Dissolve into Evergreens
This blog used to be about politics. Not so much anymore as I have worked through my fascination with that subject. It now seems appropriate that with a new president and the end of the Bush nightmare that I move on to new subjects that are more in line with my current interests. I may still occasionally express an opinion about political matters but for the most part I will be commenting on music, photography and personal observations. Thank you for reading.

Current Playlist

Top 100 in iTunes

juscuz's Last.fm Overall Artists 


Atom Site Feed

B4 d- t k s u- f i- o x-- e- l- c+


< ? Colorado Blogs # >

« - ? Blog Oklahoma * # + »
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?
my mountain utopia...
...is connected to a sewage, water and electrical system and accessible by well paved roads and bridges.

Rob at Emphasis Added says this well:

The current conservative position on most of those things seems to be that they’re not important problems. Indeed, a lot of conservative anger at Bush has less to do with his ham-fisted attempts to solve them with poorly-crafted, pork-larded and ill-conceived legislation, and more to do with his attempts to solve them at all. In the minds of hard-core corporate-Right libertarian fanatics, there is no such thing as the public good, and any attempt to solve public problems through collective investment is considered socialism.

That position is, of course, insane and contrary to the experience of every American outside the top 5% income bracket. Moreover, coming up with good solutions to public problems doesn’t just benefit the people most directly affected by the problems – it benefits everyone. Good infrastructure has a multiplier effect on economic growth. So does R&D, so does education, and so do programs that spread risk widely instead of concentrating it.

And yet, I never hear any Democrat make an affirmative case for these things as good investments that yield a social return. Instead, it always sounds like politicians protecting special-interest constituencies or pet projects. In the post CWA era, only the private sector invests – government spends, as if that money just disappears into the pockets of the less fortunate and doesn’t do jack for the rest of society. Sorry, that’s just bad messaging, and it promotes a distorted and incomplete view of the policy.

The right wing libertarian dream, in theory, looks like a hidden mountain refuge of utopian wealth, but in practice, looks more like the third world.

People voting for Bush and the Not Democrats because they are for limited government and more personal freedom are a bit like people that would vote for a serial killer because they support population control. I can "sort of" see it, but there are better and more effective ways to go about it.

I'm not against some ideas of limited government spending. Heck, everyone except the most hard core communists think that government should be limited in scope. That debate, which the right continues to argue with its myriad of phantom enemies, is over, in my opinion. Yeah, I agree with you, but that doesn't mean that we have to go the way of the poorest countries of the world who seem to perpetually suffer from bad governance.

The real debate, which sensible people are having, is over how we should direct the formidable power of the government for the benefit of its citizens.

The right lib's contribution? "Fuck the government!"

That's why we ignore them.

Companies that fail to invest - die, countries that fail to invest - fall behind. It really is that simple. Look at the rising powerhouses in Asia. While they are simultaneously opening up their economies, they are also spending vast amounts positioning their economies so that they can trample the shit out of America and other countries that are standing around trying to decide whether it would be ok to force our old people to eat dirt as they drive to Canada for drugs.

There is a mantra amongst the right libs: "Government cannot create wealth". Which has always puzzled me, because I can't help but wonder just how much wealth has been created by the existence of the interstate highway system, or the internet, both creations of the federal government?

Immense amounts of wealth have been created by individuals and companies through the use of public infrastructure, and to deny this is insane, but people still do it.

Money spent wisely, and in the service of a overall goal, can be tremendously beneficial to a nation. Every leading economy of the world has a government that is active in economic matters.

But somehow the debate has shifted from WHERE and HOW MUCH we should invest in our future, to WHETHER we should at all.

And its not as if the people that are arguing for less government are actually getting what they want from the people they vote for. What they ARE getting is less government that benefits everyone, and the SAME AMOUNT of government that benefits the well connected. This spending, the corporate welfare system, is conveniently absent from the debate.

I can truly understand why people would choose not to pay taxes when the government itself has turned its back on the task of public investment. Seriously, why pay for something that you're never going to get? We're in this weird place, where we still pay taxes, but it goes into the pockets of the well connected, our infrastructure is crumbling and in need of improvement, and we're starting to wonder why we even need to pay taxes at all.

The corporate crony's answer is that we just need to pay less taxes and expect less from the government, but that we should still pay enough in so that the government that can line the pockets of its best donors. (That's where we're heading now!)

So, we can either say "fuck it!", demand our money back and enjoy what we have until we sink into a third world mess, or we can demand that the money that we pay into the government gets used for the benefit of the people paying and not just for the benefit of the people who can afford to give to campaigns.

So sure, money spent by the government may not be as powerful to an economy as private investment, but its just as silly to assume, as some do, that that money gets buried in a hole somewhere, lost forever. No, it usually goes into some worker's pocket, or to pay some company to perform a task. In turn that money goes back into the economy in the form of spent wages, or used by the company to pay its bills.

Comments: Post a Comment

About Me

35 yr old
Highlands Ranch
Recording Engineer
Voted for Kerry
Voted for Obama
Philosophical Type
Omicron Male
Feminist Friendly
22.3% Less Smart

Any Box


Barack Obama Logo
Get Firefox!

Dissolve into Evergreens