|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Budget Battles and the Growth of the Administrative State (1/2/2014 7:04:51 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
We agree, again. But, how do we decide when the law is being twisted, if we don't know what it's supposed to be in the first place? Something is either Constitutional, or it's not. It shouldn't matter how the makeup of the Supreme Court changes, should it? It shouldn't matter if a law is good or bad, but that it's applied evenly until it's no longer a law, right?
I think that the best way to deal with these questions is to follow a set of a few, key principles and insist that we remain true and consistent to those principles. Rather than getting too caught up with our nose in the rulebook and worrying about the letter of the law, it might be better to focus on the spirit of the law and the principles for which we stand.
This is where I run into philosophical disagreements with a lot of people who seem to believe that “a rule is a rule” and must be followed no matter what. I find this among religionists, some of whom are more orthodox and believe in an unyielding, rigid adherence to tradition and rules no matter what. But it also can be found among lawyers, bureaucrats, and other such professions where martinets seem to dominate. All they seem to care about is whether or not the paperwork is clean.
I actually believe that it should matter whether a law is good or bad. The problem seems to be that there’s a greater focus on what is “legal” and “illegal,” and not enough attention on what is right and wrong. I hear a lot of people say things like “We are a country of laws,” but it’s such a ludicrous thing to say, when you really think about it. North Korea is a country of laws. Iran is a country of laws. Every tyranny that has ever existed was in a country of laws. I’d like to think that we’ve progressed beyond that and actually do care about whether the law is wrong or right.
We agree that a law should be good and not simply Constitutional. But, even if a law is a good law, if it's not Constitutional, then we either need to take the steps necessary to make it Constitutional, or not pass it.
And, limiting our interpretation of the US Constitution isn't just making the rules, but it's defining the spirit of those rules and the principles for which we stand. If a rule can be twisted any which way, it's nothing more than an open invitation for abuse.
quote:
quote:
The article brings about the idea that creating bureaucracies further insulates government action from the People. There is a need for some insulation, which is partly why we have a republic and not a democracy. But, adding in layer after layer after layer is only going to make things worse.
We are a republic, yes, but I think it would be incorrect to say “not a democracy.”
Abraham Lincoln said that we had a government “of the People, by the People, and for the People.” He may not have been one of the Founding Fathers, but in many Americans’ eyes, his status and influence over America might actually be above that of the Founding Fathers. Without wordsmithing over whether America is a “democracy,” a “republic,” or a “democracy in a republic,” when we say we’re a government “of the People,” then at the very least, I think it should mean that the well-being and the interests of the People should be the government’s top priority.
Whether they’re insulated or not, those who work in government have taken an oath; and they should be fully expected to carry out that oath. Maybe they should even be required to take vows of poverty and abstinence, completely dedicating their lives to public service.
(Okay, I’m being a bit facetious with that last line, but if they really did take vows of poverty, then they could be paid considerably less. Think of the enormous savings.)
We agree that those that work in the public sphere should have the expectation of upholding their oaths, and be held accountable when they don't. But, how do we decide if they have upheld their oaths, if we their actions can be rationalized under a twisting of interpretation?
quote:
quote:
The free market is all about individuals acting in their best interests. But, that's different from the discussion about support or lack thereof for government intervention. I'm all for a business acting in it's best interests, as long as it's not using the blunt force of government to prevent others from doing the same. I think it's wrong to force employers to employ minorities who aren't the best candidates for the job (affirmative action). I'm opposed to government rigging the deck against employers in Union negotiating.
One major task of government, as mandated by the Constitution, is to ensure equality – equal rights and equal treatment. The government is duty-bound to make sure the playing field is level and that the free market is open and fair to all. They’re not supposed to rig the deck. They’re supposed to make sure that the deck isn’t rigged.
Completely, and 100% agree.
quote:
It doesn’t always work out that way, and governments are comprised of human beings who make mistakes and seem just as prone to corruption as anyone else. That’s why no system can ever work perfectly. The system(s) may very well be “perfect,” but it’s we imperfect humans who always manage to fuck things up. As a result, humans acting in their best interests can manifest itself in any number of ways.
