Saturday, August 1, 2009
Falling Down on the Job
"London Bridge is falling down,
Falling down, falling down,
London Bridge is falling down,
My fair Lady"
- English Nursery Rhyme (traditional)
“Let every man praise the bridge that carries him over.”
- English Proverb
“That is the road we all have to take - over the Bridge of Sighs into eternity.”
Soren Kierkegaard
Danish Philosopher and Theologian, first existentialist philosopher
1813-1855
On this date, two years ago, in Minneapolis the I-35 W Mississippi River Bridge (known officially as Bridge 9340) like the London Bridge in the Nursery Rhyme, came falling down during rush hour, at 6:05 PM, CDT. The nursery rhyme is believed to date back to the early years of first millennium, when the Vikings led by Olaf II - later St. Olaf - burned down London Bridge over the Thames. The Mississippi River Bridge was a few blocks away from the Metrodome where the Vikings play football, and a few blocks further from the historically significant St. Olaf's Catholic Church. The collapse of that bridge for those who live in the area is one of those "I remember where I was when I heard" moments that will never be forgotten; I can only wonder if it will produce its own nursery rhyme to sustain that memory, or perhaps a new world adaptation. Nursery rhymes are used to entertain children, but so very often they originate in horrific events, brutal invasions for London Bridge Is Falling Down; the Bubonic Plague for Ring Around the Rosey, Pocket Full of Poesies. It would be appropriate.
The bridge that fell opened to traffic forty years earlier in 1967, as part of the "Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways" project that began in 1956. It was replaced with the new I-35 W Saint Anthony Falls Bridge in September 2008; apparently it is bad luck to re-use the old name for a bridge when there are so many tragic deaths and injuries associated with it. The causes of the collapse have been attributed to a variety of problems; deficiencies in design, although it conformed to the requirements of the day when it was built; routinely heavier traffic than was ever anticipated when it was built. Because the bridge had been the very worst site for treacherous black ice, it had been retro-fitted with temperature activated nozzles for de-icing the road surface in winter, which may have contributed to corrosion that weakened the bridge as well. The bridge was not under-inspected; there were years and years and years of analysis and inspections completed. Just not any replacement, and only the more urgently necessary repairs. Still, no one ever thought that one of the single most heavily traveled bridges in the state would fail.
When it was built, it was intended to carry a load of 66,000 vehicles a day; when it fell, it was carrying closer to 150,000 vehicles a day, many of them heavy trucks and buses.The old bridge that fell was pretty much the last new span across the Mississippi river in the metropolitan area, the end of the highway expansion boom, until the new replacement bridge was built. I traveled that bridge, often. On this anniversary, as we contemplate the investment in infrastructure by the Obama administration, we are contemplating nationwide, the similar deterioration of our infrastructure. Our bridges, our highways, the building from that same era are decaying, those that are not falling down yet. Many of those who are fond of chanting that we are the greatest country in the world, we're number one, haven't paid attention to the changes in the last 50 to 60 years.
We may very well have been 'Number One' when these structures were built, but we have performed only the minimum investment in maintaining our infrastructure, and even less in expanding it to keep up with our growth. We need to address our infrastructure, not so that we can boast that we are "Number One", but so that the tragedy which resulted in the death of 13 people and injuries to over 100 others does not happen again, somewhere else in this country.
We need to address our infrastructure because of the importance that our transportation system has to our commerce as well as our national security.This is not a new problem, unique to our 20th and 21st centuries, finding the money for our public structures. In writing this article, I was reminded of a quotation from my American History classes, from Benjamin Franklin, "What vast additions to the conveniences and comforts of living might mankind have acquired, if the money spent in wars had been employed in works of public utility; what an extension of agriculture even to the tops of our mountains; what rivers rendered navigable, or joined by canals; what bridges, aqueducts, new road, and other public works, edifices, and improvement might not have been obtained by spending those millions in doing good, which in the last war have been spent in doing mischief."
I am tired of being told that our founding fathers never intended us to have big government, that our infrastructure should be otherwise provided. There is no one who qualifies more than Benjamin Franklin as one of our founding fathers. I am tired of being told that we are overspending; we have underspent rather spectacularly in critical areas, while overspending just as spectacularly in others. The crisis is as much or more in what we spent the money on, as how much; generations of government, administrations both Republican AND Democratic, conservative AND liberal, are responsible for this neglect. WE are responsible for this neglect, and for it's improvement, because it is our country, our infrastructure, our choice, and our resources that are involved.
We can address ourselves to the serious business of improving and expanding our infrastructure. Or we can begin to write new nursery rhymes for children. I know which choice seems the more adult to me. I prefer to be inspired not by nursery rhymes when it comes to our infrastructure, but by the words of 19th century English writer, John Ruskin, " Along the iron veins that traverse the frame of our country, beat and flow the fiery pulses of its exertion, hotter and faster every hour. All vitality is concentrated through those throbbing arteries into the central cities; the country is passed over like a green sea by narrow bridges, and we are thrown back in continually closer crowds on the city gates."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When we speak of deficits in government, we never account for the 'underspend' on infrastructure which has been the norm in Minnesota for 20 years. Since 1987, we have made no change to the gasoline tax, causing an ever increasing short-fall in infrastructure funding. I heard one estimate (from a former MN DOT commissioner) that on average we have underfunding transportation to the tune of $120 million per year. If those numbers are true for the past 20 years, we've underfunded our transportation system by $2 Billion dollars.
ReplyDeleteThe point is simply this, those who feel deficits are bad, how do we feel about off-book deficits? Those who insist on a free-market system for all things, how will you get the private sector to pay this $2B bill?
We have lived off the fat of our forefathers. We have burdened our children with unfunded and underfunded systems for decades simply so that we could pay less in tax burden, and most of that 'less tax burden' has been really less tax burden at the top of the income ladders. So we have essentially taken out a loan against our future and our children and our society, and written the check to those at the very top of the scale. The payback HASN'T been higher paying jobs, or better societies or better schools or better infrastructure - it has been generally poorer services in all areas and generally lower wages DESPITE increasing productivity 50% overall since 1975.
