Centerfield

fine but instead of cutting programs directly affecting the poor and the services they need, and I do emphasize 'need', why not instead revisit the entire highway bill as the first step? The one that Bush had no guts whatsoever to veto.

I reflect on what Cynthia Tucker said a while back, the reason why we're talking about cutting programs to the poor after being supposedly 'outraged' as a society about the poverty in New Orleans is that they are no longer the flavor of the onth.

I say let's get rid of flavor of the month and tackle the basic problems, like pork spending that local communities should shoulder i.e., a multimillion dollar bridge to nowhere in alaska.

And why aren't the proposed tax cuts on the table?
Why aren't estate taxes on the same table as cutting programs for the poor?

'Across the board cuts' is too simple and ignores the complexity of the budget. Oh it sounds great as a 'sound bite' but in real practicality and how it affects people's lives, not too mention just balls ass laziness and corruption on the part of the legislators, it's a total crock as bankrupt as Enron.

Posted by: Marcus at October 20, 2005 01:23 PM

Great comment Marcus, I agree completely. Why is "spending restraint" the be all and end all of policy at the expense of people's lives? Bush and the GOP have essentially rigged the system against the poor by spending like "drunken sailors" on all kinds of bullshit for their friends(including tax cuts) and, then when the bills come due want to have everyone share the pain, especially the poor.

There is obviously a lot of wasteful spending that can be cut. But why start with things that hurt the poor--why can't we start with a bloated military budget? Are you saying that a country that spends more than the next-what 4 or 5 countries combined-can't cut anything from the Defense budget.

I'm not a knee-jerk liberal by any means. But this call for "spending restraint" seems to me to be more of a way for the GOP to stop funding programs they don't like--primarily those that serve people that don't vote Republican. Now you have the Bushies allowing Florida to massively cut Medicaid--and it describes this as a model for other states. And we're supposed to believe that this is fair?

I'm sorry--I think it's time for Democrats to stand up for the idea that you don't balance the budget on the backs of poor people. If Bush wants to fight this war, why doesn't he make his rich friends pay for it, instead of screwing the poor to finance the tax cuts?

Posted by: Marc at October 20, 2005 01:36 PM

"And why aren't the proposed tax cuts on the table?
Why aren't estate taxes on the same table as cutting programs for the poor?"

Because it would slow down and stall the economy... something that you don't want to do right now. We have local economies taking big hits, we don't need to make it national too.

People having more money in their pocket (lower taxes) is better for the economy because they don't bury it in the back yard or in the mattress, it gets spent (enabling businesses to thrive), put into a savings account (where banks then loan money to people and businesses to spend and spur the economy) or invested (a direct boost to businesses to expand and grow).....

Posted by: deb at October 20, 2005 01:40 PM

Spending restraint sounds good to me, except not today. I'm on vacation, and the wife and I are in Provincetown, way down the tip of cape cod.Just wanted to drop in and say hey from the free wireless spot at the wired puppy where we're getting coffee. Take it easy, folks.

Posted by: bk at October 20, 2005 01:42 PM

Did y'all fail to actually read the article? Please name one "programs to the poor" that would actually have a budget reduction from current spending under the sequester. Even on an inflation-adjusted basis. One?

I ask this because the oldest game in Washington is calling any reduction from requested future increases a "cut," when the reduction doesn't even bring the spending increases for said program down to the rate of inflation.

Example: As the article notes, inflation has been 12.5% for the 2001-2005 period, yet "income security" program spending is up almost 40%, and education spending up nearly 100%.

If Bush wants to fight this war, why doesn't he make his rich friends pay for it, instead of screwing the poor to finance the tax cuts?

What percentage of all income taxes are paid by the top 1% of income earners? The top 5%? The top 50%

Posted by: Tully at October 20, 2005 01:42 PM

"Now you have the Bushies allowing Florida to massively cut Medicaid--and it describes this as a model for other states."

Does the Federal Government have the authority to interfere here???

I didn't think that it did, I've always thought that it is something that each state takes care of.

"I'm sorry--I think it's time for Democrats to stand up for the idea that you don't balance the budget on the backs of poor people."

This is just hyperbolic bullshit... the bottom 50% wage earners pay less than 4% of income taxes...

The rich are paying for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: deb at October 20, 2005 01:45 PM

Please, tell me in concrete terms, how maintianing or increasing the estate tax will slow the economy? We have inflation and solid growth, despite the disasters. Why do we need more tax cuts for people who will end up investing overseas anyway?