Completely agree here, too. For instance, setting up the laws of the land to say that it's illegal to sell a tainted product doesn't necessitate a vast bureaucracy of inspectors to verify that production plants are following the law. Setting up the guidelines as to what is and what isn't "tainted" and letting business take the steps necessary and then setting up the legal codes for what happens if tainted products are sold is. The doomsayers will decry the lack of inspectors as bringing us back to the 1930's and will invite death and global warming, and big eye, and anal leakage, and all sorts of other ills. But, we have inspectors now, and we still have outbreaks of tainted products, don't we? Are manufacturers afraid of legal actions for selling tainted products or of government inspectors?
quote:
quote:
quote:
Is it really so much to ask for humans to sit down and calmly, rationally, and logically discuss their shared problems and be able to come up with reasonable solutions?
I think we are proving that it's not too much to ask, though US politics stands in stark contrast to it. Lol
Some people might find U.S. politics to be rather strange; some would say that Arizona politics is even stranger.
I'll leave that to Arizonans to decide and act on. [:D]
quote:
quote:
I hated econ in college. Now, I have found that I'm a econo-phile.
Interestingly enough, my high school Economics class was not even called that. It was actually called “Free Enterprise.” I was raised with all the arguments, many of which were put into the context of the Cold War and the never-ending ideological struggle between Communism and Capitalism. It also included a fair amount of red-baiting and “love-it-or-leave-it” type arguments and tactics.
My Dad was a HS econ teacher. I never took econ until college. We never talked about econ until the last few years. I just have to wonder what he thinks of my (relative) new found love for econ.
quote:
quote:
The things you are stating as "temporary" may not end up as "temporary," though. Every time it comes up, Lucas County (my County in Ohio) residents renew the "temporary" 3/4% emergency sales tax levy. That's been going of for more than the 2 decades I've been here. The Bush tax cuts were, originally, temporary. The income tax wasn't, technically, temporary, but it was significantly less extensive than it is now.
Taxes are a different matter, but some things do only end up as temporary, such as rationing and price controls during WW2. Of course, wars are only supposed to be temporary as well, not permanent institutions which our government has made them.
I’ll concede I can’t answer for everything the government does, and, strictly speaking, I don’t expect any of what I’m suggesting here to even see the light of day. Theoretically, I think price controls can solve a lot of immediate problems, but there’s a lot of ideology-based opposition to the idea.
Likewise, I think that pulling our forces out of the rest of the world would do wonders for our economy, our national reputation, and our overall position in the world. But that won’t ever happen, mainly due to the same intransigent ideologues.
The problem with putting in "temporary" measures to deal with immediate "problems" is that what constitutes an "immediate problem" can be twisted by ideologues, resulting in a massive number of "temporary" measures that never end.
We agree on bringing our troops home and closing foreign bases.
quote:
quote:
The problem with most politicians isn't that they only look at the short-term changes a policy is going to effect. The Democrats scream about the revenue that hasn't been raised because of the Bush tax cuts. While, technically, that's true, it's only true if everything the economy has done would still have happened, and that those who benefited from the tax cuts wouldn't have made changes to reduce their taxes in that time.
The problem is that oftentimes, people don’t do what economists “expect” them to do. Economists’ expectations about what a given policy change might do can often turn into political promises which are never realized.
For example, tax cuts (theoretically) are supposed to stimulate the economy (since economists expect those who save money in taxes to actually spend that money). There’s even the suggestion that if the economy is doing so well and people are making money hand over fist, the government could actually get more revenue even at a lower tax rate. But it didn’t work out as promised. The money went overseas, and budget deficits continued to go up.
Did it, though? The amount of money coming in via the Federal Income Tax is still rising. The percentage of the Federal Income Tax shouldered by "the rich" continues to increase. The number of people owing no Federal Income Tax dropped throughout W's administration. Revenues are likely to be at record levels (if they aren't there already) soon.
quote:
They also made wild promises over NAFTA, saying that it was going to improve America’s economy and standard of living, in addition to “leveling the playing field” of free trade. That never happened, and if anything, our economy has gotten worse as a result of NAFTA and other free trade agreements.
Look into the plight of the Mexican corn farmer. They'll agree that NAFTA has destroyed their livelihoods while benefiting the US corn industry.
quote:
The conservative economists were also big proponents of privatization, claiming that the private sector is more efficient, which could produce cost savings for taxpayers. But just more empty promises.