Our on-book deficits probably pale in comparison to these off-book, and it is time we 'manned up' (no offense DG) and took responsiblity for our excesses, our profligate spending on nonsense (like ballparks and wars of choice), and on our laziness - not paying for necessary upkeep of JUST the systems we had, let alone meaningful improvement.
"man up" is fine by me, Pen!
ReplyDeletePenigma have you ever stopped to consider that it is big government that has caused this issue? How much more money does the federal government eat up this year than say 50 years ago when compared to GDP? Did we fund safe tunnels for turtles that cost $3 million 50 years ago? How about studying pigs? How is it that you, me and everyother American pays into SS every year only so that the feds can decide to spend that money elsewhere. By the way did you know that SS and Medicare are currently facing $99 trillion in unfunded obligations. The issue we face today regarding deficient spending and underfunded programs and detreiating infrastructure isn't a result of not enough taxes. It's a result of Americans being asleep at the wheel of Democracy and allowing the two prime parties to spend the money how they fit on ridiculous projects that will never bear fruit for the nation but only help to line the pockets of their families and friends. We are sucking the nation dry with nonsense not because we aren't spending enough. Each year the amount we spend when compared to GDP goes up even when GDP goes down. To suggest that the problem is not enough spending is like a captain of a sinking boat suggesting his crew should bail in more water.
ReplyDeleteJas, if you read my "falling down", it was about the need to maintain and continue to develop our infrastructure. That it is a priority, directly connected to our 1. safety, 2. ability to conduct commerce and industry, and 3. security, as in local, state and national security, as identified in the Eisenhower act of 1956.
ReplyDeleteWe have not done a good job of maintaining our infrastructure, such as the bridge that 'fell down' despite usage having EXCEEDED the design specs dramatically. There are many bridges in similar shape, as well as other structures; we have neglected this area. It isn't 'fun', it isn't 'sexy'. It's well, kinda dull. But still important, VERY important. AND it is legitimately the kind of thing that we can [and SHOULD] only do -realistically - by governmental bodies, not by individuals and corporations.
I am a bit lost how you got from that to turtles, pigs, and medicare or social security.
It is nice to see you admit that you are "lost", Dog Gone.
ReplyDeleteI suggest you re-read Jas's comment.
Hint: Government has a limited amount of money; it is critical that we properly prioritize. Don't tell me the government doesn't have enough money.
I agree that we need to deal with out infrastructure. However, as Jas said, the government has wasted money for years. (Its been both parties, so its impossible to point the blame left or right). Smaller government won't necessarily solve the problem either, however.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, it is going to require each of us, as good citizens, to make our elected representatives responsible for their conduct in running OUR country. Its OUR collective responsibility, as the stakeholders in this great country, to make sure that our elected representatives use government funds wisely. This means that yes, the government will have to prioritize. I think our infrastructure should be high on that list of priorities. Right up there with overhaul of our health care system and dealing with the frightening mess that Congress has made of our social security system.
I think on this topic we can agree that its the duty of all Americans to make sure their congress person votes wisely. Also, when one's congress person says in their bid for re-election, "I brought home to (insert state here) XX million dollars for (insert pet project here), we need to wonder: did that earmark help our nation, or did it take away funding from some higher priority item, such as infrastructure improvement, health care, or other higher priority items. Then, after wondering these things, research and vote accordingly.
Dog Gone, I agree that both parties are responsible for our crumbling infrastructure.
ReplyDeletePoliticians get rewarded for funding new projects more than for maintaining existing projects. It is a sad fact that the more democratic our system is, that is, the more frequently that legislators face re-election and are open to petition by their constituents, the more likely that their priorities are to be aligned with people who make money from new projects.
In the case you mention, the I35 bridge, remember the powerful forces behind building the light rail system vs. the people who said that we should maintain our infrastructure first.
Where I live there is a state university system that is notorious for its crumbling infrastructure. They will literally construct new buildings next to older building are uninhabitable due to mold, leaks, etc.
You seem to think that the problem can be solved by greater citizen involvement and dedication.
It can't. The problem is insoluble as long as we have a democratic system. No single citizen or PIRG is as financially dependent on the government as a trade union or contractors organization.
Jas,
ReplyDeleteI think you'd be fairly surprised at our expenditures as compared to GDP 50 (or really 60) years ago - in fact, the highest spending against GDP we've ever seen (as I recall) was during WWII. That may seem like a distraction, but the point is that what you THINK was true about the 'good ole' days' often is something very different in practice and reality.
Second, let's agree on something - I won't throw out silly 'factoids' like "Did you know... George Bush was accused of using Cocaine while in the White House", and you don't throw out sillyness like we're spending 3 Million dollars on tunnesl for turtles.
It's a distraction argument, it's a shock argument, which normally (and I suspect this is not the case for you) but it is normally done to attempt to hijack an argument onto minutae.
You aren't going to get an argument from me that there is waste in government, but arguments about where we 'waste' money are so often focused on things like $500 hammers, snail-darters, and pig flatulance studies, and there is little to no focus on things like, oh, that there are 47 banking lobbyists PER CONGRESSMAN in Washington - do you wonder why? Quite simply because our government is organized for the benefit of large, corporate donors. We can't get meaningful healthcare reform, we can't correct Social Security's ills (which were brought about by raiding SSecurity for what? To paper over debts created giving business and the ultra-wealthy large tax breaks - during times of unprecedented profits and large increases in productivity - which did NOT translate into better jobs or higher wages).
So, if we want to talk about 50 years ago, if we had the same business tax rates as we had 50 years ago, there would be NO federal deficit right now. 50 years ago if someone had tried to bully the American people into a war which cost 4000 lives and 500 Billion dollars, and paid Sinclair group companies tens of Billions in private contracting fees - well, it would have resulted in ACTUAL media, not the Fox News cheerleading squad - exposing the charlitans and posers for the frauds they were (like Joe McCarthy).
50 years ago Dwight Eisenhower stood up and warned this nation of the dangers of the 'military industrial complex' and how they'd corrupt and control the government and the people through fear.