Secondly deb, it's quite nice of you to talk about income taxes but what about ALL types of taxes.

methinks you're too selective of your measures.
State taxes and fees that are accrued by the bottom 50% to pay for unfunded/underfunded fed mandates, as well as the social security and medicare taxes that are going to basically pay for part of the budget shortfall (the chinese and euros own the rest).

you're 4% may be technically accurate but it is solid bullshit when you talk about the true financial burden.

Posted by: Marcus at October 20, 2005 02:17 PM

Well Tully, let's say X budget for y program for the poor increases to take care of just inflation.
Well that's all well and fine when there are no new poor. Unfortunately one of the minuses of the Bush administration is the increase of those living below the poverty level and an increase in those without health insurance. So in truth those programs for the poor are facing cut when you talk about the number of people served.

Posted by: Marcus at October 20, 2005 02:20 PM

Is this what you mean?

In 2003, the top 1% of earners paid 34.27% of all federal individual income taxes.

The top 5% paid 54.36%.

The top 10% paid 65.84%.

The top 50% paid 96.54%

The bottom 50% paid 3.46%."

This is incomplete and misleading data. Missing are other facts like comparing it to the percentage of income that is earned by each group, and also, I believe these figures strip away everything except the federal income tax, which is the most progressive; when you add in payroll taxes, state and local taxes, the burden shifts dramatically to the less well off. Also looking strictly at annual income is skewed; try looking at the percentage of total wealth owned by each percentile. Suddenly you'll find the income tax percentages paid are just about correct!

Posting these particular figures in a vacuum is dishonest.

Posted by: Blue Jean at October 20, 2005 02:23 PM

What about direct subsidies to businesses? $36 billion in the last energy bill on one proposal. Is there no amount of money that the government can take from our pockets to give to private business that will get this crowd to raise an eyelash?

I understand that $80 billion or so isn’t going to solve the problem but for crying out loud, some one suggests raising the minimum wage by a few pennies and the libertarian \ right of center crowd gets apoplectic, yet time after time groups both public pint out that fact that each year the government simply gives money to private businesses and it doesn’t even get a yawn much less a lecture on the market distorting effects of “welfare”.

But I digress... :)

Posted by: Rick DeMent at October 20, 2005 02:32 PM

Why do we need more tax cuts for people who will end up investing overseas anyway?

Or simply lending it back to the government to fund the deficit.

Posted by: Rick DeMent at October 20, 2005 02:35 PM

Deb,
How does the Estate Tax harm the economy? If Estates over $10 million are taxed, all it does is require that everybody who wants to be rich has to work at it themselves. (Not to say that a head start won't help. But the head start won't be enough to allow someone a life-long life of luxury.)

And using the Estate Tax, rather than higher income taxes would seem to actually help the economy, by reducing the disincentives for doing something that is actually economically useful.

Posted by: wj at October 20, 2005 02:36 PM

This is incomplete and misleading data...Posting these particular figures in a vacuum is dishonest.

No, it's not--but I note that you're the one who posted 'em. :-) They're directly on point when talking about the income tax cuts that were referenced, the specific item I was replying to. And when complaining about payroll taxes on the poor, let's not forget that annual refund of payroll taxes paid called the Earned Income Credit, that only the lower income can collect. Isn't leaving out that little detail "dishonest," Jean? Why aren't government benefits and direct payouts rec'd present in your holistic assessment? Feel free to assess same against the rich as well. I'm no fan of corporate welfare either. But please, let's not blame the feds for state and local taxes. Just as I don't blame the governor for my federal taxes.

wj, The estate tax costs the economy more in compliance and avoidance than it generates in government revenue. That's before the macroeconomic effects are factored in--and the macro effects of taxation are almost exclusively negative for an economy. And I'm a supporter of a graduated inheritance tax kicking in around $10 mil or so, with NO exemptions--for strictly social engineering reasons. I note that the folks who pay MOST estate taxes and who pay them at the highest rates aren't the super-rich. They're the folks in the $2 to $10 million estate range. Raise the ceiling to $10 mil and you've lost 80% of the estate tax revenue. And it wasn't all that much to begin with--less than the initial aid appropriation for Katrina relief.

