** OT **
In defense of the economic role of government
Dennis, now imagine how much would be in your retirement account if government were cut back. Now imagine what the result would be to the educational system if the people who hate government had their way. Would you even have a job?
There's an interesting story recounted in MacPherson's excellent book "Battle Cry of Freedom". He tells of a group of visiting British industrialists coming to the US and studying mass production methods which were unknown in England at the time. They visited the Springfield musket works, and were amazed at seeing young people making high quality muskets. In England this was a skill handed down from father to son and required going through an apprenticeship. But then, Britons could not read. In the US (at least in Northern industrialized cities) there was free education through the 8th grade. So workers came into factories knowing how to read and write. That allowed them to read manuals and learn very rapidly compared to the English apprenticeship system.
Do you know that in this country roads were once private. Rapid economic expansion requires direct public investment in infrastructures like roads and postal systems and indirect investments in others through tax subsidies. When you compare the US to economies throughout the world that have very low tax rates and minimal to no infrastructure spending you see the results. The rich (of which there are very very few) get richer, and the poor languish.
Finally, government safety nets were responsible to a great extent in creating a large middle class, and it is the existence of that large middle class that drives the economic engine.
The bottom line is that nobody likes to pay taxes. The problem, it seems to me, is that we forget that taxes are really community purchases of goods and services: like roads, and schools and unemployment insurance. Some years ago when the Republican "Contract with America" had considerable sway the NY Times ran a series of articles on where spending could be cut. The conclusion was that after you eliminated what it considered to be obvious boondoggles (like tax subsidies to beekeepers and some other agricultural subsidies, etc) and some debatable social engineering programs (various welfare programs) that very little money could be saved without cutting into the muscle of government function.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Public health is often cited as an example of unnecessary government expenditure. But the question is not raised as to the economic benefits of having those programs. For example, the wealthy benefit by having the poor treated for diseases like tuberculosis. Do we want the USDA to be less diligent in preventing tainted foods to come to market?
I will now relinquish my soapbox
TTFN,
CTC |