So, while I decry building tunnels for turtles, I also understand those kinds of expenditures pale to insignificance next to the subsidy and largesse given to corporations, such as through Medicare part D - such as through sham 'tax cuts' which in truth are really just deferments for everyone except those at the very top of the income scale - and which the money, hundreds of billions of dollars in the 2000's went straight from my tax bill payment to my gas bill payment, essentially creating nothing less than a direct subsidy to energy industry from the public treasury.
Paul O'Niell was the CEO of Alcoa - he was also George Bush's first Secretary of the Treasury. He resigned after about 18 months (if memory serves) because he had HUGE issues with Bush philosophically. He was a conservative Republican and highly successful business leader.
(to be continued)...
He, and Alan Greenspan both, felt Bush's tax cuts were financially unwise, gave money to people who would not invest it in new jobs, use it wisely. He said that, "Any company which based it's decisions on tax policy is not a company I'd invest in." What's more, he described the conduct of the Bush Admnistration as NOTHING LESS THAN THE LOOTING OF THE TREASURY.
ReplyDeleteSo, if you desire to focus on small-picture issues, you aren't going to find me disagreeing with you about the fact that they are wrong - but things like Social Security shortfalls (which is the key part of your 99 Trillion shortfall) coming primarily from subterfuge done by BOTH parties to cover-up deficits because they didn't have the stomach to make the country pay-as-you-go - so that they could give large tax breaks to wealthy donors (both corporate and private) while we've dismantled our business tax structures - I'm going to say you're missing the forest for the trees. 2/3rds of corporations on the US pay NO Federal business income tax. 50 years ago, that was NOT the case.
Penigma-
ReplyDeleteI think it is fair to criticize your last comment as an essay because of its length.
Essays are usually organized one of two ways: Moving from the specific to the general or from the general to the specific. In either case the theme is presented early in the essay and then refined.
Your last comment is a mess. Your theme seems to be that infrastructure is underfunded because of tax cuts at the federal level, but none of your examples support this idea. You never make the link between tax receipts from the wealthy and corporations and infrastructure spending. Instead you throw out a confused series of factoids.
A million half truths do not make a single truth. You have not come close to making the case that low taxes = crumbling infrastructure.
All you have to do is look at a graph showing GDP against government expenditure for the last century to see this. There is also the fact that roads and bridges are maintained mostly by local taxes from sales of gasoline and license fees, not federal income and corporate taxes.
The reason that essays have rules for composition is because they make mistakes like those in your essay more difficult to make.
"Any company which based it's decisions on tax policy is not a company I'd invest in."
ReplyDeleteM - O - R - O - N
Only an idiot would invest in companies that try to minimize company profitability.
Penigma, would you support a top tax of 75%? 90%? 98%?
"...had HUGE issues with Bush..."
When will the BDS end?
BTW, do businesses ever really pay the taxes?
PS, where is the outrage this year over exxon?
Bottom line: Jim Oberstar blasted Obama on the infrastructure stimuloss efforts or lack there of... it was front page headlines on the biggest paper in the middle of the Iron Range!!!
KR -
ReplyDeleteYour grasp of business economics is not impressing me.
First, O'Niell was a HIGHLY respected business leader - MUCH MUCH moreso than Bush - Greenspan sided with O'Neill, not with Bush, but you want to call him a moron.
Calling someone something doesn't make it true.
Second, KR, business do LOTS of things for profitibility which align with what I've said and which don't meet your rather simplistic reply - simplistic because you call O'Neill a moron for pointing out that tax policy shouldn't be the driving force for business decisions, and in fact ISN'T for most businesses. Instead, they look at OVERALL costs, labor, retraining, access to infrastructure, access to labor, etc.. which almost ALWAYS offset any marginal impact from tax differences. That's the reason he said what he said, he felt that people who are so myopic as to focus on tax policy, aren't people to be thought of as business savvy or bright.
So, while clearly most businesses do act to maximize profits, the fact is they do so differently (some look short term, others long term), and they look many factors, not just taxes - and most consider taxes NOT an overriding concern.
Finally, many businesses way costs against risk, or human impact, regulatory requirement, etc.. when making many decisions. They'll certainly not put themselves out of business to address human impact, but they certainly do consider such factors and MANY willingly take on cost to convey 'good corporate citizen' images. All are considered part of mitigating overall costs (or risks of higher costs) - and again, such decisions may very well outweigh simple day-to-day balance sheet numbers.
Consequently - your commentary like"Only an idiot would invest in companies that try to minimize company profitability." is hyperbole at best - When did I say that O'Neill (or when did O'Neill say) that someone should invest in companies which minimize profits?
What was said was that taxation isn't an overriding concern, and companies which over-focus on it are normally poor investments. Meaning, over-focus on taxation is the realm of the foolish.
Jim Oberstar's comments were about one facet of the stimulus - and we're not talking about the stimulus, we're talking about crumbling infrastructure. When did Jim Oberstar say we should let bridges fall down rather than tax business? (BTW, KR, this kind of infantile argument is extraordinarily unsatisfying - if it's what you like - well, ok, but I hope you'll undersstand if I don't play the game that way except to mock such comments).
KR said, "Do you really support a top tax rate of 90%? Wow!!!"
ReplyDeleteGot a quote? Put up or stop posting.
I support a high tax rate on excessive individual incomes, but that's not a topic for this thread - stay on target.
KR then said (fatuously), " "and most consider taxes NOT an overriding concern"
Obviously you don't realize how many manufacturing jobs have left MN for PR and Ireland. Unemployment in northern MN is almost 20%. Hmmmmm...."
KR - I am quite aware of our manufacturing statistics - I would be appreciative of you not insulting my knowledge of facts so cavalierly. Frankly, your comments seem to imply you think those decisions are PRIMARILY about taxes, when in fact they are primarily about labor cost. As someone who wrote extensivlly as part of my degree on outsourcing, I can say with VAST confidence that the reason is about overall labor savings of (on average) 35%.