That’s the main problem with the economists, at least since the 1980s. They make a lot of loud talk and wild promises, but they’ve fallen woefully short when it comes to delivering tangible results. That’s the best reason for not listening to their projections and prognostications about “what will happen” if we make changes or adjustments to our economic policies.
It's tough to claim success or failure of free market systems when there isn't enough freedom in the market system. You have to assume that if we hadn't freed the market to the extent that it would have been better, but there isn't any proof of that, either. That's a big part of the problem. We can't go back and make that change and see what "would have" happened.
quote:
quote:
So, let the Market do it naturally, if that's what the Market deems best.
I’m not sure that there’s anything “natural” about it, nor am I sure how the market can “deem” anything. We’re talking about something that is man-made, not a phenomenon of nature. The market is…politics, so politics will always be involved in it.
The market is each individual purchasing products according to their individual desires and perceived needs. That's the market. If I were to walk to my neighbor's and offer her a loaf of bread in exchange for a chicken, government isn't involved in that exchange, yet, it's part of the Market. If consumers aren't interested in purchasing what business is interested in providing at the cost it's providing it, then something needs to change. If business isn't interested in providing the same things at a lower cost, it either needs to wait for consumers to agree to the higher costs, or find something else to offer. Outside of setting up the legal parameters of leveling the playing field, intervention into the market tends towards reducing the efficiency of the market and/or raising costs.
quote:
quote:
I love the guys that are out for a few extra bucks, and attempt to get those extra bucks by improving their use of resources within their own business. I don't love the guys out for a few extra bucks that use government intervention to hamper their competition so they can earn a few extra bucks. In the end, it's all about the consumers, really. If it's going to raise the cost of something over the cost the unhampered market would dictate, it's, imo, wrong to do.
If it’s all about the consumers, then I would say if a policy brings about lower prices, it’s a good policy. If it brings about higher prices and imposes greater hardship on consumers, then it’s a bad policy. This would be true regardless of how it happens, whether through private sector mechanisms or through government intervention. Whatever benefits the greatest number of citizens should be considered a good thing, and that’s what our policies should be.
I respect your convictions and advocacy for the free-market system and the theoretical principles of laissez-faire economics. However, we’ve been doing this since at least the 1980s. Reagan was highly influential in leading the charge and taking the country in the direction the conservative economists wanted us to go. We’ve been doing everything that they said would be good for America and our economy, and this is where their “brilliance” has led us!
We brought about deregulation, privatization, free trade, outsourcing, and all these things that the free market ideologues said would bring us wealth, prosperity, and the highest standard of living in the world. But we’ve had over 30 years to see the results and consequences of these “wonderful” policies touted by conservatives, and the bottom line is, they have not worked! They are failed policies!
At least I can say that, when looking at real world examples of our respective positions, my position has actually had proven, measurable success (as shown with America’s industrial might during WW2). We went from the Great Depression to a massively booming economy in less than a decade, whereas we’ve had over 30 years of Reagan’s trickle down economics, outsourcing, deregulation, privatization, free trade, and all these other things the conservatives said would be “good,” and all they have to show for it is an empty treasury, a rotting infrastructure, jobs going overseas by the millions, unprecedented trade deficits, and a national debt which will have Americans drowning in red ink for the next several generations (if we even survive that long).
That, to me, is the “smoking gun” here. We can talk about abstract theories left and right, but in my view, the proof is in the pudding. That is, what we’ve seen in terms of results is how it actually is. Keynesianism has proven successful results, while the brand of economics touted by Reagan, Greenspan, and the Chicago School has proven to be a failure.
Hell, even the vile, amoral industrialists of the 19th and early 20th centuries – as bad as they were, at least even they could produce some measure of tangible, concrete results from what they did. At least we had industry, railroads, and a burgeoning, up-and-coming economy that was headed for bigger and better things. But hell, Reagan and his followers couldn’t even do that right. Capitalism might be far more tolerable if they could at least do something right, but ever since Reagan, they’ve been doing everything wrong.
China's start along the road towards more free markets and their results should give plenty of credence to the free market system, and as with just about everything, the best way lies somewhere between the fringes of any system.
|
|
|
|
