Redstate

(And you know I'm coming across the aisle, but still.)

If you're going to cut spending somewhere, a mere $1B on keeping poor elderly people warm during the winter months is only going to play into the worst stereotypes of Republicans.  Seriously, here's the income guidelines for LIHEAP eligibility:

To be eligible, household income cannot exceed 135 percent of the Federal poverty income guidelines, or:

$12,920 one-person household

$17,321 two-person household

$21,722 three-person household

$26,123 four-person household

$30,524 five-person household

$39,326 six-person household

I think you can find more politically feasible targets.

How about no subsidies paid to people in states that don't allow production of the product? So for example if Massachusetts doesn't allow oil drilling, then no one there can get any subsidies related to home heating oil.

I realize that's an oversimplified approach, but as a person who lives in Texas, it galls me that states in the northeast want someone else to take all the environmental impacts of most energy production but in effect want to be able to decide the price for these goods that are brought in.

As far as I'm concerned, federal gasoline taxes should be lower in states that have oil drilling and/or refineries. If Masschusetts doesn't want oil platforms off their coast that's fine - let them pay $1 per gallon in federal gasoline taxes to help cover environmental effects in places like Texas.

The price per gallon of home heating oil: up 23% from last year.

ExxonMobil's profit margin for last quarter: $5 million per hour, $80,000 per minute, $1,350 per second.

The political value of frozen Grandmas, turned into popcicles by GOP polices: priceless.

Those darn grannies, they're addicted to oil!

Amazingly enough, being a Wal Mart greeter doesn't pay enough to deal with the routinely below zero temperatures in Minnesota.

I suppose it is her fault since she spent her life raising 13 kids while grandpa worked in the mines.  She never had the oppertunity to build up that nest egg.  And I suppose grandpa shouldn't have died so young, maybe he would have had a pension coming.

But by all means, cut the wasteful program that helps her, and many like her, heat her house.  I'm sure they'll manage to get by.

I'm not sure where you're from, but here in the Northeast, heating usually means oil or natural gas, not electricity.  Furthermore, in most of the states around here the price of most forms of energy is strictly regulated by state boards, not the actual energy companies. And LIHEAP is such a miniscule part of the bottom line for most of these companies, that it has little if any effect on their pricing.

So if your entire argument that LIHEAP is keeping the price of electricity high is pretty much ridiculous.  Eliminating government regulations as you suggested aren't going to drive the costs of heating oil or natural gas down, either, so I honestly don't see where you've got any sort of valid argument here.

Now, whether LIHEAP ought to be renewed or dropped based on it's actual merits and flaws is another matter entirely.  I know that for many people, and especially with the price of heating oil and gas doubling in the last few years, LIHEAP makes a significant difference.  Others simply never pay their bills and the costs eventually get passed on to the others who do.  If you can come up with something else that resolves this problem, I'm open to hearing it.

But trying to kill a program for a flaw that it doesn't even have, I just can't agree with that.  Give me a better solution, or at least a better reason.

All of these comments from closet socialists.  What the Democrats and the moderates are trying to do here is to have ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY LIHEAP funding above what we normally provide.  Why shouldn't Republicans oppose that?  We simply do not have the money right now.  And are we that trustful that this funding is actually helping Grandma keep the lights on (at which point I would ask why aren't these commentators helping their own grandmas keep the lights on) instead of liberal nonprofits preaching green peace.  

the amount of pain that the hypothetical Senator would have to endure and inflict on his/her party to cut this $1BN annual program out of our $2.8 TRILLION annual bugdet (ie 0.0035%) is not remotely worth it.

The Senatorial Spine infusion that would impress me would be someone who actually comes up with a plausible plan to deal with the massive Medicare/Medicaid budget burden.

Liberals always make the same plea, the same appeal to the heartstrings. Do you suggest that because your grandma's situation is unfortunate it is therefore the government's responsibility?

Just because something is sad, or even, in the great scheme of things, cosmically unfair, it doesn't necessarily become the responsibility of the government. Nor are people required to give a darn. Who are you to suggest that your grandmother's financial problems are my problem whether I care or not?

Ever heard of charity? Churches? Contrary to never-ending maudlin assertions by the left, such things do exist and they do help people and people do give to them out of the goodness of their hearts.

How pompous of you all to suggest that you are a deep enough person to care what happens, but no one else is so you are justified in forcibly taking their money and redistributing it.

Yeesh. "I'm sure they'll manage to get by."

Why don't YOU pay for her heat casual? Why don't you and your liberal pals set up a non-profit to subsidize heating?

Because it's not so much about helping the poor as it is about forcing others to do your bidding?

for the legality of this program.  Other, of course, than the "Commerce Clause" which as applied should be more appropriately known as the "Santa Clause".

I have no problem helping low income people with their heating bills.  If the residents of the State of Massachusetts think that's a worthy thing to do then let them set up a program in Massachusetts that takes taxes or fees paid by wealthier residents and offsets the fuel cost of those with lower incomes.

If you're OK with this program, I want a similar program that helps me with my air conditioning bill here in Phoenix five months out of the year.

This is a Constitutionally perfect target.

How about we tie the amount of federal money paid out to specific states to the amount of tax revenue produced by that state?

Massachusetts produces about $6,400 per person in tax revenue - the 4rd best rate in the country.  Texas produces $4,600 per person - the 30th best rate.

Who is subsidizing who here?  Seems like Uncle Sam is only giving the Bay State back its own money.

Percentage of New England homes heated with oil by state.

We will never begin to reform entitlements if we can't stop EXPANSIONS of current programs.  Literally yesterday, libs got $1 billion in LIHEAP in addition to what is normally provided through annual appropriations.  And now you are saying that conservatives shouldnt oppose further increases?  Last time I checked, Senators have six year terms so what exactly are they worried about.  This is only reason that we are supposed to have a Senate -- to stop bad things from happening.  

13 Kids and none of them are willing to chip in to pay Mom's bills?????  Jerks.  Heartless.  How am I supposed to care for granny when her own kids (of which she has plenty) don't?

BTW, I keep my gas set at 52 degrees most of the time.  Sometimes I spoil myself and jack it up to the low 60s.  

Of course, I certainly see the political downside for all the would be Phil Gramms.  And thus the government grows.

because not every state has the resource.  However, I love the idea.

How about either refining, ie: building additional refining capacity for local use, or nuclear energy by locating nuclear power generation on an expedited, emergency basis so it doesn't take 50 years to get approval to build the plant.

Why should tax money destined for Massachusetts have to be filtered through Washington first?  Why doesn't Massachusetts start it's own LIHEAP program and tell the feds to buzz-off?

Or do you suggest that we also subsidize electricity for low-income folks in San Antonio during the summer months so they don't bake in the 100-plus degree heat?

Arizon only generates about $4,300 per person in federal tax revenues each year.  That's about 37th overall.

Again, at about $6,400 per person per year (3rd highest), us Massachusetts residents are carrying a significantly higher share of the federal tax burden than you guys.  If you want special programs for Arizona, you're going to need to step up the productivity.  

No free rides!

It's a great consolation prize to know that our tax dollars are being spent to help the Iraqis with their energy needs.  Not that I disagree with helping them, it's just a bit confusing why helping them is ok, but helping people who have paid taxes all their life is not.

Combine elimination of this program with the elimination of the NEA and the Department of Education.  The grief would be only incremental and the savings would be significant.

Find out everyone who has some type of bill that they can't pay ... no wait, a bill that is onerous in some way, and have the government subsidize ...

Wait, check this out. If everyone worked according to their abilities, and then received government funds according to their needs ....

Hmm. This sounds familiar

I believe heating oil and gas generally travel through interstate commerce, that not every state has such resources naturally.

I'd also cite to the "general welfare" clause.

For what it's worth, the Energy Department is helping out Arizonans as well.  See also this.

And ones that the media love to gobble up. I would ask you three questions about those mean ol oil companies that actually provide the oil to us and the benevolent government that is there to provide 'comfort" to us:

1. How do these numbers translate to a percentage of Exxons overall income and expenditures?
   
2. How do those numbers translate to a per-gallon cost? IOW, how much of the price is Exxon's profit?
   
3. How much is the per-gallon share of taxes that you shell out to your state and local government?
   

Our tax dollars are being spent in the interest of our national security. What's confusing about that?

Merely saying two things are equivalent doesn't make them so.

Link.  And it's through LIHEAP.

Cruel, heartless, and strecthed to the max.  Might as well get rid of student loans and education spending too.  If it weren't for them I wouldn't have been the first family member to go to college and be in a position to help them out.  No...wait, already covering that I see.  Good work.

... that you simply cannot out-snark the Federal Government.

Thanks, comrade.

about killing this program along with the NEA and Dept of Education.  I would kill the Energy Dept as well.  Along with ALL of their subsidies.

"The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names."

Lets be clear. This (and many/most other programs) amount to taking property from one person to provide charity to other.  

Nothng against charity, freely given.  But you don't get any morality points when you steal the property before you give it away to a third person.

Theft(under color of governmental authority, or by sticking a pistol in my face on the street) is still theft.  

A good first step wold be to truthfully label this program as charity.

A good second step is to acknowledge that the Federal govenment has no constitutional role in providing charity.

beyond mine.  Excellent post.  A "10" on a "1-5" scale.

And no, the Boston Globe and the New York Times don't count. I want a reliable source.

How much do you pay for your water out there in the desert?

Money taken by force to give to another isn't charity.  You're being too charitable to the socialists.

"Education", the cost of education would drop quickly and significantly.  And the quality would rise.

It's an interesting fact that the cost of "higher education" has risen faster than the cost of living EVERY year since the feds started handing out money.

Student loans are not a "cash" program, they are "loan guarantee".  You can do away with the Dept of Education (visions of 1984 every time I type that phrase) and still have the student loan guarantee program.

There are better battles to fight than this one. The Dems would have a field day with it - and seniors vote in midterm elections.

How about cutting in half the number of federal employees who work at DOE!We have office buildings full of employees doing little or nothing. Trust me,they are there. I am a fed (unfortunately)and see it everyday.

I know LIHEAP is an entitlement, and these programs never end, but it seems like political suicide over virtual pennies. Also, I am from the Northeast, and seniors paying for home heating is a HUGE problem this year.  

That's why developers have pretty much stopped planting grass in the last decade.  A "lawn" will cost you a fortune to keep green and a swimming pool is expensive to keep filled because of the evaporation.

and you'd be citing it incorrectly, IMHO. The general welfare clause is meant to allow Congress to apply taxes to carry out only the enumerated powers granted in the Constitution.

The beginning of the Constitution states that the general welfare of the US is promoted by the creation of the Constitution itself.

Article 8 simple makes a specific statement about allowing tax collection for that same purpose.

"General Welfare" was never meant to be an open ended grab bag of goodies that it has now become. In Federalist 41 Madison addresses that very question by saying: "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?"

Actually in Hamilton made somewhat of the same point. he didnt want a bill of rights because his thinking was that if it isnt specifically listed in the Constitution, it is obviously unconstitutional and adding prohibitions to goverment would confuse the matter.  

Also, Interstate commerce was meant to prohibit a state from setting up unfair trade policies to other states, not a spending free-for-all.

The "general welfare" clause is in the preamble, which specifices reasons for creating the Constitution, not the powers defined to any of the branches of the government.

The "commerce clause," so long as you are using a plain meaning textual, or original intent philosophy also does not apply. The commerce clause is intended to prevent one state/commonwealth from taxing other state/commonwealth members of the Union  in order to effectively prohibit the importation of "foreign" produced goods and/or services. Same is applied to regulations at the discretion of the federal government (so for example, CA can require stricter emmissions standards for cars, so long as no other state/commonwealth charges that such regulations violate the commerce clause).

percentages add up. I'm sure Redstate could come up with a list well in excess of 1 billion to axe.

Why does that sound an awful lot like Ebenezer Scrooge's famous "have we no workhouses..." quote?

Heaven forbid any of us should be "required to give a darn".

I love when I get to hang around with guys who know more than me and can explain what they know in way that is understandable by even me.

Thanks to both you and Gadfly just below on the same topic.

you're allowed to take it instead of it being reserved to preserve the habitat of an "endangered" fish.

Why not just start with 'alternative' energy like offshore wind farms, and we could put it off the coast of nantucket, and I am sure we can get quick backing from senator's kerry and kennedy, and...oh wait...never mind.

I want to add that federal programs such as this exist precisely because a certain segment of the population wishes not to be "required to give a darn".