Now, taking that back to the SUBJECT HERE - the problem is that many companies are myopic, they do NOT consider the aggregate impact if 1000 companies layoff 1000 employees. They do not concern themselves with the ethical issues of paying slave wages, they do not consider whether paying slave wages is even a good long term business approach. They often DO only worry about THIS quarter's profits, which is penny-wise and pound foolish and IS very similar to what brought about the current financial crisis. Businesses made decisions to engage in lending practices which brought about short-term profits and very high compensation for lending department executives, but which exposed the companies to VAST risk.
ReplyDeleteFrankly KR, I hope you'll allow me this one latitude, I work EVERYDAY as a middle-level executive involved in finance strategy analysis for banking and brokerages - I am VERY familiar with the thought processes these companies are going through - your approach is at best immature - and making hyperbolic exageration isn't a good form of argumentation.
Business make decisions based on short term goals TOO often - and drive themselves out of business.
Finally, where were your protestations about debt when we were (and are) spending 500 Billion (and more) per year on a defense establishment we no longer need? Where were your concerns about tax cuts that were NOT offset by spending cuts as Bush pushed the debt from 4.5 T to 9.3 T. I gather you didn't like it, but where was the rabid overexageration?
Health Care is a national crisis - not because of 10 Million or 20 Million people not having coverage (or at least not that alone), but because our health care delivery is falling, even while our costs (GDP) is rising up far more rapidly than we can accept, to a point (estimate) that will cripple us. Something MUST be done, meaningfully.
Infrastructural spending, as well, has languished during the conservative years. We have failed to fund infrastructure, but not recognized that deficit - failing to spend for it and so not increase our on-book deficit, doesn't mean the deficit doesn't exist. Your complaints don't address how to cover the infrastructural shortfall. All you do is belly-ache about deficits - and accuse good and decent people of idiotic things. DG's points are more than fair, we aren't paying for our systems - we all want soft, cushy warm-fuzzy tax rates, without and loss of services, without any loss of structure. You don't get it both ways. If you want low taxes, fine, then we'll continue to see our students slip in international rankings of knowledge/technology footprint. We'll have inadequate infrastructure to support commerce as well, and jobs will go overseas for THOSE reasons, in addition to pure greed seeking slave labor (comparative) level wages. You also won't have a police service, fire service, Army, postal service, EPA, DEA, FDA, FCC, power grids, etc..
Instead, we'll continue to see a MASSIVE shift of wealth upward. While you belly-ache about 'high' taxes (we have the lowest taxes in the industrialized world) - the fact is the OPPOSITE has happened, and our 'golden age' of productivity and standard of living isn't NOW, it WAS in the 1950's to 1970's when taxes were higher. That doesn't say increase taxes to 90%, it says taxes aren't the problem. Either we pay as we go, or we don't have services.
KR said:
ReplyDelete"Do you really support a top tax rate of 90%?
"Got a quote?"
I asked a question, why do you want a quote? Which quote, the "nail in the coffin" one?"
NO, KR - What you ACTUALLY said was:"Do you really support a top tax rate of 90%? WOW!"
You left off the "WOW" part from your quotation of yourself. You see, context and using the full quote DOES matter - I could snip 20 words from everything you've posted and have you saying you hate Americans - it's cheap and it's a lie, which is why no one should do so. You, however, in this case, misquoted even yourself. You left off a word which CLEARLY was conveying a fiction, that I was somehow in agreement - when I've never made the claim - thus, get a quote, or stop saying it.
You don't get to have it both ways KR, you don't get to get all incensed about your words being taken to a logical implication, and then when you DEMAND a quote, and phumper and whinge about being maltreated - and are then ASKED for clarification about why you asked a leading question you don't believe - you don't get to then make comments suggesting what someone believes and not get held to the same pedantic standard - especially when NOTHING I've said even remotely suggested the ludicrous extreme you attributed to me.
In short, cut it out. You can't live by your own psuedo-standards, and you seem to be unable to refrain from making assinine assertions about what people think. If you don't want them turned on you, used against you, I suggest you stop with the original approach.
You then said, "DONT TELL ME THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY."
Enough for what, what do you think it has enough for?
Clearly, since it ran deficits of $500 Billion during Bush's years, it didn't have enough to cover the budgets passed by the CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS and SIGNED by the 'Conservative' George Bush. That is rather prima facia evidence that it doesn't have enough money. Clearly the State of MN, which hasn't raised taxes since 1998, yet ran a $2.3B shortfall, doesn't have enough money to cover all of the programs outlined in the law. However, before I say anything, since you are extraordinarily likely to wilfully misunderstand and/or misquote - please, define what you aren't to be told the government doesn't have enough money FOR, please.
"...it ran deficits of $500 Billion during Bush's years, it didn't have enough to cover the budgets passed by the... REPUBLICAN CONGRESS and SIGNED by... George Bush."
ReplyDeleteSpending like drunken sailors is not conservative. The Democrats want to increase the deficit from $480 billion to almost $5 trillion!!! Wow!!! Penigma, do you really support a tax rate of 95%?
"...Clearly the State of MN, which hasn't raised taxes since 1998, yet ran a $2.3B shortfall,..."
...can't control their spending.
Again, Penigma, there is nothing conservative about spending like drunken sailors.
But, if I may correct you once again, state tax revenue did increase since '98. And didn't the state legislature recently raise taxes? Six billion? On top of six billion spending increase from the previous year? Psst, wouldn't YOU have wanted a larger increase in the gas tax?
Really soak the "rich", eh Penigma.
Has the state budget ever actually decreased?
Government spends a huge but limited amount of amount of money; it is critical that we properly prioritize spending.
Don't tell me the government doesn't have enough money.
Penigma, your liberal congress and your liberal president have given us tax increases _and_ trillon dollar deficits.
ReplyDeleteTerry,
ReplyDeleteActually, it would be YOUR Presidents and Congresses that did that.
From 1981 - 1991 the Federal debt increased from just short of 1T to almost 4T. From 2001 to 2008, it increased from 4.5T to 9T.
Finally, while KR and you (seemingly) can CLAIM it's not TRUE conservatism, it hardly matters. First, you didn't stop it, second, you voted for them, third, you prefer them, fourth, actions and practical application and IMPACT are what matter.
