The Diane Rehm Show

One of the last callers questioned why we are not spending more money on infrastructure as a way to create jobs and was essentially dismissed by a panel member because "bridges are now in good shape." I disagree with the panelist. An analysis in the 1990's ordered by President Clinton found that not only were many of our bridges in disrepair but water treatment facilities, dams, sewer lines, electrical grids and etc were in disrepair. After the tragic bridge failure in Minneapolis it is true that bridge repair received high priority across the country. However, it is not clear to me that other aging critical infrastructure received similar attention. With shrinking local governmental budgets I believe that much of this critical infrastructure has been patched but not adequately repaired. In addition the events of 9/11 changed the focus on critical infrastructural from repair to protection. While these two analyses may have the same result, that is to say that an analysis of the need for repair of the facility and the need to harden the facility to prevent vulnerability to terrorist attack may result in the same modifications of the critical infrastructure, it is not necessarily the case. Our electrical infrastructure, identified as one of the critical infrastructures, was inadequate and was revealed to be a patchwork affair with the black out in 2003. I noticed that the heat wave of the last few weeks resulted in no major outage. And the utility companies are touting the record usage in electricity without major incidents. Again once we have a disaster we respond pretty well.
We need to address these problems on a day to day basis before they become emergencies. We need our infrastructure to be the best. And in the process we could create jobs.

ecgberht wrote:
Right back atcha, slick. By your own chart, social programs (SS, MC, and "safety net" programs) make up 54% of the budget. That DWARFS Defense.

I apologize for not making the distinction between our budget's mandatory expenditures and its discretionary expenditures. Let me now be clearer then: the military/defense expenses of our national discretionary budget remain the largest of any other category. Do you understand the difference between these categories... "slick"?

It's all discretionary.

As far as entitlements, you're only entitled to get your money back; everything else is welfare.

avintageyear wrote:
"ecg: you can want a moral argument or any other kind of argument all day long, that's your business. What's fascinating to me is that you seem to think you are entitled to one."
Yes I get that you can't provide one, so thanks for cofirming that.
Our country was founded upon moral principles of how the people are governed. The left has forgotten that. The Tea Party is our canary in the coal mine and a constant reminder. Try reading the declaration. Here, let me give you a taste of how it goes ...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Teece Bowman wrote:
"Because you'll be dead. And unless you've figured out a way to take it with you, you won't be using it any longer.
Now you could leave it behind for your heirs....but that doesn't encourage them to be autonomous, especially if you are independently wealthy. And we know how much conservatives like the notion of being autonomous....."
That's a moral argument? That I'm dead? That's the best ya got?! If I designate what I want to do with the money after my death (in a will), where is the moral principle that says government can say, "Oh no, you can't leave it to him or her, we want it"!?
In fact there is NO moral argument that justifies that!
And as for the "autonomy of the heirs" argument, perhaps that is your belief, it might be your moral code. But what if it isn't that of the decedent? Why does government get to take a chunk? Btw, "because it needs the money" is not a moral argument.
Government is put in place to protect the rights of its citizens, not to pick their bones once they're dead.

John, where in the government sector do you work? Only gov workers and those similarly motivated would reject out of hand the possibility of spending cuts or even growth cuts. This is why our deficit is out of control, nobody in the government is looking out for taxpayer interests.

The economy prospered in spite of tax policy in the 50s. It only took the total destruction of Europe to get our economy going. When growth started slowing we went on a consumer debt binge made even better by a stock market and then a housing bubble. What we need now is a good war or a good bubble!

"Carolharlow wrote:

As a non-beltway economist, and a major fan of Prof. Blinder, I strongly advocate that we restart this discussion about taxation with a close look at the 1950s tax policies that enabled the United States to have an era of increasing prosperity that included a great expansion of the middle class, sending men to the moon, and building an interstate highway system."

AND--
Finance a home in 20 Years instead of 30 or more Years or never.

Attend a World Class (State) University for $200 per year year tuition (or less).

Support a Family on one Income.

"How did we do this? We had a strongly progressive income tax system during this entire era. So far I have not heard any reason as to why we should not go back to the tax system we had during the era of Pres. Eisenhower, when the marginal tax rate (top tax bracket) was 92%.
July 10, 2012 - 11:28 am"

The main force that destroyed our virtual Utopia was the theft of the stunning increases of Productivity in our economy since WWII which should have been shared with the Workers and was not.

Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com

Teece Bowman wrote:
"Our country was founded by rich white people who simply took what they wanted and killed those who got in their way. How's that for moral principles?
Same as it ever was....
Moral principles....what a joke! Your arguments about moral principles are laughable. You know absolutely nothing about moral principles....if you did, you wouldn't be using it as a crutch now."

This is what Teece descends into when she knows she has lost the argument. Oh well.
I'm sorry that you cannot see that the relationship between a government and its citizens is a moral question.
You can't answer the estate tax question, you can't even address the wording of the founding documents of your own country, so you lash out. Well, if I was that steeped in ignorance, perhaps I would do the same.

"ecgberht wrote:

avintageyear wrote:
"You're talking about an estate tax."
You bet your sweet bippie I am. What you offer is not a MORAL argument, it is a PRACTICAL argument. I know all about the HISTORY of the estate tax. I want to hear the MORAL argument that justifies an estate tax in a free society.
Let's try again.
Please explain to me the moral principle behind the idea that at death, the state has a right to take what I have gained through hard work and frugality.
July 10, 2012 - 11:54 am"

“I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:23-24

Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com

FYI..........when I pass on my constituent parts will revert back to the way nature intended, regardless of the status of government or the political wishes of either Left or Right. I will be continuing my existence "elsewhere" and property will no longer concern me. Most of us leave behind so little that there isn't even a ripple in the universe.
Even the 2012 election will fade into nothing within oh so short a time. E.g. Those who have been around a while will easily remember that W's tax cuts were supposed to go sundown after ten years........the Dems went along with W on that basis.....it was a marriage of convenience at best. Dems were cooperating with W at nearly every turn, especially after 9/11.
Those who say the O has never earned wages are mistaken. Those who say Romney has not lived off tax money forget his pop was being paid by government at the state level. Funny how details do add up.

We seem to have forgotten that a redistributive tax policy is the cornerstone of social stability. When naked starving people start wandering the streets while the 1% glide fly by in their Porsches, "tax the rich" may quickly become "kill the rich". Better to pay the taxes. It's much cheaper in the long run. Do we really need to relearn the brutal lessons of the 20th century?

"ecgberht wrote:

Teece Bowman wrote:
"Because you'll be dead. And unless you've figured out a way to take it with you, you won't be using it any longer.
Now you could leave it behind for your heirs....but that doesn't encourage them to be autonomous, especially if you are independently wealthy. And we know how much conservatives like the notion of being autonomous....."
That's a moral argument? That I'm dead? That's the best ya got?! If I designate what I want to do with the money after my death (in a will), where is the moral principle that says government can say, "Oh no, you can't leave it to him or her, we want it"!?
In fact there is NO moral argument that justifies that!
And as for the "autonomy of the heirs" argument, perhaps that is your belief, it might be your moral code. But what if it isn't that of the decedent? Why does government get to take a chunk? Btw, "because it needs the money" is not a moral argument.
Government is put in place to protect the rights of its citizens, not to pick their bones once they're dead.
July 10, 2012 - 2:47 pm'

As usual, my Darling little Mule, you have gone completely off the rails.

The Gov't doesn't want your Money, they just want the Income Taxes on the Income to your Heirs when you pass on to your much-deserved reward in Heaven.

You already are allowed huge Tax Free gifts every year to your Heirs.

But what if the Gov't did take it all? Would you want your kids to be deprived of the satisfaction of struggling to build up an estate like you did or would you have them humiliated by being handed a pile of unearned money like a Welfare Mama??

Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com

"ecgberht wrote:

"Not to change the subject, but
"The dollars taken directly out of my paycheck for SS and MC should be viewed as an account and I have no problem with that considering the insane cost of US health care."
Did you know you don't have an "account" with SS? Other than some numbers on a piece of paper, that is. There is no money there. There is only a mountain of debt, the actual dollars of which, has been spent by Congress. I ran some rough numbers on the coming crisis a while back. It ain't pretty.
July 10, 2012 - 4:55 pm"

KMQYSLG!!! When the Chinese and others bring in their mature Bonds for redemption, you can tell them, "Did you know you don't have an "account" with Treasury? Other than some numbers on a piece of paper, that is. There is no money there. There is only a mountain of debt, the actual dollars of which, has been spent by Congress."

Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com

mchaun wrote:
"WOW!!! That description of the development of the Internet is heavy!! Packet Switching, ARPANET, God, my head is swimming. You ought to put it up on Wiki!!!
Oh, that's where you got it??"

Some of us have acquired knowledge outside the latest comic book and Cartoon Network, mchaun.
You can begin your education here:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pioneers/