Tuesday, November 3, 2009


I was doing my daily lunchtime reading and came across this article. My question is, when do we put a stop to this type of spending? Now I know there some on the left who would say, this is exactly the type of spending government should do in the "public interest." This leads me to ask, what does "public interest" actually mean? Who gets to define public interest? Is all this spending in the public interest? Really?

I would submit that it is narrow spending in certain districts and that kind of spending is subject, to say the least, to political, shall we say, considerations? This kind of spending is unnecessary and seems to be done to get rid of money rather return it unspent. Politicans spend money. That's what they do. There is an undeniable fact that controls the debate. Government consumes everything it gets and it, in turn, produces nothing.

I won't go to the trouble of taking on everyone of these projects because the absurdity of them stands on its own. I leave it to anyone with a modicum of intelligence to wise up to the profligate spending of our hard-earned tax money by our out-of-control government, on projects that don't pass the absurdity test.

The only way to break an addictive pattern is to go cold turkey. Choke off the supply to save the patient.


Brooke said...

I couldn't agree more.

Ducky's here said...

As a simple example, let's take the interstate highway system. Now, is that an example of "producing nothing"? Of course it isn't.

Government often has the responsibility of taking on projects that are necessary for development and growth but don't provide an immediate tangible return on Kapital.

Sorry, teacher, the post is chock full of lose.

Ducky's here said...

.... z, posted up that list and I asked why it was inappropriate in a period of high unemployment to do something like restoring an historic train station in Lancaster.

That area is in Amish country and good train service promotes tourism and helps local business.

Now frankly, I don't expect conservatives to care enough about our heritage to see preserving historic architecture as a worthy goal in itself, better to tear it down and put up another Wal-Mart, right? But in this case there are good economic arguments.

TRUTH 101 said...

I'm closer to Ducky on this than LaOT. I can support your argument that government must do a better job however of making sure it's spending is worth it in benefits. I have no problem with a billion dollars if it will create a billion or more in jobs and opportunity. Like you, I've seen many millions spent on projects that mad e me wonder who had the clout to get that?

PRH....... said...

Ducky's a Dolt, and having worked in the Gov Sector for over 20 years, I can tell him and any other leftist nimrod, to WAKE THE HELL UP!

Get your lips off Obama and Pelosi's ass and take a look around...the Republic is dying, and you need to look no farther than the mirror, because it's liberals and their policies that are to blame.

Law and Order Teacher said...

Thanks for the visit.

Thanks for the visit. As for spending government money on projects, the National Highway Act, all 28 pages of it by the way, was one that was sold as a national defense item, not so much economy. Eisenhower has been part of a convoy of military trucks driven across country and much as TR saw the Panama Canal as a national security issue, he saw as necessary to protect the homeland. I stick by my statement that government consumes all the money in it and produces nothing. As for historic architecture, you're jumping into some high weeds here. Who is going to call something historic enough to be saved and another site unworthy? Probably congressional power will play a part, no?

Welcome again. Government has a very bad record in regards to protecting the taxpayers money. Too much is tangled in political corruption. James Madison vetoed a bill in 1816, just before leaving office that proposed spending money on infrastructure building within the country. He stated spending on improvements on state land should be done by the states, not the federal government. He wrote most of the constitution so I'll go with him.

If we don't get a handle on the spending and the burgeoning deficit we will continue our downward spiral. Thanks for the visit.

Ducky's here said...

Well, Law and Order, nothing is a black and white as you portray it.

I imagine you are one who feels government has little function outside defense (right now one of its most inefficient undertakings) and criminal justice.

I assume you teach in a private school. Well, the public schools have done and continue to do a good job providing an educated work force and up until the Reagan implosion providing social mobility which made us a pretty vibrant culture.

And yes, the public schools do a fine job. Here in Massachusetts our public school students tested against the worlds students and finished in the top five in all categories.
I don't know why they wouldn't do well in Ohio.

Now, we're flat lining and private Kapital is not going to get out of this by themselves, assuming they want to since they are enjoying and enormous skim and can keep it going for a while longer.

Ducky's here said...

... as for the idea of what constitutes historic or what constitutes art" I would recommend:

To the Rescue of Art: Twenty-Six Essays by Rudolf Arnheim

He is an essentialist who espouses substantial standards. He would warn about letting the culture tank by being too strictly relativist. He also does a good job off pointing out why the "free market" is not well equipped to be completely entrusted with these judgments.

Excellent book.