Conservatism is only SUPPOSEDLY about fiscal prudence, in practice it has been about corporate largesse and overspending on the military. You can CLAIM it should be something else, but you failed to implement it.
KR - I will no longer reply to questions as assinine as this. e.g. Penigma, do you really support a tax rate of 95%?
ReplyDeleteIf you choose to form your questions in a more appropriate way, you'll get replies, as you've gotten in the past, but frequently failed to provide.
By the way, OBVIOUSLY revenue increased since 1998, perhaps you've heard of inflation? Please, tell me, as compared to inflation, at what rate have revenues increased, at what rate has spending? Inflation doesn't account for ALL of the increase of course, we had debt driven spending driving up tax revenues in the early 2000's (until 2006)- and there was ACTUAL growth in wages during the late 90's - but I wasn't talking about 1998, I was talking about RIGHT NOW, you know, FY09, the year you want to focus on for Obama??? Pawlenty hasn't raised taxes, hasn't effectively increased spending during his entire tenure - YET there is a deficit, why?? The simple answer, my little fiscally challenged friend, is that during down times, revenues fall. Get it?
So once again, it's not a matter of you correcting me, I can't remember you EVER doing that except about having not noticed a point you made buried amongst a bunch of insults - it's instead another example of you bringing up a non-sequitor, an irrelevancy, to try to cover your glaring double-standards.
Penigma, I can't believe that you could vote for Obama & still criticize Bush for his deficit spending. As much as Bush loved deficit spending, he seemed to know there was limit, that you couldn't write checks on an account that had a negative balance forever. Obama & the Dems who run congress lack even this rudimentary understanding of how money works.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Penigma, I am not a Republican. I am a political conservative registered as an independent.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTerry,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Penigma, I can't believe that you could vote for Obama & still criticize Bush for his deficit spending."
And I can't believe ANYONE who voted for Bush can say what you just said with a straight face.
I ONCE was a Keyensian economics supporter, I am no longer. Obama's deficits are HIGHLY regrettable, and should be reduced through a more fair tax system - hopefully that will occur. But facts are facts, conservatism NOR Conservatism has NOT meant reduced deficits, anything but. What it has meant is tax cuts for the wealthy, without the political will to gore the ox of favored programs. You can believe in lower spending, but if you don't do it, it is like believing you won't get pregnant from sex (as a female), you are whistling past the moon. I don't accept, I will not EVER at this point accept, that conservatives are serious about deficits. You've never shown yourselves to be. You've shown yourselves to be about self-serving tax cuts, and for some, about using the public treasury for your personal gain.
" As much as Bush loved deficit spending, he seemed to know there was limit, that you couldn't write checks on an account that had a negative balance forever."
What makes you feel that? He booked the ENTIRE Iraq war off budget, he ceaselessly raided Social Security, he advocated bail-outs for banks, etc..
"By the way, Penigma, I am not a Republican. I am a political conservative registered as an independent"
And I was a registered independent for 20 years prior to 2006 - what matters is who you supported and how you voted. Terry, I recall just fine your defenses of Bush over the years of our discussions. They were mostly mired in attacks on the alternate, but you pretty clearly backed Bush's illegal conduct in the treatment of detainees at Gitmo (as I recall), and backed our action in Iraq. Since the latter drove the federal debt up more than 1/2 Trillion dollars, I simply don't find it compelling that you aren't a declared Republican. It's just all too convenient that you get to disassociate yourself from your party of choice (by vote and argumentation) when the policies themselves fail. Actions, not words Terry, that's what matters.
During the past 28 years we've cut taxes on the rich, we've exploded the debt, we've moved toward education to the lowest common denominator and tried to improve it through testing of factoids rather than improving critical thinking, the rich are FAR better off than they were, and everyone else is not - and during that time, the dominant political reality is that we've become MORE conservative since 1981, not less.
So I hold conservatives accountable for this situation, I don't much care whether they define themselves as Republicans, if they voted for the charade of economic policies enacted by Reagan, endorsed (in part by Bush '41) and then expanded into disaster by Bush '43 - they AND THOSE PRESIDENTS, are responsible. Bush 43 emulated nearly everything Reagan did, was Reagan not a conservative too?
KR said,'Ahhh, more name calling, sweet, my turn.
ReplyDeleteYou f'expletive' intellectually challenged 'expletive' nozzle, eat 'expletive' tacos this week?"
KR, you are banned for one month. Take the time, rethink your approach, but you are gone for now.
This is hardly the first site which has banned you for this kind of conduct, I suggest you take a lesson.
Penigma, Don't confuse a defense of Bush with a defense of certain Bush policies.
ReplyDeleteIn the 90's there were many, many democrats who disagreed profoundly with Clinton re welfare reform & 'don't ask, don't tell'. They still voted for him in 96 and for Gore in 2000. They weren't hypocrites for doing so, neither am I a hypocrite for voting for Bush when I disagreed with his policies on virtually everything other then, broadly speaking, the GWOT & a few social issues.
And Penigma, you seem to be confusing me personally with a conservative who actually has a say on deficit spending. I don't.
ReplyDeleteLook at this picture and tell me which administration is more fiscally conservative:
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/files/2009/04/obamadebt.jpg
Note that the Democrat congress was sworn in in January 2007.
This is exactly why I say that you are making a laughing stock out of yourself by criticizing Bush for his deficit spending but giving Obama, Pelosi , and Reid a pass.
Terry,
ReplyDeleteWith respect, I'm not.
I am pointing out that many supposed conservatives NOW claim a profound distance from Bush, but defended him staunchly during his Presidency AND fail to account for the fact that Bush and Reagan were virtually indistinguishable in their policies, yet one is a hero, the other a goat. The hero/goat status seems to come more from political success, than actual policy distinction.
That said, I will grant you that you didn't agree with Bush - based on your assertion to the same - on many issues. Yet, it makes little difference, he was re-elected in a very close election - if a few more of his detractors had decided to vote for someone else, we wouldn't have had Iraq, a profoundly dishonest war - nor had the excesses of power and abuses of liberty he engaged in needlessly.