All of which is besides the point, which is that some congresscritters are finally noticing that they're spending too much and starting to do something about it. The response of Democrats, as exemplified above, is predictably reflexive. We're not spending too much, we're taxing too little! We need to spend more! The same rhetorical BS that we've heard for years--the only "solution" offered is greater income redistribution and higher taxes. Eat the rich!

I confidently predict that we will hear all about the inexcusably profligate spending of the GOP-dominated Congress next year in the campaigns. And we should. From reviewing the relevant figures, social and educational program spending increased faster than any other area of discretionary spending. The only joker is defense, and we have been at war. Not that the Defense Dept. should be immune--it's rife with waste and mismanagement.

The problem the Dems have is that they can't make a coherent and believable argument that they'd be more fiscally responsible than the GOP. They don't want to cut that social and educational spending either. They want to increase it even faster.

I'll repeat my request. Please, anyone, name one "program to the poor" that would actually have a budget reduction from current spending under the proposed sequester. Even on an inflation-adjusted basis. One? Marcus, if you want to justify your "per capita" argument you're going to have to provide data instead of more tired rhetoric. And comprehensive data, at that. Like including the value of government benefits received.

Anyone want to guess what was the only portion of the federal budget that has declined in both real and nominal dollars in the last five years? Go on, take a guess.....

Posted by: Tully at October 20, 2005 03:31 PM

"Also looking strictly at annual income is skewed; try looking at the percentage of total wealth owned by each percentile. Suddenly you'll find the income tax percentages paid are just about correct!

Posting these particular figures in a vacuum is dishonest"

------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure how your proposal to look at total percentage of wealth is any more "honest".

Example:

Person A earns $50K a year, lives frugaly spending $20K a year and saving the rest to pass on to thier kids. At the end of 10 years they have a net wealth of $300K saved up from thier hard work and frugality.

Person B earns $150K a year, lives lavishly (wine, women, gambling, etc) spending $145K a year not caring about kids (or maybe not even having them). At the end of 10 years they have a net wealth of $50K.

According to your contention it would be more "honest" to tax person A 6 times more then person B? I don't think so.

What's wrong with letting people save up something to pass along to thier kids without the government confiscating it all? Where is the justification for allowing the Government to do that?

Posted by: cengel at October 20, 2005 03:39 PM

The Estate Tax issue is a red herring. It just doesn't make enough of a difference either way to justify the focus on it. Keep your eye on the ball.

Posted by: WHQ at October 20, 2005 04:00 PM

Can't believe that working for the government you're unaware of poverty rates and the number of people no longer covered by health insurance, Tully. You're going to tell me that the fed budget builds in 1.1 million new poor people to serve each year...
yeah,....riiiiight.

Now I got one more thing here. Greenspan says increasing interest rates will slow the economy to help keep inflation under check. Others say raising taxes will slow the economy.

Why not slow the economy by raising taxes instead of interest rates? Keeping interest rates lower makes homes and loans more affordable to the middle and lower classes and keeps that economic activity going while helping to balance the budget. Given that the wealthy got the bulk of the tax cuts it seem s only fair.

just wonderin'.....

Posted by: Marcus at October 20, 2005 04:36 PM

And both Tully and Cengel have brilliantly highlighted the reason why any discussion of the “fairness” of any tax proposal is always a futile exercise in interpretation of what is fair. The problem is that you can have more then one, often contradictory, point’s of view on what exactly is fair that are just as logical, consistent, and valid as another so people tend to pick the one that suits them personally and argue that.

But to address the point, Current federal tax levels are running about 17%, this is the lowest rate since the mid 60’s. Average rates of taxation since WWII have run about 21 to 22%; the rates in European countries hovers around 30%. The idea that increasing tax rate by 3 or 4% will squash the economy is ludicrous on its face.

Tully is right to some degree, in my opinion, about the effects of taxation on the economy, but the fact is, as I have mentioned before, that when you cut government spending you cut jobs and that has a short term negative effect on the economy as well. You can only cut as fast that the larger economy can absorb the newly unemployed to avoid this effect.

Here is something else to think about, we will have to cut about $400 billion before we actually get down to the business of the government saving any money at all, until then all we do is slow the rate of spending growth. The idea that we can bring the budget into balance without any tax increases at all (in anything like the near term), is mathematically impossible. Also you have to consider what happens to our current economy that is being artificially propped up by the massive deficit spending. The growth in GDP over the last three years is not much more then the amount of deficit spending (thus exposing the notion that “tax cuts” are the cause of our current net positive economy as pure mythology).

