Morgan Stanley is immoral. (Just in case you didn't already know.)
Finally, a stimulus bill I can support. But why does Congress feel the need to tell states how to spend the money? Why not just give money to the states and let those closer to the ground level make the spending decisions. Does Washington, D.C. really know what's good for Wyoming better than the Wyoming state legislature does?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I would turn that around, if the feds can't figure out what to spend money on, why are the taxis us or our children for it? So I'm not a big believer on block grants to states. Let THEM raise the money if the program is a good one.
ReplyDelete--Jim A.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"So I'm not a big believer on block grants to states. Let THEM raise the money if the program is a good one.
Ideally, the states would raise the money on their own, which I think would be better than the federal government giving them money. However, apparently most (perhaps all) states have balanced budget amendments in their constitutions, so they can't raise the money by borrowing.
Now, you can fairly ask why we should tax our children for current spending. The answer is that we should only tax our children for current spending if the economic return on the spending exceeds the cost of borrowing. Thus if the cost of borrowing is 3%, but it results in only a 1% increase in economic output, we are worse off than if we hadn't spent the money. On the other hand, if the cost of borrowing is 3%, but it results in a 5% increase in economic output, then we would be worse off if we didn't spend the money.
Education, transportation (in populated areas), and communications spending all tend to have high rates of return. This type of spending is usually done primarily at the state level.
I agree that this is a much better stimulus bill that the last, but I can see reasons for the Federal Govt to specify spending. There could be multiple "good" alternatives and the state and federal govt (having different priorities) could differ on which to choose. So it being federal money, no reason why they shouldn't make the call between 2 decent alternatives. A second reason could be some sort of national plan which would require coordination of the spending in multiple states to be effective. Perhaps an upgrade to the electricity grid or some other national infrastructure system.
ReplyDeleteBut in any case, we'll see how much this gets fucked up in the senate, where the supermajority requirement means cutting special interest deals with "centrist" like lieberman, nelson, snowe etc.
i don't wanna get into the moral or immoral debate on the walk aways, but i will say this morgan stanley action is one factor in my stance. when businesses behave "immorally" or amorally or whatever anyone wants to call it the only option for an even playing ground is the same strategic behavior by individuals. and large businesses virtually always act with a single consideration - strategic self interest.
ReplyDelete< Does Washington, D.C. really know what's good for Wyoming better than the Wyoming state legislature does? >
ReplyDeleteOh, please! Left to individual states, we would certainly have some form of segregation (institutionalized disenfranchisement, at the very, very least), if not outright chattel slavery. And, no, that is no exaggeration.
And to step back from that rhetorical edge for a few feet, "yes, Republican dominated state legislators are GEARED to TAKE MONEY FROM state residents, and funnel them TO the business, corporate, & wealthy elites of those states" - witness Texas Governor George W. Bush taking the BUDGET SURPLUSES left him by his Dem. predecessor (Ann Richards), SLASHING the pre-schol, after-school, and HEALTH-INSURANCE programs that Richards had put in place - programs PROVEN to SAVE TEXAS MONEY, by keeping children in schools, at higher productivity, out of hospitals, and out of the costly CRIMINAL JUSTICE system - Gov. Bush SLASHED all those proven, money saving programs IN FAVOR of TAX CUTS FOR RICH, and not only did Texas lose those life-saving programs, by the WHOLE STATE BUDGET went into DEFICITS as well.
DEFICIT SPENDING, LOOTING taxpayers to the benefit of the plantation lords, IS Right-Wing, Republican tax & economic policy.
You hand money to states, they will divvy it up "TRICKLE DOWN" style - all money to the top.
Wow, anonymous! Buried deep in that bitter, partisan rant is an actual reasonable argument. States with Republican-controlled governments may just hand out the money instead of using it for capital investment. I think you've convinced me.
ReplyDelete"Left to individual states, we would certainly have some form of segregation (institutionalized disenfranchisement, at the very, very least), if not outright chattel slavery."
ReplyDelete***********************************
Is there any evidence to support this assertion?
Why is it that the federal government has a greater purchase on justice and equality than individual state governments?
Didn't Nevada and Montana enfranchise women 6 years before the federal government (which was meanwhile arresting women who were picketing outside the Whitehouse). Also, wasn't slavery already illegal in most states prior to 1863 when the federal government finally got off its lazy duff and did something about it? If these states lacked power to effect social change on their own, as sort of experimental laboratories, then the federal government might never have gotten around to doing it.
Anon, it sounds like you genuinely care about the well-being of your fellow man. Just understand that the federal government neither cares nor understands about what is required for the well-being of people in your home state or home town. It's better that you and your local officials retain the power to control your own destinies rather than handing it over to a corrupt central government that will use that authority to devour you. Remember that those who put their trust in monolithic national governments are always disappointed in the long run.
It sounds like your trust in Uncle Scam has already disappointed you.