While charity begins at home, for some it does not extend beyond it and problems such as the one LIHEAP is put in place to alleviate will constantly be sloughed off as someone else's problem.

giving a darn means taking money out of my pocket and helping someone directly instead of having the AllKnowing Oz extract it by force, keep 30% or so for administration cost and pass along the remainder.

And heaven should also forbid that we enforce the 10th Amendment and restrict the feds to those powers SPECIFICALLY enumerated in the Constitution.

if it isn't freely given. Other words come to mind, confiscation and coercion, for instance.

Simply because the cause is laudable doesn't mean the federal government should pay for it. States that want the program are free to levy taxes on their residents, and presumably at least some of the friends and relatives of the recipients.

and provide for another then have your state government, county government or city/town government do it.

would allow the federal government to provide me with free beer and hookers.

Where is John Sununu?  When he was elected, he said he wanted to be the next Phil Gramm.  That certainly has not been the case -- I havent seen him stop or even block one bad piece of spending legislation. Talk about it being time to get off the bench.

The same reasoning would compell the federal government to provide you with free beer and hookers, upon request.

Just sayin'.

to eliminate.  Not cut, eliminate.

With respect to your desire to cut half of the employees at DOE, why not cut all of them?  And if half were cut, how would AFSCME respond?

I often thought that the Dept of Education is kind of useless. At the very least, if we are going to continue an unconstitutional redistribution of wealth, the Dept of Education could be reduced to one extra employee at the Treasury Department who's job it is to cut 50 checks a year and direct deposit them to each states bank account. Actually I think it could be handled in one day by calling AccountTemps.

The downside? The federal goverment is probably the biggest source of welfare in the country. I once heard a scary thing, that if you drive through DC, practically every non-residential building is there for the purpose of spending your money. What would all these government workers do if the goverment ran constitutionally?

What clause of the Constitution authorized the aid to the people of Savannah in 1796?

Is that any different on a moral level?

S-M-R-T!

(simpsons reference)

...but thanks for the compliment

I'm being discriminated against.  I don't drink and my wife would absolutely find out and maim me over the hooker thing.

I'll settle for free motorcycles and a pass on speeding tickets in lieu.

I guess your position is that charities do not exist? Or perhaps your position is people do not give to them? Maybe you believe they don't actually help people? Or maybe that they just don't get as much money voluntarily as the government does by force.

All incorrect, all beside the point.

"Heaven forbid any of us should be "required to give a darn"."

There's a statement I can agree with. You don't get to tell me what to care about without infringing on my liberty.

Operative word here is required.

work at the new WalMarts that would be going up because we would have lots of money not going to DC.

My only concern would be the amount of time it would take to train a federal employee to say "Hi, welcome to WalMart!"

seems to compel and allow the feds to provide that service

There is no moral difference as you don't have granny-cicles across the northern tier states. From a matter of faithfulness to the constitution it matters a great deal.

(HA! I got to use the word "frame"!)

Anyway, on a moral level, if we must resort to that, you have a greater proportional say, and can more closely elect the benefits and consequences that flow your way.

Don't pay for either of them.

and I dont see a yea or nay resolution in the text I will take your word for it that it passed. I will also disagree with its passage, as well as a million different other unconstitutional resolutions since. I shall side with Mr. Macon:

"If the United States were to become underwriters to the whole Union, where must the line be drawn when their assistance might be claimed?"

That is what state goverments are for.

Besides, I dont see the names of any of the founding fathers in that discourse.

it is a CONSTITUTIONAL issue.  The federal government cannot address EVERY "moral" issue.

Governmental structures have tried to do that.  Read Karl Marx.  Marxism is the perfect form of government if you expect government to address and solve moral issues.  After all, each person will give according to his ability and each will receive according to his needs.  No more inequality.  No more class warfare.  No more greed or theft.  No more excess profits by Exxon.

No more freedom.

The founders specifically intended the federal government to have limits, thinking that if services are to be provided they should be provided by the government closest to the people.  The federal government is not that.

I have no problem making a case that local (non-federal) governments providing services are, in fact, more moral than the fed doing it.  Constitutional issues aside, social programs are the most effective when they are administered at the local level.  That's why "faith based" programs are so much more effective than governmental programs both in their impact on the lives of the people they serve and in the lower cost to administer the program.

Everyone should drop the whole "it's confiscatory! it ought to be done be charity!" if there's no problem with state-level initiatives for doing it.

Can I get some love here.

And hire Abramoff.

Maine Gov. Baldacci has created a charity fund specifically for this purpose, with support from the state's three previous governors.  One Democrat, one Independent, and one Republican.  The goal is $10 million, sourced from private contributions and a $5M diversion of state funds from other programs.

Home heating assistance is broadly supported by the people here in Maine.  We're really a state teetering on the blue/red edge, and pulling LIHEAP out from under Maine's poor would go a long way toward locking in a couple of EVs and a House seat or two in the blue column the next time around.  Small potatoes, perhaps, but it all adds up in the end.

I don't want that.  I don't think many RS'ers want that either.

To a large extent I agree with the basic principles you ennumerated.  I'm a small government guy and I certainly know there's a huge amount of spending that is unnecessary or that requires a massive constitutional stretch to justify.

But I think that when it comes to entitlements we should differentiate between people who won't help themselves and people who can't.  I've got some of the former in my own family and expressing my attitude toward them would violate the profanity rule here.  But the latter...well, come on.  They're human beings who are trying to make it, and if we were to let them literally freeze, we would be no better than the Europeans who let their elderly die in the heat wave a couple of years ago.

The actual LIHEAP benefit works out to just a few hundred bucks per recipient, when the average recipient is in the $12k income range.  Is that such a huge deal?

it's not constitutional for the feds to do it but it is for the state to isn't getting through to you?

In my experience, limited as it is, programs like this migrate to the federal level because state and local politicians understand that if they tried to pass this kind of drivel at their level, their constituents would haul them out to a stone pit and do violence to their political careers.  So they lobby to get it passed at the federal level where no one will notice and nobody cares because it's ONLY a billion dollars.

The vote failed.  David Currie, The Constitution in Congress: The Federalist Period, 1789-1801, 224-25.

I was wrong to oppose this important program.  I see the light.

Moose, please join strief and me with our program to help those of us who need help affording beer & hookers (strief), motorcycles & speeding ticket (me) and a subsidized Pepsi or two for the other needy guy in another comment thread.  I think we're going to form a PAC.

These are also state-level programs.  Right now.

I accept that we have different visions of the constitutional scheme, that probably split around 1937 or so.  Let's get back to the specific program and not kick that ball around all day.

"But I think that when it comes to entitlements we should differentiate between people who won't help themselves and people who can't.  I've got some of the former in my own family and expressing my attitude toward them would violate the profanity rule here.  But the latter...well, come on. They're human beings who are trying to make it, and if we were to let them literally freeze, we would be no better than the Europeans who let their elderly die in the heat wave a couple of years ago."

The problem with socialists is they never seem to get that saying the government shouldn't pay for something isn't REMOTELY the same thing as saying it shouldn't be payed for.

Why why why WHY must it always be the government? Why why why why can't it ever be the responsibility of private citizens, charities, and churches?

and limit the federal government to those things that are specifically, repeat SPECIFICALLY, enumerated in the Constitution.

KILL IT.

that post by Moose, to me, is everything that is good about the Republican party. Concerned with ideals, yet practical, compassionate, but not naive.

It stands in sharp contrast to the rest of the thread.

migraine inducing non sequitur.

how charity works. You seem to think that charity will always exactly meet the need. That's pretty naive. The reason to have government involved is that someone, somewhere, is responsible for ensuring that everyone who qualifies, receives assistance. Doesn't always work in practice, of course, but it makes more sense than suggesting that every case will magically be met by local giving.

If private giving were meeting the need in this instance then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It'll be a hell of a problem not having NASA or an air force, but we'll live.

Fold them back into the Army as an Air Corps.

Ta da.

If private giving were meeting the need in this instance then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The reduction in charity due to taxation is not exactly a controversial phenomenon.

Don't think that looks good on a bumper sticker.

Yes, I understand that your point is that the federal government shouldn't be paying for this. However, I don't think that there would be many Republicans up for re election who would want to be saddled with "doesn't care if poor people freeze". (And I am pretty sure that is how it would play)

Why not fold in LIHEAP into the Army too as a way of defending Americans from reliance on more costly Mideast oil?

Although the combat implications of LIHEAP are more than a bit strained. I'm also not clear on how subsidizing the use of heating oil helps us to lower demand in the aggregate. It just frees up that other oil to go elsewhere, slightly cheaper.

The USAF, however, was originally the bombardment and transport arm of the Army, both of which are traditional uses of the Armed Forces. LIHEAP... not so much.

I understand how charity works just fine. You assume that I don't because you assume I share the belief that someone must make sure that all need is met exactly.

That would be great, but I don't think it is anyone's responsibility to make it happen.

Even if it was, you assume without evidence that it's impossible for a private organization to do so. How naive must one be to think the government could do anything better than the private sector outside of making war?

If unjust taxation and socialist spending programs were eliminated, you and others who feel a responsibility to pick up the slack would be free to do so. Far more free to do so, in fact, then you are now, considering the increased funds at everyone's disposal.

The Constitution does expressly call for the defence of this country so, if we are attacked, we can defend ourselves by throwing bureaucrats at them. We will have an effective resistance at our borders as the invaders will be so bogged down with filling out everything in triplicate that they will just say "Aw the hell with it, lets go home."

"doesn't care if poor people freeze"

You say that as if this is not precisely what Dems say already.

Where does that fit in?

Replace "were" with "had been" -- my point is simply that charity hadn't, doesn't, and won't do a particularly good job of addressing heating costs. Nothing wrong with that, but that's why government ought to be involved in this area.

Do you think that charity can satisfactorily accomodate every instance of need with respect to heating costs?

Are we going to build platforms for nuclear and other weapon delivery that can be moved around in orbit? How else can we establish military bases throughout the solar system?

And I'm not sure what you mean by "satisfactorily."

I'm not being a pedant (this once). Government produces all sorts of unsatisfactory side effects when it does anything; you're just more comfortable about them than others are.

First, it's unclear to me what burdensome MA and VT regulations are driving up the price of oil.

Second, most folks up here don't heat with electric.  It's too inefficient.  I'm not sure how electric power generators come into the picture.

Third, if it really bugs you to help people who are pretty damned poor heat their homes in the winter, keep your money.  We'll take care of it.  We will also not forget.

to a lot of unserious comments. NASA is the successor to the Civil Aeronautics Board which, in turn, was modeled on the US Coast and Geodetic Survey, established in 1807, now part of NOAA.

These agencies were established as part of the Department of Commerce because they were charged with developing commerce through mapping the coast line, charting currents, developing commercially viable air travel, etc.

Exploration as a means of increasing prosperity has been a constitutional task since Lewis and Clark departed St. Louis in 1804.

A billion dollars a year is a lot of money. There are already state progams to assist with this sort of thing. Let the states handle it however they want.

On top of this, subsudizing fuel does increase demand. Demand for heating fuels is not inelastic. Things like insulation, equipment efficiency, windows, and programmable thermostats are looked at on a cost/benefit basis. And of course there is the thermostat setting. There is a huge difference in cost in keeping a house at 65 vs 72 degrees.

For non-military ventures, they can do it.

They won the $10 million X Prize and there were a lot of other organizations involved too.

http://www.xprizefoundation.com/

Hats off to Ron Paul for the fourth paragraph in that link.

"Third, if it really bugs you to help people who are pretty damned poor heat their homes in the winter, keep your money."

Oh boo hoo. Give me a break! It's not a matter of helping poor people heat their homes. How sanctimonious can you get?

It's being forced to. It's having your money appropriated. I suppose you'd be fine with me robbing your home of all it's possessions as long as the proceeds went to help the poor yes? That's exactly what you are saying.

Lefties always propagate the same old lies. How it is you can claim that suggesting charity help the poor is precisely the same as saying screw the poor ....

Un - freaking - believable.

"The problem with socialists is they never seem to get that saying the government shouldn't pay for something isn't REMOTELY the same thing as saying it shouldn't be payed for.

Why why why WHY must it always be the government? Why why why why can't it ever be the responsibility of private citizens, charities, and churches?"

I wholeheartedly agree with you.  To the maximum extent possible, the responsibility should lie outside the public sector.  I, and probably many others here believe that private giving would pick up much of the slack in the event that government entitlements were reduced.  By no means all, but a great deal of it.  And it would undoubtedly be vastly more efficient and effective.