Finally this notion that on party is more spend happy then the other is recklessly naive. The party in power spends all the money they can to remain in power and the party out of power are the fiscal conservatives. If you track spending rates the lowest troughs almost always coincides with periods of divided government.

Posted by: Rick DeMent at October 20, 2005 04:39 PM

Rick,

I think we've had this discussion before. I have no problem paying somewhat more in taxes (or even loosing the Estate Tax cut) as long as wastefull and uneccesary spending programs are cut first.... do that and if it's still not enough to keep the trains running and people from starving to death then I'll be willing to pony up. Bottom line, as long as the National Endowment for the Arts conitnues to get federal funding.... I'm not willing to pay 1 cent more in taxes and I'll vote that way. Sacrifice the NEA and the pols favorite pork projects.... and THEN we'll talk.

Posted by: Cengel at October 20, 2005 05:00 PM

My point, drowned in the chatter, being that they're not even talking about actual cuts. No reduction in actual spending, not even inflation-adjusted spending. No government jobs necessarily being cut. No one anywhere getting any actual benefit cut in real-dollar terms. They're talking about holding spending increases back, not growing government as quickly in real terms.

Once again, go back to the chart. Discretionary spending has been increasing far faster than inflation or population. Hack away at fraud and waste and pork (like that $27 billion in pork in that one bill), quit growing discretionary spending faster than inflation, and spending can be constrained. But if you never tighten the strings, the money keeps flowing out.

Discretionary spending has increased 36% in the last five years, excluding defense, homeland security, and Katrina relief. Inflation is only about a third of that. Do the math.

Posted by: Tully at October 20, 2005 05:40 PM

This is funny. When I saw the original post I cut this to paste into my comments:

deploring an across-the-board cut as a "mindless buzz saw"

It cought my eye because we can't agree on a "mindful" buzz saw (as this thread demonstrates). If its a cut, its "mindless". I'm not a Democrat so I don't have to worry about the party's inner working but I do feel this conversation is indicative of a significant issue within the Democratic Party. With the positive budget balance of the Clinton era, the Dems for better or worse claimed they were the party of fiscal responsibility. With budget deficits rising they have a wonderful opportunity to capitalize BUT they'll have to figure out how to sell that message without it sounding like "lets increase taxes for the rich". I know that phrase is an unfair generalization but the discussion here on this CENTRIST WEBSITE sound like that.

Furthermore, if Dems want to "grab the center" their ability to work with fiscally conservative Republicans to address the budget deficit will go a long way IMHO for future elections.

Posted by: c3 at October 20, 2005 07:37 PM

We've had the argument about Republican vs Democratic discal discipline before. My take: Rick DeMent is right that neither party gives you a choice of spending little. In fact, the only choice you have is whether we pick up the tab as we go, in which case it's pretty clear: vote Democrat. Here's a thread with some numbers.

I read some Republican somewhere characterizing Democrats as being more interested in balancing budgets than fiscal growth, but this Democrat thinks that you get the best growth paying the tab, both because more investment goes into the private sector rather than public, and because Wall Street is less nervous about future taxes on debt.

http://www.centristcoalition.com/blog/archives/001227.html

Posted by: Jon Kay at October 20, 2005 10:25 PM

Tully and Cengel,

Well you both got me, your right; the spending cuts need to come sooner rather then later. And while the NEA would be a good place to start, it's literally paper clips to the national budget, but it does have the advantage of no huge lobby to shout it down (why it exists I really can’t say, after all the Republicans have been in power for 5 years).

Sooner or later though you have to start to make the hard choices. My pet spending cut as I have stated is the 80 billion or so in direct subsidies to private business, but that would cause campaign donors to froth like a mad dog on Sunday and won't happen. I would also like to see someone stand up and admit that the National Missile Defense shield is a boondoggle of epic proportions, but the problem there is that the military industrial lobby is armed with something more deadly then missiles, they have wads of campaign cash.

We also need to understand that next year’s hurricane season could very well be just as bad. But any talk of a new round of tax cuts or extending existing cuts are, for me just like the NEA is for you, my line in the sand (and I benefited in a pretty big way from those cuts).

Also deficits are creating a very interesting phenomena, ODIC (pronounced as Oh Dick), the Organization of Dollar Importing Countries. Which includes China, Japan and India, who must maintain their appetite for buying US bonds or else this whole discussion is pretty academic. And while they would have as much to lose by dumping those bonds or substantially decreasing their rate of buying, it is very possible that an attack on the Saudi oil fields would force their hand and then we are all screwed.

