Wednesday, August 27, 2003
Oh my. End of August and I already received my first Christmas catalogue in the mail. Last week in fact. A hundred or so pages of 'things' destined for a landfill in less than five years.
Read Orion Magazine for SHEER, GORGEOUS THEATER for your mind. A subscription to this magazine isn't cheap but is a lot less expensive than a Broadway theater ticket. Loved one of the September/October articles about CONTRAILS. You have to admire a writer who can hold you captive for six pages talking about nothing other than that cumulus white graffiti that jets scratch across clear blue skies every day. How about the fact that the Pentagon has spent millions of dollars trying to make contrails invisible? Makes perfect sense. You don't want your virtually undetectable $2 billion stealth bomber followed by a white pointer behind it advertising "Here I am! Over here!" One thought leads to another of course and so we can't help but wonder what kind of top-secret chemicals the military is using to achieve this magic feat. Don't worry, we learn that there are already plenty of people who think about stuff like this. There's much more Matt Rasmussen tells us about contrails and thanks to him I'll never look at one the same way again. What Broadway show can boast having that kind of impact?
Never let it be said that I don't give my conservative friends equal billing if and rarely when they have something prudent to say:
In a recent email exchange, I posed this question to one of my wayward conservative buddies (one of many making it extremely difficult for me to fulfill my above-mentioned blog job description)...
My Bloviated Question: It seems to me that the difference between taxing people NOW versus running a deficit that future generations have to pay for LATER is that at least in the first instance, people are making somewhat informed choices based on their needs at that moment in time (education, infrastructure, whatever). This seems much more fiscally responsible than charging up the federal credit card and dumping the bill on future generations (our children and grandchildren) who themselves will have their own social agendas, toxic clean-ups, wars, and what have you that they would like to pay for but can't because they are going to be stuck with a $5.8 trillion dollar debt George Idiot Bush will be handing to them (Leap in Deficit Instead of Fall). And we baby boomers won't be helping the matter -- along with our water bottles and Starbuck's lattes, we'll be busy sucking on the social security and Medicare system. Even if deficit projections are grossly exaggerated, don't you see something fundamentally wrong with strapping (taxing) future generations with a bill you didn't want to pay yourself under the pretense you 'don't believe in taxes'? Isn't running a deficit just a tax by another name? Am I missing something?
Response: In the perfect world I would agree with you that we should not have deficits. We should not spend more that we make (other than as a possible stimulus to a sluggish economy, maybe). In this perfect world spending would be reduced to match revenue reductions. Money would be set aside in good times to help cover the shortfalls in bad times. This unfortunately is not how it works. Politicians are not rewarded for acting prudently. They are rewarded for increasing spending in their districts. There is no "big-picture" plan on how to most effectively and efficiently spend tax revenues. As a result when times get tough no one wants to cut spending in their area and the deficit grows. Rather than taking the Democrats approach - tax the hell out of anyone who makes more than $60K per year and reallocate it to the poor - I would rather the deficit builds up until enough pressure is brought to bear to decrease spending. It's easy to raise taxes but this is counter productive to the financial health of the economy and masks underlying inefficiencies.
I agree that it is a travesty to build up the deficit for future generations but I also think that it is a greater travesty to not address the underlying problems of inefficiency and waste within our system by raising taxes without cutting expenses at the same time. There are very smart people who argue both sides of this issue. Ultimately it comes down to fundamental beliefs about the government's role. How active a role should it play? Do you trust the government to make the best decisions possible and work effectively and efficiently? Do you believe the role of the government should be expanded or reduced? We can argue about these questions until we are blue in the face and we are not going to change each other's minds. But the good news is that I will still respect you in the morning even though you are a bleeding heart democrat. I don't make it personal. Can you say the same thing about your feelings toward Republicans?
Reply to Response: Of course I will still respect you in the morning. In spite of your being a calloused hard-boiled Republican with skewed values. Promise you'll never buy an S.U.V. and quit throwing darts at that Hillary-and-Bill dartboard of yours on the wall of your office and I'll respect you even more...