However, since it's an untested premise (in modern American society, at least), actually transferring the burden from the federal and state treasuries to the private and nonprofit sectors would require something of a leap of faith--a leap many Americans may not be willing to make.  Current entitlements are so entrenched that many people will be afraid of changing them too much.  It is also a leap which our friends on the left will label as a leap to faith, which for some reason scares them.  Citizens and churches shouldn't do things the government can do, they will think if not actually say.

The challenge is to prepare the battlefield, so to speak, so that the environment is conducive to the desired outcome, and so that the people as a whole believe it will really work.  And that's one Gordian knot for which my abilities are unable to even suggest a solution.

So, to answer your rhetorical questions, it should not be the government's responsibility, and we as conservatives should work to get society as a whole to take it on.  In the here and now, though, there are people who need help, and we should do it with the system (however flawed) that is currently available to us, while working to replace that system down the road.

Look at the comment by amos below.

It is the most efficient kind of heating system there is... it is just expensive. You can get subsudized electric rates (often less than half price) just for heating purposes. Some apartment buildings have electric heat.

As far as him keeping his money, that doesn't make a bit of sense. Do you think the IRS will let him keep his money without sending him to prison?

amos,

To your last point only - I am not at all certain that anyone here has any problems with helping people "who are pretty damned poor heat their homes in the winter".  I think the question is, however, why in the world is this a Federal concern?

Surely you are not arguing that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is incapable of providing this service.  Are you?

That said, the politics of this is ludicrous - and your post as a (very) reasonable and (very) thoughtful participant here from the other side of Grand Chasm serves to illustrate just how so.

Cheers.

how? through state money and individual charitable contributions, because that is what is being advocated.

Or is it through Federal money that you plan to take care of it? If so, then telling me to keep my money is an oxymoron.

as long as it's not the FEDERAL government.

point here is that heating oil prices range from $2.46 in CT to $2.80 in VT.  Why the difference?  I would be interested in seeing the amount of state taxes on a gallon of heating oil in each of those states.

The choice depends on who's paying the bill.

A+/5! My thoughts exactly.

If a woman can raise 13 kids, then they don't need high cost education to help pay for her heat. 13 kids working at McDonald's can afford her heat.

Whatever happened to heating with wood, anyway? It'd probably be cheaper. The 13 of you can help chop.

It is the most efficient kind of heating system there is... it is just expensive.

If you need a specific amount of heat per year, then the cheapest is the most efficient.

Might I suggest firewood. I'm sure there's plenty of landowners out east willing to give it away.

In college in PA in the 1980s I had a roommate who kept his room at 80 degrees in the winter because he liked to wear shorts around the house. And yes, it being a rental unit where the landlord didn't pay the electric bill, had electric heaters (thermostats on each one in each room so we couldn't turn down the loser's unit). Durn fool couldn't understand why the rest of us were so upset when the $75+ per person electric bills came in. With more than five of us in the house, we were kind of expecting it to be lower than that.

Yep, I know libs 'cause I had to live with them. Same logic strand: I want someone to be comfortable, so YOU should pay for it.

Efficiency is measured in how many BTUs you can extract out of a given fuel source, not how cost effective it may be in your area. A 95% efficient natural gas furnace converts 95% of the gas's energy content into heat. Electric approaches 100%. A wood stove or fireplace would be a whole lot lower. Comparing efficiency between different fuel sources is a pointless exercise anyway. I was just pointing out to the previous poster that electric heat is not inefficient.

Who used to turn her electric baseboards all the way down and heat her apartment with the gas oven. Since the gas was paid and the electric was not. Not the safest or most cost effective way to heat a house, but when you aren't paying the bill...

Could someone show widespread fraud because of the program, or evidence that power companies would indeed lower their rates if the program ceased to exist?

Someone gets firewood and uses it to heat his house cheaply for a week. Earth First! finds out about it and torches the house of the treekiller, providing cheap heat for a day for all his neighbors.

just have a technical question:

Doesnt a lot of power get lost as it travels over the wires from the generator to your home?

is when people say yeah sure, we care enough not to let people freeze.  In reality, they don't and won't fork over one dime to see that it doesn't happen.  They just say they will do because no one wants to sound like you don't care that people freeze.  That's where I see the big leap.

And we've never seen private citizens embezzle or waste money, never.  It's another leap of faith to assume that you can trust whoever takes on the task.

But trust is a circular argument, I trust someone I elect more than someone I know nothing about.  For some, it's the other way around.

Point being, I don't want to live in a country that can afford to help the truly needy, but doesn't.  And I don't trust promises from someone not obligated to fulfill their word.

And even more gets lost when they convert the fuel source into electricty at the power plant. Of course the same losses apply to other fuels as well (storage and transport of heating oil for example), so the efficency rating is just measured at the point of use. At the point of use, an electric radiator is as close to 100% efficient as you can get.

If we had widespread nuclear power, you would probably see a lot more electric heat being used. It does have some major advantages compared to the alternatives.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Who said that setting the thermostat to 80 or heating the house with the oven is fraud?

As far as costs go, if you subsidize the cost of something, demand will increase and prices will go up. If you remove that subsidy, demand will decrease and prices will come down.

That is a rather big assumption that the people here just wont fork over a dime. Kind of insulting too. Actually people in red states fork over a higher percentage of their income per capita than the big city blue staters. I believe this was a red cross or united way survey.

As for trusting people, well that is kind of the point and the beauty of the Constitution. Sure there is corruption and the Framers were plenty aware of that. That is WHY all this power is left to the states. It is also why people here believe charities are a better way to go.

Any organization can be corrupt but it is easier to keep your eye on one that is local, in your state and not a thousand miles away, and theres less people to oversee. As for charities, they compete, and when you are in charge of where your money goes, you are more aware of where it is going.

I think it was PJ O'Rourke who asked "If you had $100, who would you give it to, a local charity that helps the homeless, or mail it to HUD?"

government to help these people.  It is not the responsibility of the federal government to help them.

I'm not opposed to "local" governments getting involved, and the more local the better.  I am absolutely opposed to people getting one crying dime from the feds.  

as BTUs per dollar.

For instance: heat source "A" converts 100% of the available energy into heat and one BTU costs me one dollar; heat source "B" converts 50% of the available energy into heat and one BTU costs $0.25, I'm going to opt for the - by your definition - less efficient source.

I suppose you can define it however you want, but that is how the EPA measures it. BTUs per dollar would vary wildly depending on where you are geographically and what day you calculate it.

Heating oil was a cheap way to heat for a while. I remember paying as little as 75 cents a gallon 10 years ago. Now I just paid $2.10 and that is down from about $2.40 earlier this year. I will be switching over to propane when I replace my boiler. I expect the cost to be about the same but propane has a lot of advantages over oil (I can get rid of my electric stove, electric water heater, etc).

Once again, the sanctimony is staggering. YOU care enough to send the very best, while we unwashed masses are to backward to do so. Therefore, you will use the government to take our money by force to be spent as you see fit.

There's a word for that type of governance.

Anyway, your whole premise is completely false. You can't sit here and argue that people don't give to help others. Not only do they do so all the time, they do so in spite of the fact that people like you confiscate their earnings to your own ends. Imagine how much more they could give were they truly free.

But you don't care about that.

and one I didn't make, at least in the way you framed it.  I said people.  This means people in general, didn't say anything about poliical affiliation.  Although there is no doubt in my mind that if the program was completely axed, there would be some on here that do parrot private charities that wouldn't give a dime.  The same goes for bleeding heart liberals who say this program is important.

I also highly doubt that if the funding to this program was cut, we would be returned the full amount in the form of reduced taxes.

So I suspect that not only would a majority not give to help out, I also suspect those that would give would have less money to do it with.  I don't think either of those is an unrealistic expectation.

XOM is running about 10% right now. These are massive, businesses in a very capital intensive and cyclical business. That's why the raw figure of 10 billion in a quarter means nothing. XOM has a market value of about $350bln. It's revenues over the past year were about $140bln.

Since the "General Welfare" clause has been brought up before, how does giving to the rich what you take from everyone promote the general welfare?  If anything, the very affluence of Massachusetts residents should mean that they receive Less from the government than place with poorer residents.  That's what the Left is all about, isn't it?  Taking care of the poor and economically disenfranchised?

I begin to understand how people think they are gouging...  Most small businesses operate on under a 5% margin...

It is the $ amount that the news quotes so people can go "wowee thats not fair". It is large because its a HUGE company. I guess we could split it up into little companies that make less. When you look at the 10% you realize that it is not that outlandish earnings compared to other companies.

as for the per gallon profit, I heard it was about 10-12 cents per gallon. The guy who owns the pump gets about 8 cents.

Federal tax is 18.5 cents and CT state tax is 25 cents. Then there is a 5 cents CT "gross receipts tax" as well. so you are looking at 48.5 cents per each gallon of gas. Lots more than the producer charges.

have some fun and see what your state charges:

http://www.connecticutgasprices.com/tax_info.aspx

It depends on the business. Intel made over 31% in the past 12 months. Microsoft made almost 41%. 3M made almost 27%. American Express made over 27%.

It's also cyclical, as I mentioned. So you can't extrapolate that out. They don't make 10% quarter after quarter. It's only their best quarters that they make that much.

can use the bold tag AND capitalize words at RANDOM.  Therefore, I am right.

Just a suggestion, every reply from you has been like that.  Not offended, just poor manners.

To address your comment.  I say it because it's the truth.  Personally, it would be all I could do to help those I actually know who struggle with heating costs.  For people who don't have that problem, or personally know many that do, I highly doubt there will be alot of concern on their part.

Is it a bit socialist to help others such as the elderly and disabled? yes.  Is it the right thing to do?  yes.  If pointing out that I'm for government helping people truly in need is an insult, please feel free to continue.  It's an insult I can readily take.

that after your gallon gets taxed, Exxon gets taxed at the end of the year, and then you get to pay capital gains tax if you own their shares.

On the dividends from their earnings that they just paid taxes on.

Its still less than half the profit margin the state and federal goverments get, for producing nothing. And remember when gas was about $1.20, they were still taxing you the same. So, In a way, gas tax is going down.

reinforce the stereotype?

I can just see the campaign ads now, Grandma burning her Social Security check to keep warm.

Are you suggesting that we base our decisions on what the Democrats might say in campaign ads? Now there is a recipe for out of control spending. Of course, they will still criticize even the most generous increases in funding as not enough or as done the wrong way, so it wouldn't even save us from the ads.

...which of course is double-taxed. XOM pays the corporate income tax on their earnings. They pay what's left out to their shareholders (minus what they retain for working capital) as dividends, and the shareholders pay income tax on the dividends. This is the reason why corporate profits shouldn't be taxed at all.

Regarding cap gains, XOM has not been a stellar performer for quite a few years now. The general perception is that they are basically just a cash machine, with relatively little in the way of good investment opportunities. That's why the stock is an underperformer. When you're nearly at $350B or so in annual revenue, it's darned hard to get meaningfully bigger, especially if you want to keep that relatively high 17% operating margin and 10% overall profit margin.

XOM's income statement is also pretty interesting. I haven't seen their December quarter yet, but their September quarter (before the hurricanes) shows a quarterly run-rate nearly 15% above each of the prior three quarters, with operating income nearly $3B ahead. That's the kind of number that usually reverts back to the mean. It looks to me like XOM is a fairly close discounted proxy to the price of crude, which makes sense given that much of their capital base is exploration assets, notwithstanding their status as an "integrated major." Perhaps the market is undervaluing their downstream and marketing operations.

I am not an oil-industry analyst (but I've owned shares of this puppy for decades now). Anyone else have better insights on XOM?

But the very fact that we already have it would make killing it politically damaging, to say the least.  It's the RIGHT thing to do (in more ways than 1), but it's politically, unfeasible.

Perhaps we need to make laws about Intel and Microsoft, etc for gouging us.  A HUGE difference in profit margins between small businesses and the big guys...

or did you never have any to lose?

Why is Microsoft (or any other company) obliged to earn less than the market decides they will earn? Is their responsibility to their shareholders or to ... who?

that people got along just fine without Federal entitlements for a LONG time.  Even in Cold climes...

The 5% small business thing is nonsense. It depends on what the business does. I've started small businesses that had almost 100% profit margins, because it was in a service business with no raw materials and very little overhead.

On the other side of the spectrum, many of small businesses have negative profit margins, since around 85% of businesses that are started fail within a few years.