Finally, I rather categorically deny you CAN have a Greater War on Terror. Terror is a word, it is a tactic, you cannot stamp it out any more than you can stamp out conservatism or liberalism or fascism or progressivism or guerilla warfare. What Bush engaged in was subterfuge and especially in Iraq, a highly misguided war, lead abysmally, fought with the wrong tactics from the outset, with too few troops. While I respect YOU for firmly standing up for what you felt was right, I do NOT respect the conduct of that war, nor do I think it was helpful in combating Islamic extremism, not in the least.
However, we're far afield from infrastructural funding. We've let it crumble. Conservatives who've applauded Tim Pawlenty's subsistence level budget's are responsible MORESO than liberals, for allowing it to crumble, for failing to keep up infrastructure they were handed in MUCH better shape by their forefathers. That's not a Republican/Democratic Party issue, it's an issue of thinking you get to life 'for free' off the contributions of others without consequence.
Terry,
ReplyDeleteFirst, careful with the 'making a laughingstock' kinds of comments, you're better than that I think.
Second, you've side-stepped my point. I wasn't defending Obama, nor will I defend Democrats for overspending in 2007, yet, answer me this, had they passed a budget which cut spending on Iraq, would you have applauded? How about if they'd cut funding to KBR? You see, they've got different spending priorities than you, you want to spend it on Iraq and 'GWOT' they wanted to spend it on SCHIP - I don't make a claim to being any more of a deficit hawk than you, but please don't try to claim I'm less of a one.
My point was simply this, Bush and Reagan created 80% of our national debt WHILE claiming to be deficit hawks and conservatives. There is nothing to be believed there - history seems to show (through actions not words) conservatives don't spend less, they just tax less and pass the debt on to other people. I think I was clear.
Just so everyone is clear - being called 'fiscally challenged' is something earned.
ReplyDeleteWhen someone attempts to assert that on 8/6/09 we are 6 months into a year, further, when they don't understand that a fiscal year for the government starts on 10/1, and therefore, 8/6 represents MORE than 10 months of a FY, and so exagerate projected deficits, I feel they've earned the chiding of being referred to as 'fiscally challenged.' If their reply is to engage in an expletive laced tirade, all they've done is proven just how extreme their brand of politics is, equating being mildly admonished with conduct which would get ANYONE fired, removed, or bounced out of any social situation where even the barest amount of decorum is expected.
KR - I grasp you don't get that, and if you want to send me an e-mail address to reply to you to - I'll respond to the comments you're attempting to post - but you aren't going to post here until 9/6.
Gentlemen. Please.
ReplyDelete"Penigma said...
KR said,'Ahhh, more name calling, sweet, my turn.
You f'expletive' intellectually challenged 'expletive' nozzle, eat 'expletive' tacos this week?"
KR, you are banned for one month. Take the time, rethink your approach, but you are gone for now.
This is hardly the first site which has banned you for this kind of conduct, I suggest you take a lesson.
August 6, 2009 3:47 PM "
I have been less available than usual, in part because of assuming additional editorial duties over on Politicus (Hah, lucky me, there I have editorial responsibilities to monitoring comments; more expletives and 'colorful' language is permitted, but the much higher reader volume also means dealing with issues like occasional outright threats, oh joy.) The other reason I have been less involved for a few days is that I injured myself on Tuesday, wrenching my knee painfully, and suffering a very nasty muscle tear to my left gastrocnemius muscle - a badly torn calf muscle. I was stubborn, I decided I could move a too-large fallen tree trunk by myself that was a potential fire hazard. The long hike back to indoors was an object lesson in pain management and the follies of hubris and stubborness.
It hurts. A lot. It interferes with spending much time at the computer at the moment, and my own mind over pain management does not lend itself well to shifting focus from that, to diplomacy between others. However, I can only hope that if I had been more involved, somehow comments would not have escalated to this point.
KR, I am delighted to learn about yoru expertise relating to pace makers, and thank you for correcting me.
KR, Terry, all - I have not personally done much investigation into the numbers under discussion. (see above) however, pending that I do preliminarily find the larger numbers persuasive. Whatever numbers one presents, the coverage offered by private insurance has decreased quantities of coverage, while increasing cost. Fewer people have it than used to be covered, with more people continuing to be excluded for reasons of 'pre-existing conditins'. More people are losing what little coverage they might have, all the time.
We did not arrive at our current version of health care by thoughtful planning, it happened chaotically. It can be improved upon. NO, I don't favor euthanasia, nor do I believe anyone else does either. There are attempts to improve determining good from worthless tests, and treatments, included. NO, I don't believe treatment should ever be decided by anything other than medical criteria. NOT something as vague as 'spiritual reasons' certainly.
Yes, I do believe that ultimately we have failed to insist on the maintenance of our own infrastructure and that should change. It HAS to change.
KR, I hate the animosity between you and Pen, occasionally between you and ToE as much as I delight in your ideas and contribution. I agree however with Pen that this antogonism of tone cannot be sustained, and that there are some comments which it is not acceptable to post. Neither do I ever wish to see you feel that you have been treated badly here.
If you feel KR that you either have a solution to propose to remedy this tension while encouraging differences of opinion, there is a contact option to this site. Pen, please include me in any email exchanges.
It works; it is how I contacted Pen in the first place.
I would like to see a discontinuation of all of the name calling and an increase in showing respect. Any ideas?
DG, I made the same offer to him.
ReplyDeleteWhile I clearly believe his conduct is FAR beyond anything that has been said to him, and he needs to know it, AND I believe he has been just as insulting toward ToE, and at times toward you, AND I believe ToE has been respectful in his treatment of KR - if KR can submit himself to better conduct, can live up to his suggestions, so much the better. I welcome constructive comments, always have, always will.
However, prior to 9/6, the only way KR's comments will appear here is by prior promise on his part to change. After 9/6, it will only be IF he changes. Agreed?
