Money, Taxes, and Rebates

"We have met the enemy and he is us."  Walt Kelly - Pogo

A better and more current example of mandates run amok is the No Child Left Behind debacle.  My father, when he gave a damn, thought that the best constitutional amendment he could think of would be to have whichever level of government legislates a spending mandate be responsible for funding the same.  This he opined while driving me to school in 1969.  Strangely enough, it has not yet passed.

MB - you think Jesus camp is scary - try being in my first grade class in 1958.  I walked to school and home for lunch, so I rarely ate lunch at school.  One day my mom had a lunch appointment (back then, a GS 9 made enough that he could support a family of 4 in a solid middle class existance with the wife being a homemaker, which believe me, ain't as easy as it seems) and I had to eat at school.  My idealistic (eventually Peace Corps) 1st grade teacher would not let me eat until I said a prayer.  I went hungry that day.  The next morning, my father went to work late, because he and I went to school early.  Despite being told to wait in the hall, I heard it all, as like his son, my father grows loud when angry.

I won't even get into the "one nation, under God" part of the Pledge.

Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, the two wealthiest men in the nation (and despite the 30+ years difference in age, personal friends and bridge partners at times) both told Pres Bush that his first tax cut was done wrong.  I believe Gates said "What will Warren and I do with another $300 million a year - save it?  If you want to stimulate the economy, give all the money to the lowest earning citizens who work full time."  But hell, hwat do they know.

Hocus pocus - we will give rebates and keep the Iraq conflict off the books.

I am voting for the Supreme Court, and thus if I have to hold my  nose in November and vote for CLinton, I will.  Obama having smart advisors is no guarantee he will get it right, either, but I like his freshness.  If opnly McCain did not whore himself to the right...

Screw Canada - I have a nice house that is livable in Jamaica.  Will be going down to finish it in Late March-early April (after James posts the schedule).  Will accept guests at that time. 

To be clear, I did not suggest that corporations or the government should be entirely excused from their transgressions. I clearly stated that only some consideration must be given.

I think many of Matt's other assertions are philosophical. That's not to say that they are uninformed, but only to say that there really is no clearly defined right or wrong answer because the evidence just isn't clear. Adam Smith made a very compelling argument that everyone should pursue his or her interests without regard for the concerns of others. His theory cannot be proved, but it has withstood all attempts to disprove it, as well. So exactly what an individual, corporation, or government's responsibility to his or her neighbors is is definitely a subject for debate. It is not necessarily true that a citizen of the United States carries a special obligation to make decisions that advance the cause or greatness of this nation. It would be nice for the country to enjoy a high degree of civic responsibility, but by the same turn I strongly believe that a nation of truly selfless people wouldn't get very far.

I disagree that electronics firms would never have offered recycling programs without government intervention. Government intervention may have accelerated the pace of adopting that practice, but if consumers were environmentally motivated in their electronics purchasing decisions, firms would have begun offering recycling all on their own (I believe that Dell did, actually), as an appeal to that consumer sensibility. For example, several airlines now offer customers the opportunity to pay an additional fee to offset the carbon emissions of their flights. If customers respond to these airlines by flying with them and paying the fee, you can bet that other airlines will come along and offer free emission offsetting. Corporations can be surprisingly attuned to the secondary factors that inform consumer decisions. Witness the battles being fought over organic food labeling - producers know all too well that consumers are reading the labels these days, and that not only do they care about what is in the food, they care about what isn't in the food, and how happy the cows are that make the milk.

Legislating change, even for progressive, noble reasons, always has its limitations. It is a power that should be used lightly and rarely - in my opinion. Government is very inelastic, and thus decisions that the government makes are hard to reverse if they turn out to be wrong. Passing a bad law is far easier than repealing it. Corporations are much quicker at adapting in this regard, and this allows bad ideas to exit the market much, much faster than if a law is enforcing the idea.