In other words, there is no way you can generalize about this. It is all over the map. Your 5% figure means absolutely nothing.

I'm looking to own my own small business and that particular type averages a whopping 3% margin.

Hard to compare that to the Big Dawgs, I guess.  Kind of thought they made all that in volume...

That the function of the Federal government is to redistribute money? Why shouldn't this be run at the state level? States manage to do an awful lot of important stuff on their own without the feds getting involved.

a bit of an overgeneraliziation, I realize, now that you pointed it out.

Restaurants average a 2% margin

Hobby game stores (DnD stuff)  3%

Most other retail is between 2 and 4% depending on the products.

I totally neglected to even look at Service businesses...

Efficiency is measured in how many BTUs you can extract out of a given fuel source, not how cost effective it may be in your area.

Noted.

Here in the northeast we tend to not heat with electric if we can avoid it because it is more expensive, not because of it's lack of efficiency.

Thanks!

the Public sector can't even wage war better.

About the Only thing the government can do better than the Private sector is spend money fast.

heating oil prices range from $2.46 in CT to $2.80 in VT.  Why the difference?

Vermont is farther away from the points of distribution and is (much) less densely populated.  So, the price of delivering N gallons of oil to the average consumer is higher.

Retail is a tough business. The margins are small. Wal-Mart's margin is only about 4-5%.

Resturants are notorious for going under within a few years of opening. The fixed costs are a pretty high for such a small business to handle and it takes a while to build up a clientele.

To do it.  We've been beating you about the head with that.  This is PRECISELY the kind of thing Local government is there for.

...not directly to you, but addressing the substance of your comment, can be found below.

Doesn't the Military pay for college?

 I'd sure as hell get rid of student loans and education spending.  What's worse is that the majority of college students who graduate don't ever use their degrees (it was 60% of graduates, last I checked).

when I realized that the majority of developers aren't including wood fireplaces anymore...

And it is the very reason why the fed keeps getting bigger.  Let's pay no attention to what the Constitution SAYS the fed should do, lets just keep doing what we've been doing.

There is no "merc" force anywhere that can stand up to a Marine Expeditionary Unit.  And that, by the way, is not a lot of people, under 5000.  You can even take out the fixed wing portion and it's still a fair fight.  (A fair fight is one where the Marines go home and the other guys don't.)

Your comment about spending is right on though.

OK, absentee, you have actually touched on a topic where I am arguably a lefty.  So, let's get down.

First, I have no sympathy -- none, zero, squat -- with the "taxes are theft" line of argument.  If you want to live someplace where there is a government, it costs money and you pay for it.  If you don't like income tax, we can go back to tariffs or consumption taxes on luxury items, like we did for the first 100 years or so.  Flat tax, fine with me.  I don't care.  Whatever works.  But, "taxes are theft" is the conservative equivalent of "property is theft", and is a claim of equal merit and sanity.

The question of what government should be responsible for, and which level of government, is another question, and one worth discussing.

The other thing I have no patience with is the idea that community responsibility for people in need is "charity".  People that share a community have a responsibility toward each other.  We have a responsibility to participate in our mutual defense when we're threatened, we're responsible to not lie to each other in matters of trade and business, we're responsible to not abuse each other's property.  We're also responsible to not let each other starve, freeze to death, or die unnecessarily of preventable diseases, especially when those things are the consequence of circumstances outside of individual control.  That's where I'm coming from.  Disagree all you want, but you'll be talking to the hand on that particular topic.  It's not charity, it's basic human decency.  It is, in fact, the basis of community.  Civilizations that lack it are barbarian.

On to particulars.

Home heating oil costs a lot this year.  The reason it costs a lot have to do with a lot of factors, many of them outside of anyone's control.  The effect of this is that a lot of people will have a hard time heating their homes.  They will not have a hard time heating their homes because they are lazy, stupid, defective as humans, or because they failed to save their nickels like good girls and boys.  They will have a hard time because they don't make a lot of money, and because oil costs a lot this year.

This is a case where the normal operation of the market has led to a situation that makes an essential commodity expensive enough that it's hard for a lot of people to buy.  Which is to say, the effect we would expect from the normal, "perfect world" operation of the market has not occurred, with consequences for the health and well being of a lot of citizens.  Either you think that is an appropriate occasion for government to intervene, or you do not.  I do.  If that makes me a lefty, that's a hat I'm happy to wear.  If you don't, fine with me.  That's your issue to live with.  You vote for your guy, I'll vote for mine, and whoever wins will get to set the policy.

The scope of this problem, which is to say the geographic range of the population that it will affect, is pretty much the top half of the country.  As I make it out, that makes this a problem of sufficiently broad scope to warrant federal attention.  Again, you may disagree.  Fine with me.  You vote for your guy, I'll vote for mine, and whoever wins will get to set the policy.

And, as mentioned above, if your side gets to set the policy, and the feds turn off the tap on heating assistance, we'll muddle through.  We aren't going to let our neighbors freeze to death in their own homes.

And, also as mentioned above, if your side gets to set the policy, we chilly blue-staters will not forget next time you red state types need a handout.

Should that ever happen, of course.

if the locals won't do it, try your state government.

Vermont is a one day drive from CT.  You can certainly move a tanker truck for a lot less than $0.34 per gallon.

I don't know if the difference is taxes, but it's not transportation cost.  Look at the fuel cost in NH.  It would be interesting to see what the retail cost is in upstate NY as well.

Maybe those Vermont capitalists who moved up from NYC are gouging the elderly in their adopted state?

started college last month.  Majoring in Journalism (at least for now).  And yes, he is receiving the GI Bill.  He also works full time, and is married (wife goes to school and works full time also).

When they finish school, they will have no student loans to pay off.

If you need a heavy machine gunner, he's available for contract work.  You supply the guns and ammo.  He'll bring qualified friends.  He's good but expensive.

I'd be glad to help.  But no one asked me for help.  Instead they went to the government and forced everyone to pay for this program and so many others.  I think society pays a price when government crowds out charity and community.  It worries me that so many people don't see the difference between community and government (especially the federal kind).  One creates lasting relationships and a society where people work together, the other encourages every greivance to hire a lobbyist to win "their share of the pie."  This particular program may not be the worst example, but it is the piling up of 100,000s of these that has made the federal government so massive and has stunted the traditional sources of charity and society.

"we'll muddle through"

You muddled through for how many years before LIHEAP?  How did you do it?  Why did LIHEAP become a Federal program when it very well SHOULD be a program operated by that community that has people who can't afford the oil?

Would LOVE to have him and his friends.  I have the papers and pen if he's willing to sign...  : )

Aren't any Merc units that large.  Executive Solutions is only a couple hundred.  And they don't have the funding to equip themselves the same way.

Man for man, however, their cost for effect is far superior to a Marine Expeditionary Force.

I am an Air Force brat who joined the Army and is now a Recruiter.  I have a Great deal of resppect for the US Military.  But I also realize that, dollar for dollar, we don't wage war as well as the Private Sector can and does.

We need a party that is willing to commit suicide on behalf of all the idiots out there who don't know what's best for themselves.  Politicians aren't that principled...

OK with me.

You've failed to address (a) the fact that this is a particularly acute problem NOW, as opposed to "how many years before", and (b) that the problem is broader in scope than my particular area, but so be it.

You get to live in the world you make.  We'll take care of ourselves.  Good luck to you.

F. A. Hayek's Road to Serfdom.

Having watched the National Socialists come to power in Germany, and then what the socialists were doing in Great Britan he wrote this landmark book in which he sketches the arguments that show there is no such thing as "a little socialism" and that all such forms of government necessarily are totalitarian.

Hey Adam -

I have no doubt that you would be glad to help.

IMO the LIHEAP program should stand or fall based on whether it makes constructive use of the money spent.  

I do not see a crisp line between community and government, any more than I see a crisp line between community and any of the other social institutions we participate in.  All institutions are amenable both to the creation of good and healthy social bonds, and also to abusive patterns of manipulation.

I agree with your point that social institutions that are closer to the folks involved are generally more responsive to the actual needs of those folks.  My town has direct democracy in the form of town meeting, I believe that contributes both to our low tax rate and to our general satisfaction with the services rendered.  If you have a beef, you show up the first week in May and speak up.

That said, I also believe that there are economic and social dynamics that are broader in scope than a local community, and that those deserve attention from institutions with commensurably broader scope.

Thanks -

I think it is closer to 5.7%. Unfortunately, I can't find my the copy of my reference for that at the moment. In any event, they are pikers compared to the financial industry. It's only the hugeness of their company that makes the profit sound huge.

My conservative epiphany incorporates most all of what you very eloquently stated but with a different emphasis and structure on the order of accountability and responsibility that helps get people off the dole.  Too many libs want to keep dependents on the dole to maintain their power and have a condescending caretaker and too often racist view of the poor and esp blacks.

But not you my brother! I think your use of the phrase "especially when those things are the consequence of circumstances outside of individual control" expresses the matter rather well, but may actually go too far to the right, esp at the state and local level!

I would say this though in strong disagreement that I think is a very important matter in instilling a sense of responsibility in the people so as not to encourage irresponsibility, and that is your

RE-DEFINITION of the word CHARITY to a certain extent, esp when seen in conjunction with the idea of taxes as theft ABOVE A CERTAIN LEVEL and the extent of a civilized peoples DUTY to help others BEYOND SUBSISTENCE.

I have decided that I favor Dubyas Fred barnes defined strong (not big) govt conservatism that seeks to use govt for copnservative ends. More choice and control and standards and accountability.

I suspect that most repubs would  agree on the $$$ with a large portion of the dems but not on the accompanying rhetoric of the libs. And we would disagree on whether its best that much of the govt help come from states rather than the feds.

I think the main problems with the post wwii new deal (with which jfk, fdr and eleanor also warned) is that programs, INCL soc sec, that were meant to prevent old age poverty below subsistence or were meant to be temporary hands up, became etitlements to a certian higher income level that too many are willing to settle for, so that we actually create more poverty, albeit above a certain level.

Dont you think that, if not progressive taxation per se, then at least taxation above a certain level, esp when given to persons to maintain a lifestyle above a certain level approaches theft?

 Jefferson warned that a major weakness that causes democracies to fall is when the non- producers discover they can confiscate the wealth of the producers since they outnumber them as voters!

In many cases it comes down to how necessities are defined.

I do see, that from one standpoint that a person that is forced to pay taxes is not being charitable and that a person receiving aid that has paid taxes can be said to not be receiving charity.

Too many on the left however, see themselves as morally superior and to be engaging in charitable work themselves when they vote for policies that tax others!

finally, for now

Dont you think that it would be best that most programs of assistance be moved to the states to better assure accountability?

Like I say, I agree that govt has a role. In that sense Liberalism has won. We are all liberals now. Most. reagans safety net statement confirmed it.

But there are a lot of ways and lot of differing ideas about how much the govt should do.

more later

Even CDs will return that much with no principal loss. Bonds range 5-7%, and while stocks go up and down, they average 7%+ over 20 year periods. Heck, and ING account these days is returning 3.7 or 3.8% on their savings accounts. Their CDs go up to 4.85% depending on length of investment.

When I've talked to small business owners in the local area, they tend to want 7% or more for margins because the simple fact of the matter is they can make that much safely in other investments.

You have to ask yourself why you want to start a business. Is it because you don't want to work for someone else? That's a very reasonable ambition. You basically want to find a service-oriented business where the output varies near-linearly with the input, and that you can defend through close relationships with your customers, and basically solving important problems for them. You also have to make very big promises, and you must keep every single one.

If on the other hand, your goal is to get "rich," then you have three critical questions to answer: 1) what exactly does "rich" mean? How many dollars, what asset classes, how much time? 2) Exactly how and when do you plan to exit the business and get liquid? and 3) Exactly what are you going to do with the money? Of these, the third question is by far the most difficult and important. If you don't have an extremely good answer to question 3, then do not try to start a business in order to get rich, because you will not succeed.

The only practical way to get rich starting a business is to create shareholder equity. This is because our tax system is so F*** UP (and I'm terribly sorry but there is just no other word for it) that you can't get rich just by cashing big paychecks. (And no, I don't consider a regional beer distributor or McDonald's franchisee with $10  million in liquidity to be "rich").

Now you're in a very different ballgame. Service businesses are extremely hard to pump up to a level that will attract ownership interest. And there so many traps for the unwary. But that's another long thread.

Good luck, Raven. I think that forming small, service-based businesses that stay small, but pay out enough for a comfortable living and something to retire on are a very good, and very American thing to do. Just don't plan to leave the business to your kids. Either your kids or the inheritance-tax will stiff you.