Read Orion Magazine for SHEER, GORGEOUS THEATER for your mind. A subscription to this magazine isn't cheap but is a lot less expensive than a Broadway theater ticket. Loved one of the September/October articles about CONTRAILS. You have to admire a writer who can hold you captive for six pages talking about nothing other than that cumulus white graffiti that jets scratch across clear blue skies every day. How about the fact that the Pentagon has spent millions of dollars trying to make contrails invisible? Makes perfect sense. You don't want your virtually undetectable $2 billion stealth bomber followed by a white pointer behind it advertising "Here I am! Over here!" One thought leads to another of course and so we can't help but wonder what kind of top-secret chemicals the military is using to achieve this magic feat. Don't worry, we learn that there are already plenty of people who think about stuff like this. There's much more Matt Rasmussen tells us about contrails and thanks to him I'll never look at one the same way again. What Broadway show can boast having that kind of impact?
Never let it be said that I don't give my conservative friends equal billing if and rarely when they have something prudent to say:
In a recent email exchange, I posed this question to one of my wayward conservative buddies (one of many making it extremely difficult for me to fulfill my above-mentioned blog job description)...
My Bloviated Question: It seems to me that the difference between taxing people NOW versus running a deficit that future generations have to pay for LATER is that at least in the first instance, people are making somewhat informed choices based on their needs at that moment in time (education, infrastructure, whatever). This seems much more fiscally responsible than charging up the federal credit card and dumping the bill on future generations (our children and grandchildren) who themselves will have their own social agendas, toxic clean-ups, wars, and what have you that they would like to pay for but can't because they are going to be stuck with a $5.8 trillion dollar debt George Idiot Bush will be handing to them (Leap in Deficit Instead of Fall). And we baby boomers won't be helping the matter -- along with our water bottles and Starbuck's lattes, we'll be busy sucking on the social security and Medicare system. Even if deficit projections are grossly exaggerated, don't you see something fundamentally wrong with strapping (taxing) future generations with a bill you didn't want to pay yourself under the pretense you 'don't believe in taxes'? Isn't running a deficit just a tax by another name? Am I missing something?
Response: In the perfect world I would agree with you that we should not have deficits. We should not spend more that we make (other than as a possible stimulus to a sluggish economy, maybe). In this perfect world spending would be reduced to match revenue reductions. Money would be set aside in good times to help cover the shortfalls in bad times. This unfortunately is not how it works. Politicians are not rewarded for acting prudently. They are rewarded for increasing spending in their districts. There is no "big-picture" plan on how to most effectively and efficiently spend tax revenues. As a result when times get tough no one wants to cut spending in their area and the deficit grows. Rather than taking the Democrats approach - tax the hell out of anyone who makes more than $60K per year and reallocate it to the poor - I would rather the deficit builds up until enough pressure is brought to bear to decrease spending. It's easy to raise taxes but this is counter productive to the financial health of the economy and masks underlying inefficiencies.
I agree that it is a travesty to build up the deficit for future generations but I also think that it is a greater travesty to not address the underlying problems of inefficiency and waste within our system by raising taxes without cutting expenses at the same time. There are very smart people who argue both sides of this issue. Ultimately it comes down to fundamental beliefs about the government's role. How active a role should it play? Do you trust the government to make the best decisions possible and work effectively and efficiently? Do you believe the role of the government should be expanded or reduced? We can argue about these questions until we are blue in the face and we are not going to change each other's minds. But the good news is that I will still respect you in the morning even though you are a bleeding heart democrat. I don't make it personal. Can you say the same thing about your feelings toward Republicans?
Reply to Response: Of course I will still respect you in the morning. In spite of your being a calloused hard-boiled Republican with skewed values. Promise you'll never buy an S.U.V. and quit throwing darts at that Hillary-and-Bill dartboard of yours on the wall of your office and I'll respect you even more...
Comments:
Post a Comment