In general, you will get much further at getting individuals to make better decisions if you appeal to their self-interest than to a sense of civic obligation. Likewise, you will get much further at getting corporations to behave responsibly if you foster a market demand for such behavior. Passing a law to make it so is the least effective and most problematic approach. Again, that's just my opinion, as someone who tends to lean to the libertarian side of politics.

Matt has it mostly right.  Robert Heinlein, probably cribbing it, referred to "enlightened self-interest," which I believe is a more exact term.  As to how far a nation of selfless folk will get, I refer you to Aldous Huxley's "Island."

I find this discussion fascinating and as soon as I take a nappy will respond at greater length.

This strikes me very similarly as the Privatized/Deregulation debates that I see now and again, as with Power companies and the like. If you let people do whatever the hell they want without monitoring them, they are going to do things which hurt the majority and help the minority.

I am in no way saying that everyone needs to be some ultimate altruist, but there needs to be a sense of civil responsibility harbored in the hearts and minds of Americans again. We don't need another business as usual politician. We need someone who is capable of forward thinking and being an inspiration to millions of Americans who need leadership.

People need to be reminded by someone central, iconic, and identifiable that the majority see as an Authority on how America should be. That is one of the many roles the President of the United States plays. I, for one, believe we actually have a candidate who is capable of being that inspirational leader who can help every american improve, not just the entitled and well-connected.

Volk

They don't exclusively do things that hurt people, but yes, that is the inherent risk in deregulation. I am not a fan of complete deregulation.

I also think that some problems are on a scale that requires government involvement in the form of a public works initiative. For example, we clearly need to develop an energy replacement for oil, like, yesterday. It's simply not feasible for market demand to mature fast enough, nor for private industry to innovate in that direction fast enough (without being compelled to do so, that is). Exxon would be hard pressed to explain to its stockholders why it is ignoring promising developments in technology to improve the efficiency of oil extraction in favor of a new energy technology that might not work at all. We might lament that this is so, but we also enjoy watching our 401k savings grow and, with it, the hope of a prosperous retirement not spent wearing a blue vest and saying "Welcome to Walmart". So Exxon must do what it must. In such a case as this, then, I think government can and should lead the way. A new source of energy is a strategic, environmental, economic, and civic necessity.

I agree that it would be a good thing for Americans to embrace a new era of civil-mindedness, and I think that because most of our problems can only really be solved on that level, you are quite correct in your assessment of who the next president needs to be. I also believe we have such a candidate, though I'm not sure if yours is the same as mine - you didn't actually commit to a name with your statement there.

Civic mindedness - Bah.  Many of you have been out to Casa Spiegel, which I can say without bias, is set in a wonderful semi-rural setting.  Yet, four times a year I walk the 400 foot road frontage and collect most of a plastic bag of tossed garbage.  It does not get much easier than keeping one's trash in the car until one reaches a destination, or, for that matter, carrying a trash container in the car.

Deregulation/Regulation is tougher.  I am philosophically opposed to regulation, but I am also just as opposed to government granted monopolies.  I kinda wus out by thinking regulation is appropriate to the level of monopoly enjoyed.  I remember in the good old days when PECO (then called The Philadelphia Electric Company) and AT&T were regulated monopolies.  Long distance cost a fortune, but local calls were "free" as they were heavily subsidized by long distance users.  Seems the government decided that cheap local calls was a worthy public service.  Then again, Heinlein put it succinctly with "TANSTAAFL."  The devil is in who pays for the Free Lunch.

I find it interesting that anyone thinks a president can guide us through a recession.  People thought Kennedy had the same charisma as Obama seems to be given credit for possessing (those of you who read Dunesbury have heard him anointed as the "Black Kennedy."  What most forget is it was Lyndon Johnson who passed most of Kennedy's agenda, both before and after the assassination.  Seems that LBJ had contacts throughout both houses of government, as well as knowing where the bodies were buried.  Obama does not have those connections.  Oh, neither does Hillary.  If only McCain hadn't whored himself to the right...