More Democrats Fear Big Government

[creaker]

It kills me that people get hung up with "government takes on all the debt and private concerns take all the return". [/U]

What I mean is we are not paying down the debt with any of that return - we just increase the debt year after year. And that is not sustainable.

[Gregg]

What I mean is we are not paying down the debt with any of that return - we just increase the debt year after year. And that is not sustainable.

The way I see it there are two ways to reduce debt: cut expenses and increase revenue. There is no doubt in my mind that the US needs to do both.

Cutting expenses, with the focus on the defense budget we have here, can easily start with an end to the wars. Iraq is in the the final stages. If we commit to a foreign policy of non-intervention Afghanistan can follow (and we can stay out of Iran when the time comes). That saves a lot. From there we can phase weapon production down to nothing more than is needed to defend ourselves. That will save more. And we can being shutting down foreign bases. That will save even more. The real kick is that every department in the government should be able to come up with similar, albeit probably smaller, measures.

Increasing revenue is a different cat because expenses have to go up in the short run to bring revenue up for the long haul. Of course the government could, and probably will, just raise taxes to increase revenue without much expense, but wouldn't you rather pay more taxes because you made more money and had a higher quality of life? We've been through what infrastructure includes ad nauseam over the years, but basically its our delivery systems. To remain at or near the top the US needs to have more secure and more efficient ways to deliver information, power, goods and services than we have now. If we develop that nearly everyone in our country can be more proficient at what they do. That translates into increased revenue for citizens which provides more revenue for the government.

I agree that our current debt level, at slightly more than the GDP, is too high. I've heard learned people saying that somewhere around 50% to 60% of GDP is sustainable. I don't know where the magic number is, but reducing our debt by 50% seems like a reasonable goal. It pays to keep in mind that our debt is still cheap money. It's a lot cheaper than our current revenue. If China buys $10 billion in 30 year T-notes we will pay them back in 2041 dollars, not 2011 dollars. Since periods of deflation are relatively so rare the government assumes 2041 dollars will be worth a lot less than today's money. I don't have a crystal ball to see 2041, but if you look the other way, back 30 years to 1981, a dollar then had the same buying power as $2.54 today. Inflation over that period averaged 3.16% per year so was not out of line. Interest rates on 30 year Treasury notes on Friday was 2.86%. That makes debt with a 2041 due date REALLY cheap.

[jp1]

You're right, of course. I even lived on a private road for 20 years so should have thought about that (although we couldn't get anywhere except to the neighbor's houses without hitting a public road). The trucking example had me thinking of highways rather than residential streets and private lanes. I stand corrected and amended my post to accurately reflect the situation.

While indeed there are private roads in existence I think your original premise that the vast majority of miles driven in the US happens on public roads is still valid. Sort of like how pointing out how one's Aunt Bertha lived to be 89 despite smoking 2 packs per day doesn't negate the fact that smoking generally causes life shortening illnesses like lung cancer.

[bae]

Nobody seems to be getting cancer from our private or locally-owned roads here.

We are however being subjected to pressure from outside forces to bring our roads "up to standard", because they tend to be narrow, twisty, have lovely trees too close to the roadway, and so on.

We adopted some years ago a locally-appropriate plan for our roads, and so far we're trying to stick to it, even though the State tells us we should all be dead by now because they are too dangerous...

http://sanjuanco.com/publicworks/scenicrdmanual.aspx

[Gregg]

What a perfect illustration of one of the major problems facing us right now. Issues that effect only a very few people are bogging down legislation much the same way a very fine point sidetracked this thread. We need leaders that can look at the big picture and begin to do what is good for our country as a whole. They need to sort out what will benefit the most people when prioritizing legislation. This is as good a reason as any to fear big government, it is constantly bogged down. Bae's roads should be handled by their local government (as they are). There should be no real consideration of those roads in national transportation policy beyond a simple foot note that passes the responsibility on down to that local jurisdiction. The government is too big in part because it keeps absorbing responsibility for things that should be local or state issues.

[iris lily]

... The government is too big in part because it keeps absorbing responsibility for things that should be local or state issues.

yes, exactly. Including Education.

Today I leaned of yet another gubmnt regulation, a new and more restrictive one about lead paint. Now when replacing windows in our old houses the average joe will have to address the tiny particles of lead paint that remain after 2 generations of replacement windows. Or, in the case of my friend, her original windows were pulled out, soaked in a stripper chemical, and rehung. There is no lead anywhere on the window. But they will root around in the window casing and find specks of lead and there is a mandated procedure for dealing with that.