spend [b]more[/b] per student on a private school. Explain why those parents who are able chose to move to suburban districts where the per pupil expenditure is higher than in either the urban school or the rural school. And if lower expenditure on education means better public schools, then why not eliminate education funding and let our children be educated with the hot air of partisans.
There is, presumably, no relationship between class size or student-teacher ratios. If so, please explain why those parents who can afford it send their children to private schools which maintain very low student-teacher ratios. Explain why parents who are able move to suburban schools which have low student-teacher ratios. I have an undergraduate and graduate degree from a very small (enrollment limited to 2,500) liberal arts university bit a whopping tuition rate. Their promotional material will stress a low student-faculty ratio. Why do parents who can choose small classes over large classes? And if it really does make no difference lets go for 50-1 or 100-1; it will be a lot cheaper. While we are at it, let’s throw [b]all[/b] the children K-12 in NYC into a single room taught by one teacher. Cool. NYC can lower their taxes and every kid will graduate with honors and go on to a [i]summa cum laude[/i] degree from Harvard University!
I might even presume to suggest that “conservatives” contribute to the problem, not only by their consistent refusal to support public education at the state and national level (it’s a bit different when it comes to the suburban school their kids attend), but that there negative harping on schools and disrespect for teachers is, in point of fact, communicated to children who learn from them that school is “bad” and teachers deserve no “respect.” I know there are bad teachers–I even had at least one. My mother also knew the teacher was a bad teacher, but she never, ever, even once, suggested I should presume to disrespect, disobey or refuse to work in that teacher’s class–and all hell would have broken loose on me had I not been the studious student in that class. (I later learned that there had been a number of conversations between my mother and the principal–and that the teacher wasn’t back the next year.) This sort of thing is rare today. Children are encouraged to be disrespectful–and that is one consequence of the “conservative” trashing public education.
44. Jeffersonian wrote:
[blockquote]Well yes, 42, if we factor out Medicare and Medicaid it’s just a spit in the river. It’s only $770 billion. Nothing to see here.[/blockquote]
I have no idea where your $770 billion figure comes from or to what year it refers. It’s something pulled out of the clear blue sky for whatever reason. I’ve tried several combinations of the broad categories in the FY 2008 figures I provided earlier and can’t come up with $770.
On the other hand, I notice that you avoided addressing the actual question posed to you in message 42. Exactly which of the Great Society measures I mention do you propose to eliminate?
And while you are at it, include the exact amounts “saved” by eliminating each program, providing us with the FY upon which that amount is based.
What I am hearing is the usual political rhetoric–“We’ll cut waste in spending”, “We’ll cut pork barrel spending.”, “We’ll cut ear marks.” It sounds so good because “waste”, “pork” and “earmarks” are never made specific. And invariably the what “the other candidate” calls “waste”, “pork” and “earmarks” are the candidate’s Good and Necessary Spending.
An anecdote from my checkered political past. In 1964 I was a county Republican Party treasurer. In that year very conservative George H. W. Bush was running for the U.S. Senate against incumbent liberal Democrat Lloyd Bentsen. One day Bush and I were in the back seat of a car going around the West Texas county campaigning for Goldwater and him. Bush and I were discussing some points which he could make in some radio ads on the local radio station which the county party would pay for. I mentioned the subject of wool and mohair incentives–a subject dear to the very conservative hearts of West Texas sheep and goat ranchers. I didn’t really know what his position on the incentives was, but if it was favorable it would be a good talking point in the ads. Bush was not offended, but was honest enough to say we’d better not touch on that subject. What the Houston oilman regarded as “waste” and “pork” wasn’t exactly what West Texas sheep and goat raisers regarded as “waste” and “pork”. Bush could talk about cutting “waste” and “pork” all day–and those ranchers would sit there nodding their heads with glowing approval. The moment he started to talk about specific “waste” and “pork”–and particularly about wool and mohair incentives–he would have stopped preaching and started meddling and lost their votes. Incidentally, Bush lost the election in the LBJ landslide of that year–although he wasn’t helped one bit by his refusal to speak favorably about wool and mohair incentives in West Texas.
I’m pretty sure that you regard funding for the National Endowment for the Arts as something that should be eliminated, judging by your extremely narrow stated political views. I think NEA is scheduled to receive $131.3 million in the regular appropriation process and an additional $50 million in the economic stimulus bill. That really is an extremely small drop in the federal budget and our GDP. Most civilized countries do much more for the arts. I enjoy attending the Dallas and Richardson symphonies and the Dallas opera–which receive small grants from NEA. I’m happy to see some of my tax dollars go for that. I wish it were more so that the orchestra members of the Texas Ballet (which performs in Fort Worth and Dallas) would be laid off as the ballet company struggles to cut costs by substituting recorded music for a live orchestra. And, of course, those orchestra members won’t be spending those wages, at the local shops, impacting small businesses, their employees and suppliers. And so it goes.