That the problem is especially acute this year. Oil was not cheap last year either. I ran out and didn't fill because I expected I could save money by filling in late summer. It didn't work out that way, but it could've just as easily worked out the other way.

Heating is just one expense in the household budget. You can cut elsewhere to pay for increased heating costs. If somebody can't afford to heat their house they either have the wrong priorities, or they live in too big of a house and need to sell it and move into something smaller (such as an apartment).

...because it's growing like crazy? Would you invest in businesses that are losing money but growing like crazy? I certainly might. Look at the upcoming Vonage IPO.

that my sons may see Constitutional government in 30 years or so.  Because this version may well implode.

Then the problem won't be "making hard choices" it will be finding someone to pick up the pieces.

and "skirmish".  In the latter, mercs can be effective.  Any bigger than a quick fire fight and they're in trouble.  Pretty much the smallest force I'd go to "war" with is a MEU.

The difference, BTW, is having to take and hold real estate.  Hired guns are just that, hired guns.  They can't hold ground because of lack of resources.  But you know that.  They can be very effective at things like extraction and "information gathering", especially the latter because they have different ROE.

foot in the Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmy.  :>)

Actually, most of his Corps friends reenlisted so they could go back to the sandbox.  Josh is out only because of a medical discharge, he got busted up in a training accident - fell off the side of a mountain.  Interestingly enough, he's physically able to do about anything but hump 30 miles with an 80 pound pack, body armour and a 240G.  He misses his 1stSgt, believe it or not.

I hate big government as much as the avg. redstater.  Kill off National Endowment for the Arts, PBS funding, and NPR funding first.  Then a bridge to nowhere, etc.

Keep LIHEAP for now.  I run a ministry that helps 5,000 poor people a year (with NO government funding, btw) and many of them receive LIHEAP assistance.  I'm OK with seeing a piece of my tax dollar used for this.

And I'm in the midwest, not New England.

Theory isn't going to get you anything.  Running on ideologically pure concepts is the quickest way to get tossed out of power.

This program is a good one.  These people, and I live in an area that this is a big deal, need this help.  The government is as responsible as anyone in making their costs high and therefore it's not a huge deal.  

If you are going to cut costs 80 year old widows isn't a good initial target.  Eliminate programs starting with the easiest and work your way down.  That way these programs won't be needed by the time you get to them.

Don't even think about calling me a socialist - I even eat my steak's well done.  Zero pink.

Pick your battles.  Never open with one that is sure defeat.  Simple strategy.

I'm all in favor of rolling back the "new deal" but it must be pealed like an onion.

Looking at the numbers again, I suspect you may be right.  By my reasoning, you'd expect oil to be high in ME and NH, where it is not, and not so high in RI, where it is.

So, to tell the truth, I don't know the answer.  So, believe it or not, I'm gonna shut up on the topic.

Thank you for saving me from typing that out. This is like the Democrats throwing themselves onto the pikes over this NSA issue in the belief that if they only stand up strongly enough for principle, they cannot fail to conquer. This is the same doctrine that precipitated the Second Battle of the Aisne. This is just a really terrible idea.

If only political discussion stayed this polite on a national level.  I know that we see the difference (or lack thereof) between community and government differently.  I would be much likelier to support these myriad of redistributional programs on a state or local level.  It is when the decision making and accountability moves to far away (where one cannot show up the first week in May to speak) when I worry that enticing representatives and lobbyists for any thing that helps someone overrides the ability to judge what is in the national rather than the individual interest.

Your town's model of governance is about as close to ideal as I can imagine and it seems you and your fellow residents are fond of it.  I'm very happy to see that and I hope more communities take ownership the way it seems you do.  I think that in a country of 300,000,000 people we cannot do that on a national level.  This is the root of my support for federalism and leaving issues such as education, health care, social welfare up to the states and localities.  We can cut out the costs of running bureaucracies in D.C. and allow each community to judge for itself how much should be done by church, non-profits, local government and state government.

I do continue to worry that the attitude of "that's government's responsibility" will and has eroded our feeling of responsibility to those around us.  It seems that some (most recently on the left) feel that criticizing the government for not doing more takes the place of fixing problems themselves.  Amos, you and I could come up with a long list of things that I would like to spend lots of money fixing: poverty, educational opportunities, treatment of the mentally ill, rehabilitation for drug users, etc.  But we cannot afford as a nation to attempt to fix all these problems from D.C.  Each good idea costs a lot and there will be another one the next day.  Maybe America is the last country to say it, but we can't afford to have the government fix our every problem.  We should do it ourselves through our community whether that be our town council, our non-profits, or our religious institutions.

All that said, I do respect and understand your views.  I just disagree with (some of) them.

Is this opninion or fact?

And yes, heating your home to 80 instead of conserving is fraud.

But the demand at price B, where B is lower than A, is always greater than at A.

Can't ask for more than that.

Best -

As price increases, demand decreases (assuming supply stays constant) and vice versa.

And no, heating your house to 80 is not fraud. Fraud has a pretty specific definition and just doing something that is stupid or wasteful does not fit that definition.

I've read a bit about communism/socialism and capitalism.  And I'd have to say I find the pure forms of each hopelessly optimistic.

Without some socialism, slavery and unsafe sweatshops would not be a problem, what Enron executives did would be perfectly legal, and those that underperformed would be left behind to die.  Without capitalism, there is no motivation, no drive, and no innovation without the use of fear and control.

The very idea of a government is supposed to be alien to capitalism and communism.  The theoretical end result of each is supposed to be kind of an anarchist utupia where everything is self-balanced.  Early America showed us where capitalism can go wrong.  Companies owned employees and controlled their lives.  The market was so free that there wasn't even a standard currency.  The working and lower classes became little more than a resource to be exploited.  And companies grew so big that they were able to manipulate markets at their will.  It didn't work out so well.  Many workers died, Many had to work long hour up until the day they died, and many could not get ahead for all the work they had done.  Communism has never even got to the point of being free.  And never will.  No one will willingly give up power.  It's a hopelessly optimistic venture that ends up in totalitarianism.

Thats how I look at them anyway.  Capitalism is great if the sole concern is economy.  But I think we have developed past that.  We can afford to care for people too.  And I think we have the sense to do it without becoming totalitarian.

Early America showed us where capitalism can go wrong.  Companies owned employees and controlled their lives.  The market was so free that there wasn't even a standard currency.  The working and lower classes became little more than a resource to be exploited.  And companies grew so big that they were able to manipulate markets at their will.  It didn't work out so well.  Many workers died, Many had to work long hour up until the day they died, and many could not get ahead for all the work they had done.

You are aware that all of this happened at different times; for different reasons; with different levels of government involvement; during different phases of the Republic; and that some of this (the currency, for example) was because of government action? That is, the market doesn't dictate a medium of exchange, government does?

That private banks printed their own money in our early days.  Between 1837 and 1863, there was not federal regulation over currency, which led to all sorts of trouble.  And the feds had to step in.

I recommended a specific book by someone who was directly affected by the policies you are advocating. Lots of people have written lots of bunk about both capitalism and communism. Hayek sketches how despite the bunk of constructive anarchy underlying the propaganda spewed by communists, socialists, and others of their ilk, a rational examination of their claimed objectives and the mechanisms available to achieve them will show that the ONLY way to achieve their objective is a totalitarian/absolute power government. Whether or not you believe such a government can be benevolent or not, such a government is necessarily the opposite of one which guarantees the liberty of its ciizens.

In any event, I think this will be my last post on this topic, as this is begining to remind me of trying to teach a pig to sing.

that's some good information!

On a tangent, talking about exxon stocks I kind of remember a broker calling it the "widow and orphans fund" because it is a large holding in considerably stable mutual funds that are very popular with those that dont want to take a lot of risk.

If true, its kind of ironic that the politicians that want to punish exxon for making money would actually punish widows and orphans.

is more people educated on the actual text and meaning of the Constitution so when the change takes place it is accepted, no hopefully expected from the general public.

but that is but a dream. the good news is there are now outlets like that that people didnt have 20 years ago so they are not slaves of information to the MSM. It is a long journey but I hope going in the right direction.

Bold text is used for emphasis. I personally don't find it rude and certainly don't care if you do.

"Just a suggestion, every reply from you has been like that."

Actually, that's not a suggestion. That's an observation. Not that I think you have trouble defining things.

"I highly doubt there will be a lot of concern on their part."

Boy does that say it all. I wonder how you became so pious and caring while the rest of us scum are so indifferent? Must be genetic.

"Is it a bit socialist to help others such as the elderly and disabled? yes.  Is it the right thing to do?  yes. "

Dumb. You are still blind to two facts.

  1) Just because something is the right thing to do doesn't mean it's the right thing for government to do, or that government is required to do it.

  2) Just because you (apparently) have callous and indifferent friends doesn't mean everyone in the world except for you is also callous and indifferent. If you are so sure it's the right thing to do, what makes you think others don't think that? This may shock your liberal sensibilities, but our Church gives to those in need pretty much, well, all the time. Go figure.

"If pointing out that I'm for government helping people truly in need is an insult, please feel free to continue.  It's an insult I can readily take."

Like I always say, you push liberals long enough they all eventually devolve to socialists. Consequences are irrelevant to you types.

Hey doc -

A great question, and one that I think is pretty easy to answer.

High energy costs are not a statewide, or even regional, problem.  They are nationwide.

The causes are, likewise, nationwide, which is to say that it is not weird localized market effects that create high prices in, say, MA, but not elsewhere.

So, I see this as a problem that deserves federal attention.

Some other points.

LIHEAP provides block grants to states to fund energy assistance programs.  The federal role is to provide funding, and to set financial limits on who can participate -- essentially, to define how poor you have to be to qualify.  And, in fact, you have to be pretty poor to play.  At the state level, the money is distributed through agencies such as departments of housing or social services.

LIHEAP makes grants to all fifty states.  It is not a program that "primarily affects New England".  Nor is the money restricted to funds for heating.  Money can also be used to cool your home if you live somewhere hot, or to do basic, low-cost weatherproofing of your home to lower overall energy costs.  The latter is an investment that yields long-term savings overall, which seems like a prudent use of the funds from my point of view.

To get to particulars, if I'm reading the state by state allocation spreadsheet correctly, New England as a whole gets about 6.58% of the LIHEAP money.  Individual state grants within NE range from 0.36% for Vermont to 3.12% for MA.  The states of PA, NJ, NY, CA, IN, IL, and MI all receive more than any New England state, as do red state stalwarts FL, OH, and TX.  VA, GA, MO, and MD all receive more money than any New England state other than MA.

Primarily focussed on blue New England?  False.

End run around local administration and control?  False.

Heating only?  False.

If you simply believe as a matter of principle that the federal government has no role to play in matters like this, I have no particular problem with that.  I disagree, but it would be a dull world if we all were of one mind.

For those who see this as a juicy opportunity to stick it to those liberal elitist New Englanders, I say fine.  We'll keep our money at home and get more out of it than we do now.  Seems like we carry everyone else's weight in lots of ways, LIHEAP is just the tip of the iceberg.  Speaking personally, federalism sounds better and better to me every day.

And, in that event, all of you freeloaders in TX, FL, OH, GA, VA, MO and elsewhere can go pound sand.  If you're cold, burn your furniture.  If you don't have any furniture, tough luck.  You should have thought of that before.

So, to all tough talking red staters, I say this.  It's a cold world, baby.  As I learned as a child, if you want to play "expletive you", that's a game we can play too.  I wouldn't push your luck.

Thanks -

And for the most part, always have.  A mixed economy has a little bit of socialism and nationalism.  And it has worked out well for us so far.  You seem to be saying something along the lines of just a little bit of it makes you hopelessly fascist.  Just doesn't seem to be the case, as we have long had government controlling economy and social justice.

can preach it, very few can walk it.  I know it's true, and I think you're kidding yourself to think otherwise.  Not once did I exclude myself, although you are quick to pretend I did.  Which is why I don't have a problem with forcing it.

Lets say you want to make abortion illegal.  That is controlling the free market that would provide them.  Its a socialist/nationalist practice.  So what?  So is a speed limit, underage drinking laws, and any other social conduct law.  We need some degree of this to have a functioning society.

"So, let's get down."

O ... k. I think.

"First, I have no sympathy -- none, zero, squat -- with the "taxes are theft" line of argument."