Posted by: Rick DeMent at October 21, 2005 07:03 AM

Let's see if we can stay on track--the issue is spending. Not deficits or taxes. Just spending. Corporate welfare runs about $60 billion. I won't say there's never a reason for corporate subsidies--but it should be debated in the open, not slipped to 'em under the table. The feds can't account for about $24 billion they spent last year, and we're not talking about the "black" budget--where did it go? HUD racked up over $3 billion in overpayments last year, more than 10% of its budget. We want it back! $30 billion a year in farm subsidies--much of which goes to major ag corporations. Why? Do we really need to pay major corporations to grow rice in Arkansas wetlands? Earned Income Credit fraud alone is estimated at nearly $10 billion a year.

Then there's that $25 billion in "earmarks." Pork, pure and simple. The Alaskan bridge to nowhere, at a cost that could buy every inhabitant of that island their own Lear jet. Or money earmarked looking for problems they couldn't find, such as the Blue Springs MO project to fight problems with Goth culture. Or duplicative programs. Do we really need over three hundred different economic development programs?

Arguing about how the pie is divvied up (or how the minority party would divvy it up differrently if they became the majority) is besides the point. The point is that without some fiscal discipline, the spending never comes under control, regardless of what programs it's being spent on. For a brief time in the 90's, the Gingrichians in COngress imposed some spending discipline, and Clinton assisted to the extent of slashing defense spending by about 40%--whcih is where most of the Clinton "savings" came from. As the "freshman revolutionaries" became entrenched incumbents, their taste for fiscal discipline declined. The tech bubble had revenues soaring, everyone was watching the Clinton scandals instead of Congress, and the goodie bags opened up once more. It was nice, but it was temporary, and not even the White House believed the optimistic projections of the CBO. But everyone was happy to make hay while the sun was shining.

And they continued to make hay after 9/11, with defense spending getting boosted back up and discretionary spending exploding. Discretionary spending growth peaked in 2003, as Congress packed the 2002 post-9/11 legislation with all their favorite goodies. Now it looks set to rise again unless the Congresscritters can be convinced it's time to act like adults instead of kids with credit cards. There's no assurance that changing the majority party would do any good. It wouldn't reduce the charges.

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. --P. J. O'Rourke

Posted by: Tully at October 21, 2005 09:54 AM

Clearly, spending is out of control and there is a lot of money being spent in ways it shouldn't. But I don't think you can talk about controlling spendig without a more basic discussion of what is government about. It's obvious that both Democrats and Republicans are hypocrites about spending--neither really is willing to sacrifice spending on programs that benefit their constituents. And I'm not naive enough to think that Democrats only spend out of altruistic notions of helping the poor. But when you have spent years (not the just the last five, but really since the GOP became ascendent in 1980) derogating spending on social programs and infrastructure, increasing tax cuts, and arguing that all we need to spend on is defense and security, it seems to me that the EFFECTS of any spending cuts--even if programs aren't actually cut--fall primarily on the poor and struggling middle classes because they depend on government programs more. Now, I recognize that many conservatives want to "starve the beast" and, in a perfect world, reduce the federal government's functions largely to defense and security. The question is what kind of government do we want. I recognize that the majority of people on this blog prefer a more limited government focusing on the private sector and allowing "a rising tide to lift all." That's certainly a respectable position, but after 25 years in which both parties have essentially stopped talking about social spending, I simply think it is time to look at fiscal discipline more in the context of how it affects those that most need the government's help. And I don't see that in these discussions. I'm not advocating making this a European social democracy, but I am saying we need to look at what kind of society we want and the spending cuts should reflect that. For example, I am far from anti-military; we live in a rough world and I have no problem with maintaining military dominance. But, my god, we spend more on defense than the next several largest countries combined--shouldn't we look at cuts in the military before we start cutting across the board? Because, as someone pointed out, saying that programs for the poor aren't being cut doesn't really get to the heart of the matter, which is that, perhaps some programs should be increased. Maybe we should consider health insurance as important to national security as a new jet fighter. I don't consider myself a populist, but it just seems as if the national discussion for the last two decades has focused on cutting spending generically in isolation from what we need government for. Because a lot of conservatives look at spending in a specific ideological way--ie, what is the best way to shrink the domestic role of the federal government. One way is to reduce spending generally, another way is to reduce revenues,another way is to combine lower revenues with higher spending on things we like, such as defense, so that there is no money left over to spend on domestic programs. So I think Democrats need to make a point of this rather than just calling for "fiscal discipline" in the abstract.