A little bird passed this along..(KR)
ReplyDeletehttp://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/files/2009/04/obamadebt.jpg
I could of course complain about right-wing blogs being nonsense.. nah, that's nonsense.
1.75T or 1.8T for 09 (dending upon WH or CBO estimates) ... Yes, that's been the number for a while now - I don't recall ever saying it wouldn't be $1.7T (ish), as that's been the project for quite a while. If someone can remind me that I said otherwise, I'll happily apologize.
Interestingly, we had a surplus of $236M in 1998 - so Bush increased Clinton's 'deficits' by infinity-fold. I mean, if we want to use silly argumentation.
We did not arrive at our current version of health care by thoughtful planning, it happened chaotically. It can be improved upon.
ReplyDeleteAnd sow are sown the seeds of tyranny.
A question: An individual assigns his or her own life and health a near infinite value.
Another party -- the state or an insurance company, it doesn't matter -- assigns this same individual's life and health a value based on purely monetary or public policy considerations.
Which of the two is determining the value by reason rather than the untamed chaos of self-interest? Is their a third option?
Terry,
ReplyDeleteAn excellent question - I don't believe anyone has an answer.
Let me ask the question in a counter-point way. Assume a man is 105 and he wants a new hip, he can't currently walk, and won't be able to with the hip, and there is serious risk he'll die during the operation - BUT - he wants it.
Who pays? Why?
I also tend to disagree that the average person places an infinite value on their life. That value decreases (in my experience) for most people as they age. While no one desires to die, conversely there is a point at which the quality of life is so degraded, they find that further extraordinary measures are NOT desirable, and they prefer that the money go to their children, or grandchildren or charity, etc..
The practical application today is that those who have money can spend what they like, while those who can't, die.
Is that fair either?
What amount will we spend in these situations, is it unlimited? Is there a restraint on the expenses a governmental program must absorb? Clearly there is a limit on what an insurance plan will pay? Are we going to change that limit to be nearly unlimited - won't that cause them to go out of business?
Regardless, you've asked an excellent question - made an excellent point that we have a difficult decision/issue to solve.
One final comment on the suggested $2.5T per year annual cost of a nationalized health care system. Saying it will increase the federal deficit by that much suggests that we won't shift premiums from insurance companies to the government.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, no one plans to attempt to fund the program without such shifts of funding.
Thus, with the removal of the stimulus money, it would look like the federal deficit will be around 1.0B. This is what the projections show. That's a HUGE number, far too high, and must be reduced.
Well as a person with about 25 years in all things infrastructure regarding transportation (30+ years considering I grew up in it) I might have a bit more insight than most when it comes to this topic. First let's be clear, the Fed does not and never has funded a majority of the spending on transportation infrastructure. If necessary I can provide facts. Second, recent developments have taken many of the responsibilities for design, install, and maintaining our land transportation infrastructure from the Fed and passed it to the the various state agencies. Some 30 years ago the Fed "stole" the states rights and the result has been stagnant infrastructure growth and safety standards. Our current safety code (NCHRP-350) doesn't require guardrailings on bridges that would stop tractor trailors from rolling over them. In fact nearly all our nations bridges have Test Level 4 guardrails installed on them which all but guarentees a tractor trailer will blow right through them. This is EXACTLY because no Federally approved and funded test lab can certify a tractor trailor test. Meanwhile, our European friend can do test, pass and install tractor trailor barriers. Of the handful of tractor trailor (Test Level 5) barriers in the USA 3 are light enough for a typical bridge because they are made of steel. 2 of the three are European design (both of those 2 were brought to the US by myself). Since the Fed has been running things have been getting progressively worse. I forecast that now that the safety standards will be pushed back on the various states the local pressure to upgrade will become unbearable. I forecast that like during the Eisenhower projects when states called the shots the future will bring a slew of new bridges and shoring up of our infrastructure. That covers one point....on to the others....
ReplyDeletePenigma you're actually mistaken TODAY with the deficiet spending that's been going on (starting with Bush) we are out spending the WWII spending. I'm sure we could argue that endlessly. However, are you seriously comparing the amount of spending during WWII (which was litterally a life or death struggle) when our nation was facing the largest war ever (and still today hasn't been match thank god) to the spending of today? I realize we are in a period of war but it's not comparable to WWII. Yet we rival the spending of that period (notice I left room for debate there). Sorry if I giggle at you comparing a factiod about Bush and cocain to turtle tunnels. First the turtle tunnels are real and one can actually go out and see them while Bush and cocain are impossible to prove. In addition, and ToE will tell you, Bush is no friend of mine. The WHOLE reason I mention the tunnels is to point out that 1) our government is spending money frivolously and 2) our "infrastructure" has great non-safety requirements tied to it than it once did not. I once had a project halted TWICE for 1) a mating pair of falcons and 2) a blooming wild flower. I don't care if the state wants to halt a project or not it's only going to cost the state more money. I couldn't careless if they want a turtle tunnel installed....again the project cost only goes up so more profit for me. I completely agree with you about corporate greed and powerful lobbies but please don't neglect the green lobbies or the labor lobbies. Would you really like to see men and women laboring to build and install a new Tappan Zee bridge over the Hudson River under 1950's environmental and safety standards? How do you think infrastructure projects like that went up so cheaply? I do mean cheap. Cause even when you make considerations for inflation the current bridge replacment projects are insanely priced. The current Tappan Zee project is forecasted to cost $16 Billion and won't begin construction until 2017. We all know that number will probably double or triple before it's completed. The original bridge opened in December 1955 and cost about $80 Million. More to come....