Well that's just a silly absolute. Are you saying it's impossible for taxes to be confiscatory? Taking money from people to give to other people can be an unjust appropriation. This is not the same thing as saying "taxes are theft". That's just a weak straw man.

"The other thing I have no patience with is the idea that community responsibility for people in need is "charity". "

1. Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.
2. Something given to help the needy; alms.
3. An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy.
4. Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity.
5. Indulgence or forbearance in judging others. See synonyms at mercy.
6. often Charity Christianity. The theological virtue defined as love directed first toward God but also toward oneself and one's neighbors as objects of God's love.

"We're also responsible to not let each other starve, freeze to death, or die unnecessarily of preventable diseases, especially when those things are the consequence of circumstances outside of individual control.  That's where I'm coming from.  Disagree all you want, but you'll be talking to the hand on that particular topic.  It's not charity, it's basic human decency.  It is, in fact, the basis of community.  Civilizations that lack it are barbarian."

This whole dramatic paragraph suffers from the same misunderstanding your previous posts suffer from.

Just because something ought to be done, doesn't mean the government ought to be the institution to do it.

It's simply false to claim that people won't help other people without being forced to do so. This is disproven every day to the tune of billions of dollars a year. You have to deny reality to subscribe to such a belief.

"They will not have a hard time heating their homes because they are lazy, stupid, defective as humans, or because they failed to save their nickels like good girls and boys. "

This is totally irrelevant. Is it your position that conservatives want to withhold government funding in order to punish irresponsible people? Ridiculous. And this yet again presumes that conservatives don't believe in helping the needy at all, instead of the actual argument which is that the government shouldn't be doing it.

Why do you and others continue to confuse "we" with "government". The government is by, for, and of the people. But the people are not defined by the government. Our identity is not, and should not be that of our government.

"This is a case where the normal operation of the market has led to a situation that makes an essential commodity expensive enough that it's hard for a lot of people to buy.  Which is to say, the effect we would expect from the normal, "perfect world" operation of the market has not occurred, with consequences for the health and well being of a lot of citizens.  Either you think that is an appropriate occasion for government to intervene, or you do not.  I do.  If that makes me a lefty, that's a hat I'm happy to wear.  If you don't, fine with me.  That's your issue to live with.  You vote for your guy, I'll vote for mine, and whoever wins will get to set the policy."

Again, very dramatic. Again discounting the possibility of solving the problem without the government. Again implying to have a different opinion is to hate the needy.

"And, as mentioned above, if your side gets to set the policy, and the feds turn off the tap on heating assistance, we'll muddle through.  We aren't going to let our neighbors freeze to death in their own homes."

Wherein you admit that the government isn't necessary to solve the problem, and restate your continuing accusation that republicans don't care about poor people and want them to freeze to death. If we are so evil, why are you here?

Preposterous. Laws are not socialism.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

That you've been sufficiently brainwashed to believe that socialism is merely a synonym for law and order says quite a lot.

"Everyone can preach it, very few can walk it.  I know it's true, and I think you're kidding yourself to think otherwise.  Not once did I exclude myself, although you are quick to pretend I did.  Which is why I don't have a problem with forcing it."

Well this is a very telling and fascinating opening. First of all, it denies the blatant reality of charitable giving both here and abroad. You're simply wrong. People give all the time. My wife and I do not make much money at all, and we have two children. Yet we give money all the time, to political causes, to charity, to relief funds. As, no doubt, you do as well. Even though you might not admit it because it would undermine your position, you and I both know you give money. Like most people do.

What is so telling about that statement is the insight into lefty thinking.

You remind of people who set their withholding to the maximum. Then at the end of the year, they get a big refund. This, of course, makes no sense. They could set the minimum withholding, put the difference in a bank account or, even better, they could invest. At the end of the year they could give themselves a bigger refund, having earned interest. But they do it anyway, because they want the government to save their money for them. Why is that? What causes this type of thinking?

I have no answer. But it reminds me of what you are saying here. You think it's right to give, but you actually want someone to make you do it.

Fascinating.

of a system of laws with socialism is more than a little bit bizarre.

Traffic laws are socialist inventions? Perhaps we're working from a different set of terms. Socialism is a term that describes a collectivist and redistributionist economic system. Socialism is not characterized in any way by laws regulating social conduct. What does the word mean where you live?

I'm eager for you to explain how you came up with this.

Fair points all, good sir.  My quibbles are generally philosophical (as you allude to here) and on matters of efficiency, to wit:

Local control?  Good.

Local control with money that has to get sorted through two layers of federal bureaucracy first?  Not so much.

Another quibble is that I don't think you're taking into account the impact of state taxes on the cost of a gallon of heating oil.  Unless I'm very much in error (and would be happily corrected on this point), that goes a good long way toward explaning the disparity in costs among (just as an example) New England states.  In other words, when I'm driving from Boston to Philly, there is a reason I make sure I top-off in Rhode Island (going south) and New Jersey (going north) and it's not because I don't like the gas stations in Connecticut.

In case you have not noticed, but in effort to stiffle any lingering dount, LIHEAP is not something for which this fiscal conservative is willing to fall on his sword.

of some of your other comment, which had just a tad of sarcasm in it, it did seem this comment was directed for those like myself who believe this should be handled on a local level. if I did infer incorrectly then I apologize.

It may also be the fact that it is a typical misrepresentation of those like me. Instead of saying, "wow I commend him for his adherence to rule of law and sanctity of contract", you instead get: "nasty republicans just want to starve old ladies."

Sadly, it sometimes seems that fear of what Democrats might say HAS been part of the RNC gameplan.

Speed limits were created to manage gas mileage and limit the amount of gas being used, that is government controlling the market, is it not?  Underage drinking laws are government controlling the sale, marketing, and distribution of alcohol.

I thought the theory of capitalism is that the markets self-order without government involvement.  In these cases, government is modifying that order to control the market.

Or is it instead this increasingly rare and all-too-often unwelcome phenomenon of "thinking before acting"?  Planning ahead, and figuring out what the other side might do are not bad things.

1. This is an energy program, not just a heating program.
   
   
2. Texas has more than 1.5 times as many people as the 6 New England states.
   
   
3. The NE states are getting nearly 15% more of these "free" federal dollars than Texas is.
   

=> This proves there is a bias toward red states.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm having a hard time seeing how you can draw such a conclusion.

Taken hand in had with "keep your money" comment, i hope you stick to your word. It sounds like you are saying that if democrats get into office they will lower federal taxes and entitlements just for red states and raise both for blue states.

Wow, that would be cool! It may actually make me vote for a Democrat! But as I live in a red county in a blue state, can you make that countywide, not state wide? thanks.

But then again it might sound like the same thing we heard from deomcrats when they lost the last election. They complained that blue states carry red states financially and they should secede. All well and good, i was very happy to see the true nature of Democrats revealed: Omnicaring on the outside, but really caring for the sake of self gratification. And it also shows how the mindset of goverment caring always has some kind of strings attached.

...then we need more morons in Congress.

Planning ahead, the way you frame it, is not good if you basically throw away all your priniciples to do it.

number of examples of laws designed to affect economic activity (anti-trust law, for instance), but speed limit laws (which came into being with the automobile, not with the gas crisis) and age restrictions on drinking aren't among them. Neither would laws restricting abortion fall into that category.

These are all laws exclusively intended to control social conduct. If they have an economic effect, it's completely incidental and unrelated to the purpose of the legislation.

I stand by my adjective -- yours was a bizarre conflation of two completely different things.

"There is no "merc" force anywhere that can stand up to a Marine Expeditionary Unit."

Damn right. Or any other type of force for that matter.

Republicans going in without a plan, getting their heads handed to them on a platter in the mainstream media (which, despite advances in alternate forums, still retains significant influence), and the program remaining in place when all is said and done?

How many times has PBS managed to survive depite effort to cut the funding?  Quite a few times.  Each time, we know how they act.  I do not view pursuing that objective or the LIHEAP cuts with the tactics that have been repeatedly tried in the past and which have repeatedly failed in the past to be standing on principle, but to be more along the lines of Quixotic, at best.

I made no claim that there is a bias toward red states in the distribution of LIHEAP money.  There is a bias toward red states in the overall distribution of federal revenues.  That's a different topic.

LIHEAP money appears to follow, roughly, population distribution.  Sounds right to me.

My point is to contest Blanton's claim, explicitly made, that LIHEAP is biased toward the New England states.  The facts indicate otherwise.

Thanks

ANY person who has a pension fund or 401(k) or any kind of retirement benefit is indirectly a shareholder in America's large business enterprises. That includes every single government employee in America, and they have some of the best retirement benefits around. But, these are the very people who vote for Democrats. By being in favor of socialist, anti-business politicians, they are shooting themselves in the head. I can't think of anything more self-defeating.

Fair enough.

You think that the federal government should not be in the business of funding assistance to people to help them buy energy for home heating and cooling.

I think that's a perfectly fine thing for government to do.

Shall we argue about that point?  Probably a waste of time.  I'm happy to leave the moral happy talk out of it.  I'd prefer to, actually.  You all can do the same.

You vote for you guy.  I'll vote for mine.  The winner will set the policy.

Thanks

My response was a bit tongue-in-cheek, and i do agree that we definitely need to see past the action to know the reaction will be and accomodate for it. That is strategy and different than inaction due to what the democrats might say.

There have been so many times during the Republican majority that  I sit there and wonder why we are so timid when accosted by them. Apologizing for warped twistings of events, instead of standing your ground with a clear vision. we know conservatism is right but we are afraid to say so.

Then there is the "spirit of bipartisanship" that was only touted by the Left when they lost. I understand cooperation but it seems that W has been afraid to stand up to Democrats with their ideals. We passed daschiele's Farm BIll, Teddy's education bill, CFR, and a whole host of other things because of a 'spirit of bipartisanship". WHo knows, maybe its just W I am frustrated with but I guess what I am saying is that we do waste time being friendly and they turn around and spit on us, call us racists, etc, anyway, so what's the point?

You're trying to have it both ways with your description of how charity would work here. Let's look more closely:

1. Do you require that everyone who needs assistance with heating costs receive it? If not (as you suggested above), charity will "work" in that some of the need will be addressed, some won't. That's not acceptable to many people, R and D alike. With heating costs in particular, I have a really hard time supposing that charity can come close to meeting the demonstrated need.  
   
2. Suppose you do want to fully meet the need, but don't want government involved. You determine the total amount of money needed and go off to get donations. What happens if donations don't add up to the required amount? Do you simply scale back the aid you will deliver?
   
3. What criteria would a charity use to determine if someone was eligible for assistance with their heating costs? The government already knows how much money you make, how many kids you have, and has reason to trust those numbers. How would a charity duplicate the work of the IRS in order to verify income and fairly parcel out assistance?
   
4. How would the aid be delivered? By check from an account for "heating assistance" maintained by the charity? If the charity chose not to pay out the entire account, or to use some of the account for other purposes, who would know?
   
5. What legal mechanism would hold the charity accountable for failing to either raise sufficient funds, or properly determine eligibility, or deliver aid? How would the people who run the charity be replaced if they did a poor job?

If your charity could actually do all of the above... it would start to look an awful lot like a government agency.

Look at the prescription drug bill, for example. That was not our idea. We were on defense, playing the Democrat's game. It was an attempt at triangulation, Bill Clinton style. It did not work. Bush signed CFR for the same reason. How much credit that that earn him? Did he get any credit for the steel tarriffs? Nope.

You don't win by appeasing the Democrats. You will be demonized whatever you do.

Strategy also means determining when a fight is unwise.  I have a very strong distaste for Phyrric victories - and all too often, the spending battles strike me as being very likely places for those.

If we cannot eliminate the programs head-on, then maybe a whole new strategy is needed.  I think that Nick Danger has probably hit on the basics of that strategy here and here.

It's a matter of thinking outside the box to accomplish objectives.  Unfortunately, that has been twisted by some people into indicating that people have jettisoned principles as opposed to re-thinking strategy.

This is not the same thing as saying "taxes are theft". That's just a weak straw man.

Hmmm, where did I get that "taxes are theft" idea from?  Oh yeah, now I remember:

I suppose you'd be fine with me robbing your home of all it's possessions as long as the proceeds went to help the poor yes? That's exactly what you are saying.

Point two:

When I see the slightest indication that conservatives are actually, in fact and deed, interested in making government smaller, less intrusive, less expensive, or more accountable, I'll take your argument a lot more seriously.  Until then, you guys can talk to the hand as far as I'm concerned.  