Sorry for the digression.

Posted by: Marc at October 21, 2005 11:41 AM

A few points:

1. The government spends tremendous amounts on (i) military, (ii) social security, (iii) health care for old people.* Everything else is peanuts -- I want scrap the highway bill and the entire Dept of Education, but we'd still be running $350 billion deficits. To balance the budget, we've got to reduce spending on the giant items, AND raise taxes. Period.

2. The Republicans are 100% to blame for the current fiscal mess. But that doesn't mean Democratic control would fix anything. Judging by past history, only a Democratic President dealing with a Republican congress (or maybe a small Dem majority) delivers fiscal sanity.

3. What would a centrist solution look like? Personally, I'd like to see a "simple tax" -- like a flat tax, but with 2 or 3 progressive rates, all income taxed treated equally (whether from work or capital gains), and most tax breaks eliminated. What rates? Enough to balance the budget.

4. Re: the post's question: "Are they back?"

No.

* and debt service, but we can't cut that.

Posted by: Oberon at October 21, 2005 01:20 PM

Has anyone read Neil Boortz's new book about the flat tax? It's not really my type of read--Tax discussion usually have a hard time holding my interest...all I know is that I pay way too much and get nailed with expenses that are non-deductible, but the fairness of the current Child Support structure is a topic for another day.

Just curious as to anyone's thoughts on that particular idea (flat tax)?

Posted by: AR at October 21, 2005 01:30 PM

Boortz proposes a national sales tax (like 30% or so), not a flat tax.

Posted by: Oberon at October 21, 2005 02:59 PM

Nobody wanted to guess, so here's the belated revelation. The one substantial federal spending item that fell over the last several years is.....

Debt service. Down enormously as the high-interest long-term bonds of the Carter/Ford years have been replaced in the financing structure with low-interest long-term bonds.

Posted by: Tully at October 24, 2005 04:34 PM

More potted meat product de-fanged.

For those keeping track, if any, this one came out of an Amsterdam server from a German scuzznet.

Posted by: Sc*msuckerMcSp*am at October 24, 2005 07:34 PM

Still think we need to look at a combination of spending cuts and raising taxes. There are those that say we can grow ourselves out of this mess. Obviously that hasn't happened as the deficit nears 8 trillion dollars.

Posted by: Marcus at October 26, 2005 01:30 PM

I'm all for fiscal responsibility. 100%. But there's a big picture view here that few seem willing to stay tied to...as long as the total national debt (not the deficit, which is annual, but the debt, which is total outstanding dollars owed) remains at a size that is in reasonable fractional proportion to government revenue, deficit suspending is pretty much sustainable.

It's not absolutely necessary, and may well not even be desirable, for the US to rech a state where, in each year, we collect x dollars and also spend only x dollars. We don't actually need to "grow our way out of" accrued debt, we only need to grow at a rate that keeps the debt sustainable and manageable.

And yes that's a challenge that we are having trouble meeting, and one that's being constantly challenged by new problems, especially the big ticket budget items whose costs are growing at rates far higher than say GDP, mostly due to the demographic changes of our graying population.

I am not opposed to tax hikes as a matter of first principle. But I have no confidence at all that the government can curb its penchant for spending more whenever they get more dough. So I'm currently unwilling to support tax hikes until our government officials show a willingness to sensibly address the nature of funding the big promises the government currently makes. In other words, the government needs to reform itself enough to make it understandable to everyday Americans what they do and how they do it before they get any more money.

One of the things that I really want to see happen is to see the federal government collect less in federal taxes and then disburse far less in state aid. That feels to me like the best way to choke the pork. For example, what if the feds decreased the federal gas tax from 18.4 cents to 9.2 cents, and each state raised its state gas tax by 9.2 cents, and then the federal government decreased federal spending on road projects by 50%.

That's the sort of thing I'd like to see a lot more of, all things along the lines of "here is this tax, and here is the list of things the revenue can be spent on." My guess is that if Alaska itself had the money to make decisions on what road/infrastructure projects got funded, they'd do a far better job of not wasting money on an unnecessary bridge.

Posted by: bk at October 27, 2005 09:45 AM