ReplyDeletePenigma sorry to say but you shift your discuss to make a point that this is some how the fault of Republicans. I blame them too but it's not just them it's the whole damn system. You and me included. Well maybe not me....hehe and I'll let you speak for yourself ;-)....but I mean people in general. I completely agree with you ToE and thank you for understanding what I was trying to point out. This goes beyond politics. This goes WAY past Obama or Bush. They are symptoms of the problem we have not a cause of the problems. It's politicians making silly laws like "Buy American" which forces..let me say it again FORCES me a contractor to buy MORE expensive American made steel to use in projects that are federally funded. Most states adopted the same language to avoid any mishandling of federal monies. The law is so draconia that states fear to make errors. Let me give you an example of the stupid stupid stupid law. When I say American steel I mean AMERICAN. That means the Iron and Coal must have originated in the USA to make the steel. Further, the steel foundry must be located in the USA. Lets say we're dealing with guardrailing. The guardrail must have been fabricated in the USA. If the guardrail is transported from Michigan to NY and goes via Canada the steel is no longer considered AMERICAN. BIZZARO! right? All of this addes to the cost of our infrastructure and this is just 1 of many STUPID STUPID STUPID laws that are a direct result in our extremely high costs which make many infrastructure projects prohibitive. Let me give you an real life example. I sell a European designed guardrail both in Europe and the USA. When the product is fabricated in Europe (they don't have BUY EUROPE laws) it costs about $50-$60 per foot. When the product is fabricated in the USA it costs about $200-$250 per foot. That's all before we get into installation costs which buy the way are A LOT more expensive in the USA. More to come....
ReplyDeleteWhat I've been building to is to state EXACTLY what I said earlier. No excuse making about if only our business tax rate were higher or back to what it use to be (which I'll leave alone and makes NO SENSE). Our GOVERNMENT has failed to be a faithful representative (SHOCK!) and our PEOPLE have failed to be faithful shepherds. In a Repulic when a central government leads the people the people have failed to live up to their responsibilities and have only themselves to blame for the results. If you want the infrastructure to be looked at and the general sentiment amoung the folks is....who cares I'm too busy watching American Idol....the result is destine to be collasping bridges, turtle tunnels, and our money spent in ways we never expected.
ReplyDeleteOne last comment the author is misrepresenting Franklin by tying his quote to an article related to big government. Franklin was no friend to a large, strong centralized government. In addition, large government EATS more tax dollars. So a smaller government would allow more tax dollars to be spent on infrastructure.
ReplyDeletejas wrote:"One last comment the author is misrepresenting Franklin by tying his quote to an article related to big government. Franklin was no friend to a large, strong centralized government. In addition, large government EATS more tax dollars. So a smaller government would allow more tax dollars to be spent on infrastructure."
ReplyDeleteI was that author you challenge here Jas. I do not for a moment suggest that ONLY big government should deal with infrastructure. However certain projects, such as those which span multiple states, are appropriate to the feds. I think Franklin appreciated that.
Jas,
ReplyDeleteBusinesses merge for one key reason - economies of scale. Of course, they want market share, but they assume (usually, but not always rightly) that they can more effectively deliver products and services by cutting out duplicate departments (such as Human Resources) and jobs.
Social Security is an annuity which operates extraordinarily efficiently, at roughly 1/8th the cost of the average financial services/advisory or insurance firm - on a dollar for dollar basis.
In truth, well-organized and planned construction projects are FAR preferable to locally planned and delivered ones. What would happen if we built 6 lane highways (as a state) which lead to a two-lane bridge, and then back out onto a 6 lane highway? Is that efficient?
The truth is, a larger governmental delivery system in fact uses LESS money as a percentage of expenses than does a smaller government - when delivering the same set of services. The meme' that 'big government' equals waste is belied by the Postal Service, Medicare, the Coast Guard, the military services (in general, not in procuremen), the DEA and a host of other highly centralized and therefore much smaller leadership workforce (as a total population of workers) than would 10,000 satallite offices would to do similar work. While it might be better for the economy to have more local jobs for these services, and it might in fact make them MORE responsive and less beaurocratic, it would NOT, it's not even remotely possible that it would, lead to lower expenditures or lower taxes.
In response to both Dog Gone and Penigma I'm lumping you both together to save on the postings and length of the post. I mean no disrespect but you're both clearly uniformed about road planning and projects. The federal government DOES NOT get involved in planning a single highway project I've ever heard of. Counting my early days I've got about 23 years in this field of work on multiple continents. If you could supply evidence of such a federally organized project I'd love to see it. The Fed has been dictating standards, which is where this discussion began, not organizing projects. To my knowledge there is only ONE single organization where the FWHA is allowed to legally interact with the public and that's Task Force 13 which meets twice a year. The feds have proven themselves to be woefully inadequate when it comes to creating effective safety standards. I'd be happy to site them if you like but it's a LONG list. AASHTO on the other hand is a STATE (not FEDERAL) organization. AASHTO stands for American Association of STATE Highway Transportation Officials. Please note the word STATE. This was the organization that put into effect an ORGANIZED plan to make sure that a 6 lane highway didn't dump into a 2 lane bridge. The Feds have never and never will be organizing our roads and highways. AASHTO's standards not FHWA's standards are lauded all over the world and in so far as my experience has to draw on I have YET to met with a government official or a government standard that doesn't use AASHTO or know it. FHWA's NCHRP-350 is not so well regarded. AASHTO until recently has had it's hands tied by the FHWA's grap at power. The organization that organized, planned and built our interstates was stymied by the Feds for the last several decades. Recently, however, the states have won back some of their rights from the feds. I forecast that the suffering infrastructure begin to benefit from this. As an example states may begin looking at foreign sources of steel for some of their projects to save money and help bring total project costs down.
ReplyDeleteAs far as federal government plans or organizations being efficient I'm not suggesting that the structure is flawed. I'm suggesting that the people that run the structure are flawed. The reason why private industry mergers many times work (though please note they fail as many times as work)is specifically because 1) the shareholders insist on efficiency to ensure profit and 2) when failure results from incompetence the dead weight is cut loose quickly and easily in the private sector. Neither of these are true of any government agency. The is no direct underlying effective (note I said effective) force pushing for efficiency nor is it simple to remove a screwup from a elected position (please note G.W. Bush) nor a screwup in a union protected position. Most importantly, the average person in America today doesn't care to pay attention to what the government is doing. So when we learn that Social Security has 99 Trillion dollars in unfunded obligations one has to wonder where the hell the money has gone to. People have been paying into it and elected officials used it elsewhere. So while the idea and structure of SS is sound the application of it is not. This is specifically because of the morons that have been running it.