Talk is cheap.  You guys have had the white house for five years, and a majority in Congress for much of that time.  I don't see your brave new world.

Thanks

"Hmmm, where did I get that "taxes are theft" idea from?  Oh yeah, now I remember:"

"I suppose you'd be fine with me robbing your home of all it's possessions as long as the proceeds went to help the poor yes? That's exactly what you are saying."

That is what you are saying through your reasoning. That doesn't mean that I say "taxes are theft". In fact, I don't even see how you could honestly arrive at that conclusion.

"Talk is cheap.  You guys have had the white house for five years, and a majority in Congress for much of that time.  I don't see your brave new world."

What a fruitless position. I see no evidence of the democrat brave new world either. Does this mean the things you espouse are not things you actually desire? Just because you have failed to achieve something, does that mean you didn't really want it in the first place? Just because your representatives don't enact your plans, are you therefore not really behind your plans in the first place?

You have trouble with causation, and you have trouble with conclusions.

As I said already numerous times, I don't think there is a responsibility for the public at large. It would be nice if needs were met. But just because there is a possibilty they will not doesn't mean we need the government to pay for the poor. I don't believe in safety nets from the government.

There should be no such thing as using tax money as charity. Period. If you want to save the world, do it on your dime. That's what I do. Why don't you?

A speed limit of 55 was specifically designed to effect economic activity.  And the underage drinking and smoking laws prohibits marketing and sale of the product for minors.  How would that not be government interfering with the market?  It is placing controls on the market for a social goal.  I don't think the intent matters, the fact is, you end up with government placed controls on the market.  We can also look at blue laws that prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sunday.  That is also government controlling the market.

Now there is a difference between socialism in that govt doesn't assume ownership of these markets.  But I had always though that true capitalism is free from government interference.  So what we do have is a mix, where govt takes steps to direct the economics of the markets.  Sometimes for the sake of the economy, sometimes the economic effect is not the original intent, but happens nonetheless.  And to me, a mixed economy isn't the beginning of fascism.

that if you carefully read what I wrote, you'll see that I acknowledged your stated position. You also stated in that previous post that a non-government response would be more effective at meeting all needs in this situation, if that was desired, and I also addressed that above.

If, from the post above, you don't understand why (as much as I support charity) I think that it's necessary for government to be involved in providing certain necessities, then this "discussion" is pointless. I would like to note that even within the Republican party there is general acceptance that government ought to provide food and shelter if required -- e.g., see Katrina -- and if you are genuinely against any government safety nets then you are walking a lonely road in this country.

I appreciate your charitable contributions, and I'd appreciate you not denigrating mine.  

That is what you are saying through your reasoning. That doesn't mean that I say "taxes are theft". In fact, I don't even see how you could honestly arrive at that conclusion.

The full paragraph from which my earlier cite was excerpted:

It's being forced to. It's having your money appropriated. I suppose you'd be fine with me robbing your home of all it's possessions as long as the proceeds went to help the poor yes? That's exactly what you are saying.

I think a reading that construes the "robbing your home" statement as a hyperbolic example of forced appropriation is a pretty reasonable one.  YMMV.

And, for the record, yes, I agree that taxes can achieve a level that is confiscatory.  That isn't the issue I'm raising here.  The issue I'm raising here is whether financial assistance to needy people is a reasonable thing for government to undertake.

What a fruitless position. I see no evidence of the democrat brave new world either. Does this mean the things you espouse are not things you actually desire? Just because you have failed to achieve something, does that mean you didn't really want it in the first place?

No.

What I think it means is that a lot of people who ran for Congress on a platform of small, less expensive, more accountable, more responsive government couldn't resist the candy jar when it was actually within reach.

So, I don't take them seriously when they blather about the need for fiscal discipline and the moral hazards of government largesse.  In many cases, my skepticism extends to those who support them and argue for their competence and general goodness.

Just like liberals and lefties, conservatives, rightly or wrongly, share in the glory or shame when the folks they have supported and placed in power do well or ill.

I'll take the conservative movement's desire for a less robust government seriously at pretty much the exact time that I see their leaders act to make it happen.  I'll take their claims about the "moral hazards" of "handouts" seriously when they turn some down.  And I'll say that cuts in programs to the less privileged among us are well and good when I see the more privileged give up their perks.  

Thanks -

"I'd appreciate you not denigrating mine."

I swear the delicate little feelings around here ...

I'm not denigrating you. Give me a break. I'm asking why it is that you can't seem to help others without the government's intervention, if indeed that is the case.

This discussion is indeed pointless. You believe in socialism, I do not. No amount of reason and logic is going convince you, or it would have long before you ever posted this in the first place.

More than a few people, by the way, do in fact object to hurricane relief. But at least in the case of Katrina a case can be made for restoring part of the economy. Far different from merely giving people money for their bills that was taken from other equal citizens under the law.

Nothing I have said has really differed from Nicks two accounts. I even posted in this thread that we have to teach people to want smaller government (in the form of understanding the Constitution). As for spending money to create a smaller government, I could only see that in the isolated context of post-disaster rebuilding that it was.

As for the second link, I dont see that as rethinking strategy except to say "When what he (W) should be doing is going after the real problem, which is the spending". It is exactly what I have said.

My initial comment is that it seems W is taking some of these actions for the sake of wanting them to like us.

As for Phyrric victories, well, after looking up what that means, I can say my frustration is not with Phyrric victories, it is that we are suffering Phyrric defeats.

Besides, it is rather pathetic that as a Majority we even have to consider suffering exoribant losses to get what we want.

"I think a reading that construes the "robbing your home" statement as a hyperbolic example of forced appropriation is a pretty reasonable one."

From which you still cannot reasonably draw the conclusion that my position is "taxes are theft". It's the most overblown restatement possible. If you tap me on the arm, and then punch me in the face, I will say that your punch in the face was an assault. By your reasoning you would respond with "oh give me a break, all touching isn't assault"

Taxes = theft is not what I said, no matter how often you quote me not saying it.

Which is totally different from the question of whether some taxes could rise to the left of theft, confiscation, burdensome, unjust etc. They obviously can.

You just want me to be saying it's theft because that is what you are prepared to argue against.

"The issue I'm raising here is whether financial assistance to needy people is a reasonable thing for government to undertake."

No, actually, that's the issue I was raising. The point you keep making is that being opposed to the government helping needy people is exactly the same thing as hating the needy people and not wanting them to be helped. Another ridiculously overblown mischaracterization.

"We should take everyone's money and split it up evenly between everyone"

"I disagree"

"Why do you hate poor people?"

Overblown? You tell me.

Hey absentee --

Some questions for you.

If I own a home, I get a deduction on my taxes.  Why should you subsidize my home ownership?  It skews the market by artificially inflating home prices.  Why aren't the inherent rewards of home ownership enough?  Why should it be subsidized?

Income I earn on investments is taxed at a lower rate than my wage income.  This benefit accrues to me, and people like me, who are well placed enough to actually have investment income.  Why should investment income be treated preferentially?

If I own a business and it has a bad year, I can write off my losses against my taxes.  Why should I be rewarded for being a bad businessman?  Isn't it just an invitation for people to deliberately operate fake or trivial businesses at a loss to game the system?  Why should you subsidize my mistakes?  Why shouldn't the market just be allowed to drive my business under?

Lather, rinse, and repeat for all of the other many, many, many tax writeoffs, incentives, and outright transfer payments received by middle and upper class people.  Your tax dollar and mine subsidize all kinds of things like this.

What is different about LIHEAP?

Why does that difference put LIHEAP outside the realm of government action, and the other things not?

What is it about subsidies to poor people that make them "charity", but these other things are not?

As if you haven't already had these questions answered for you dozens of times, yes? You just don't like the answers.

First of all, I'm interested in why you assume I favor any subsidies of any kind. I don't recall saying that I did. But if you want me to say you can't make a case for these things, I won't say that either.

Just like I never said "taxes are theft" I also never said "government subsidies are wrong". While it may be the case that some are, I never said that all are, which is what your line of "questions" is meant to imply.

It is also meant to imply that I am some kind of evil republican only out to help the rich and screw the poor. Is this your only actual position? That I hate poor people? You care nothing for any help I provide to others. Your sole standard of judgement on the issue is whether or not I wholly support any given tax program that purports to help the needy, regardless of any specifics, and I wholly oppose any tax program that purports to help the wealthy, again regardless of specifics. Just admit your position, why the dance? You are accusing me of hating the poor and not wanting to help them right? Why do you continue to mince words?

Now there is a difference between socialism in that govt doesn't assume ownership of these markets.  But I had always though that true capitalism is free from government interference.

Capitalism doesn't mean there aren't any rules. You can't have properly functioning markets without law and order. You are confusing capitalism with anarchy.

I can make the argument that any law has an economic effect.

You are confusing capitalism with anarchy.

I posted my comment before I saw yours!

The specific discussion about heating assistance seems to have opened up the door, as might have been expected, to a more general discussion about the proper role of government, and how that splits between local/state/federal. I think that, as you say, the conservative viewpoint on this has shifted somewhat over the past two decades, certainly in practice if not also in principle, and it might be worth exploring just where people draw the lines now. I'd be interested to know what government programs conservatives support, and at what level they'd like them implemented.

I have seen conservatives do what they have always done and get what they have always gotten.  Show me one successful fight to cut funding from PBS since 1994.  Show me one successful effort to cut back on the NEA since 1994.

And this proposed effort to kill LIHEAP looks to be pretty much along the same lines.  Only instead of killing Barney and Sesame Street or defunding art, we're not freezing the elderly to death.

It's time to junk the "conservative orthodox" view of spending, because it's just not working.  There needs to be a change in how conservatives view spending - it's time to go on offense, to use the money (even spending increases) to completely change the paradigm of the debate on various issues like education.

I'll give you the "taxes are theft" issue.  You are correct, those exact words did not pass your lips.  Confiscatory, forced, unjust appropriation, those were your words.

I'll also give you the definition of charity.  To me, the issue is whether people that share a political community bear any responsibility toward each other, or not.  I don't much care what word you want to use.

Further, I have no problem believing that, if someone in your town couldn't pay for heat and you knew about it, you'd try to help out.

Your precise position, if I understand it correctly, is that tax dollars used for "charitable" ends, which is to say to provide assistance to needy people, is inherently confiscatory and improper.  Do I have it right?

My point throughout, despite your claim to the contrary, is that, IMO, it's perfectly fine for government to act to help people who need help.  That's my point.  And, to repeat, in case it really, really, really wasn't clear the first 10 times around, that's my point.  

Unlike many conservatives, I don't see government as some "other" entity, divorced from society.  I think it's one of many social institutions we all participate in, and whose actions we collectively direct.  That's what "of, for, and by the people" means to me.  

Spending tax dollars to help poor people heat the apartment is fine with me.  On this topic, call me a lefty, I'll wear it proudly.

Thanks

OK. Obviously this conversation has evolved from republicans doing things because of fear, to a more general discussion that our strategy needs to change.

If we step away from theoretical, taking the whole "unconstitutional" aspect out of it, to the strategic, what's your plan?

"I don't see government as some "other" entity, divorced from society."

Well you pretty much nailed the issue. I do think of government that way. I see church as a social institution we may participate in. Sports, clubs, charities, blogs, associations, foundations, groups, gatherings, even political groups to an extent.

But government? No. It is, and in my opinion must remain, "other". It may be by the people. It may be for the people. It may consist of the people. But is not the people. Once it becomes us, it becomes a tyranny over us.

Running the government as a charity is not only wrong in the abstract, it will eventually prove wrong in the practical sense. The United States government is out of control. It's grotesquely oversized and overfunded. It routinely overreaches it's inherent authority. It's a virtual monstrosity of burdensome taxes, wasteful spending, guilt-driven welfare, special interest pandering, and did I mention burdensome taxes? It's most definitely "other" from the people, if not yet diametrically opposed to the interests of the people. It needs to be slashed down to size.

because I am not sure if i can agree with you on one thing. You say conservatives need to junk their view on spending. Is that exactly what youmean or do you mean they need to junk their STRATEGY on how to get to a limited government.

If the latter is true then that would be a good strategy discussion, but if you are advocating that conservatives just need to give up the whole idea of limited government and spending as instructed in the Constitution, then I cant do that.

that started with a Nick Danger (I'm pretty sure) front-page story entitled "I, Heretic".  I cannot find the story (and the many lengthy and sometimes very heated threads of comments it generated) or I would link it here.

I'm sure HH will correct me if I'm wrong.

FWIW, as someone who was rather quick to shout "HERETIC" at Nick and (I think) Harold over that line of thinking I must admit that I'm seeing some of the wisdom in its madness - with one nontrivial quibble: being that $2.2T is STILL too much for the Federal Government to be spending.

I'm out of this threadjack.  If there's interest, perhaps someone can diary it.

Disengage for a while.  Stop focusing on the amount of money being spent, but instead work on how the money is spent, and the objectives that are pursued with the domestic discretionary.  I really don't have all the answers on this.  All I know is that the efforts since 1995 have not worked.

For instance, if a school district wants federal funding, they need to show parents and taxpayers how the children they are teaching are performing for starters.  If schools continue failing, then the schools lose the funding - and it goes to parents to get the kids into schools that will get results.  NCLB was a step forward in that area.  Rather than repeal, we need to work on a bigger stick for school districts that get federal money and fail to deliver results.

For PBS, they need to start explaining what programming they pay for, how much executives are paid, and so on.

The NEA ought to publish proposed grants online and allow a comment period.  Objections get a hearing before one dime of funding is provided.

Progams like LIHEAP probably could be folded into other programs to at least reduce overhead costs.  Getting it all under one roof, and reducing the bureaucracy will help matters (the bureaucrats who run the myriad or programs will vote for politicans who keep their jobs viable).  Maybe offering oil companies a tax credit for donating heating oil to low-income families or letting them bid on a contract to administer the program would work better.

Similarly, such tweaking might work for something like Social Security reform.  Take a contribution to a 401(k) or IRA, and turn it into a refundable tax credit.

I have provided links to both of his threads in Post 221.

Missed this upthread - thanks for repeating here.

Cheers.

Doc

thought the pure or ideal form of capitalism to be rather anarchist.  The same holds true for the pure form of communism.  The end result of both is supposed to be a self-sustained, self-correcting system free from government intervention.  Capitalism being maintained by the individual, Communism by the collective.  In both cases, I think it is too optimistic to be able to achieve self-balance.

When looking up the definition of capitalism, there is no clear consensus on the definition of capitalism.  Several of the definitions describe "Ideal Capitalism" as being untouched by government.  Which is what I had always thought the description of pure capitalism was.  And why I say I am not an absolute capitalist.  It's just unrealistic to think we can have a nation of laws, order, and justice without government effecting markets in one way or the other.

Well you pretty much nailed the issue

Yes, I think our differing perceptions of government are absolutely at the heart of our difference of opinion on this issue.

As it turns out, while I disagree with you profoundly, I'm really not here to tell you your point of view is wrong.  I'm here to speak for my own.  You'll draw whatever conclusions you like, which is as it should be.  

Regarding LIHEAP, I think we've come to the nub of it, I think both of our points of view are clear.

Believe it or not, it's been a pleasure talking with you.

Cheers -

We on both sides of the aisle are fond of rhetoric, so I'm going to ask people to step back and pretend for a moment that each side is not absolutely correct, and that things don't necessarily work because you say they do. Then I'd like you to answer this question:

Imagine tomorrow, the Democrats decided that they would let you have it your way. Nix on corporate taxes, income tax lowered just to the point necessary to support national defense, defend the constitution, and regulate the very basic definition s outlined to protect interstate commerce. All responsibility for current programs would be shifted to state and local authorities, and the federal social safety net was completely dismantled.

What do you propose if it fails? What happens if corporations, free of federal oversight, take advantage, and workers rights are trampled? What if charities DONT make up the windfall, and it results in the unnecessary deaths of millions of children and elderly? What if our educational system DOESN'T fix itself, and our children fall even further behind other first world nations? What if the rich decide that they simply wish to keep all the extra money they suddenly have, simply shuffling back and forth amongst other rich people, and the gap between wealth and everyone else increases substantially?

Obviously, this is 100% conjecture. I'm creating a hypothesis, one that is arguably as far-fetched as I believe the utopian "total free market federalism" would be, but just work with me here:

Then what do we do? I want to know, if you got everything you wanted, and life only got better for a handful, and worse for everyone else, what do we do? What if the benefit of this new society that is created flows entirely upward, and DOESN'T trickle down?

I'm trying to avoid a few "obvious" answers, like "Voters will just vote for people who have their interests", but that might ignore a political system that is so ripe with corruption from certain types of money that there ARE no viable candidates for the common people. Let's assume that, regardless of promises, enough people in the state and local governments will be influenced enough that legislation change will be nearly impossible.

What if you got everything you wanted? And perhaps as an addition to that...what do you expect the end result to be?

of spending that is, at least in a textualist's world, clearly unconstitutional, where would you NOT approve of spending federal dollars?

I happen to be a flat-tax guy.  I would have a cutoff, below which you would pay zero in taxes and above that number, I would have one flat rate (pick a percent but 19% is probably pretty good) with NO deductions.  I would also eliminate tax credits.  Corporate income would be taxed at a flat rate with no deductions.

In a perfect world, I would also eliminate the withholding of federal taxes, both FICA and income tax.  The single biggest thing that keeps the federal government growing is the fact that people never actually see the taxes they pay.  Many, if not most, overwithhold and when they get their check from the feds - at no interest - they are grateful.  If people had to write out a check every month the discussions on what taxes should be would be an entirely different discussion.

because the fear is just what you said, it would all fall apart because there are no rules. The thing is there still WOULD be rules. these rules would just transfer to the states. I would reckon your federal taxes would plummet and your state taxes would go up. as for corporations opening sweatshops etc, well, states have the right to regulate that as well.

So what;s the difference? why bother?

competition and control.

Currently if you dont like what the fed is doing you are screwed unless you want to go to Canada. There is also no competing model to judge if you are doing well or not. States would compete with each other for jobs, workers, residents. if you dont like your states vision you can move pretty easily these days. Also a state can see why its neighbor is succeeding and they are not.

As for control, it is easier to oversee a states finances that a nations. people can see better whether their money is working for them or not. Also, an agricultural state has a better idea what  to do with its agriculture money than a tourism state, etc

Withholding is for all practical purposes a huge scam. The average person will proudly tell you how much their last refund was, but if you ask them how much they actually paid in taxes they wouldn't have a clue. If all of us had to physically write a check to Uncle Sam every month or every quarter instead of withholding, I bet taxes would be a heck of a lot lower.

in my exhuberance to answer I didnt think that this question may be better suited as a new diary as it seems it could get lots of discussion and veer the thread off topic from home heating funding.

my bad

Thanks for your response. I don't agree with everything you've said in this thread, but I think I'm more akin to a states-right democrat in this area, and in theory, I can agree. A gradually shift of responsibility and revenue to states would be good for a lot of programs.

I'm not sure I agree so much about state competition. Those most in need of the competitive effect on wages, namely those in poverty, don't have the resources to pick up and move. There are issues of rent, security deposits, moving costs, the costs of being unemployed during the moving process...most of those beyond the means of the least compensated. Of course, state governments could subsidize those costs to import, but few states have a dearth of unskilled labor, and I'm not sure what the Republican line would be on this kind of state government expenditure.

I agree that it is easier to see a smaller budget than a larger one. The smaller the books, the more effective transparency becomes. Even if the federal government line-item inventoried the federal budget, the new monstrosity that the document would become would be  nearly indecipherable for all but the most inhuman of accounting minds. Creating a "strong" state government would increase the overall importance and flexibilities of city-level government as well.

I have fears about educational equality in the mix. It is in our national interest to ensure that we have a thriving education system in all states. We are not an industrial nation anymore, and I don't believe we can be again, so it is imperative that we excel in education and create high-skilled workers. There are only so many construction, janitorial, and restaurant jobs to go around, and anyone else who doesn't have a skill is an unemployment waiting to happen. I don't know how to address this adequately at the state level, but it's a dialogue waiting to happen.

I also worry about some states that might have an advantage that I can't quantify at this time, creating state policies that attract corporations and valuable jobs away from states that might not have the ability or resources to compete with those policies. The vacating of those companies would lead to a necessary vacating of talent, which would be a virtual death sentence to that state. What would be the method of relief then? In this, I think mainly of red states, because a number of blue states, with smaller populations and larger average payrolls, would be able to collect a greater amount in state taxes, allowing them to set smaller or non-existent corporate tax rates, drawing businesses to those states, thus keeping their payrolls inflated, and perpetuating that cycle. Other states might not have the ability to collect high levels of income tax, and might be forced to rely on a degree corporate taxation in order to support any effective government.

And let me ask for clarification:

I seem to hear from two heads about the issue of social safety nets and/or welfare. The one head says "We're okay with these things, as long as they're at the state level", and talk about it from a simple Constitutional viewpoint, but then their other head talks about "welfare mothers and handouts" with disdain and believe that simple charity can solve all ills. I haven't heard it asked before, but people have argued in this very thread that it's OKAY even if charity doesn't cover everything and not everyone gets the help they need. Does this mean that they advocate those who fall outside that help dying? And who do they suggest gets to administer the choice of who lives and who dies? Are they REALLY okay with grandmothers dying if all the money can't be raised by charity? It seems like what they REALLY want is for social programs to be agreed upon as states-rights issues, so that they can then destroy them at home and be done with them. What's the prevelance of this belief in reality?

started to crunch some numbers but had to run out..from no posts to 250! anyways...

the gist of the article is naive and ill-informed.  It is naive to think that

cutting red tape will a)happen quickly or b)result in cost reductions sufficient

to offset what is given out through this program, but I could be wrong. Can you

please give us some idea of what red tape you would cut and how much $$$ it

would save? Further you really need to cut out bashing of the commie states when

your facts are wrong:



based on LIHEAP data from 2002:

total allocation: 1.8B

breakdown - % $ allocation,  % of total households,  % of US population

blue states -     55               50.1                    44.8

red states        45               49.9                    55.2

regions:

Mid Atl           26.1             29.4                    16.1

Mid West          34.4             31.1                    22.3

North East         9.6              6.3                     4.8

North West         5.1              3.5                     4.5

South             16.7             23.4                    33.7

South West         8.0              6.3                    18.5

regions as per http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gmdhtml/rrhtml/regions4.html

with a breakdown of the North into NE, MA and MW.



So the irresponsible Middle Atl and North East are just over 35% of the program

total cost and 21% of the total US population.  And the overweights of the

whole Midwest, NE, MA come from the need to provide both the obvious heating

subsidy as well as cooling in the peak summer months.  

I "knew" of a program to help grannies with their heating bills, but thank

you for forcing me to actually look into the details.  Given the very low

income cut off this actually seems to be a program that does what it intends

to do fairly. That eliminating this program would save less that 0.1% of the

budget, I think we can find far more flagrant wastes of money.

that doing away with withholding would solve a bunch of problems.  Like earmarks.  Like social security reform.

I would disapprove of spending federal dollars on programs that are not productive, or that the citizens of the US did not want to spend their money on.  I would also disapprove of spending federal dollars on programs or other efforts that were, themselves, unconstitutional.  But, it's not clear to me that the spending itself is unconstitutional, which seems to be your claim.

While I understand the conclusion of the argument you're making, I'm not sure I understand the substance.  A brief discussion of the salient points would be welcome if that's not threadjacking, or a link to a good discussion would also be great.

A final point: from your other comments here, I exclude you from this, but generally I notice that the "outside the scope of specifically enumerated powers" argument is introduced more often when subsidies for poor people are discussed, and less often when the topic is subsidies for middle and upper class people.  I find that unfair.  

This is not an accusation that conservatives hate the poor, because I don't think they do.  I think other, less morally loaded, dynamics are in play.

As if you haven't already had these questions answered for you dozens of times, yes? You just don't like the answers.

I think I've asked these questions once, maybe twice, before here.  I'm not sure I'd say I "didn't like" the answers, however you're probably right to say I disagreed with them.

In either case, I don't think I asked you those questions, and my interest was in your answer.  Unless you assume that RS speaks as a monolithic bloc on the matter.  I doubt that is so.

Regarding this:

You are accusing me of hating the poor and not wanting to help them right? Why do you continue to mince words?

Let me be clear about this.

No, I am not accusing you or anyone else of hating the poor.  I doubt that you do, in fact, hate the poor.  Few people do.

I am not, in fact, accusing you of anything.  I am contesting the argument that it is inappropriate for the federal government to ever provide assistance to people who are poor.  

Once again, to make sure this is clear, because it appears to be an issue with you.

I am not accusing you or anyone else of hating the poor.  I think you will be hard pressed to read that into my comments here.

I disagree with, and am therefore contesting, the argument that it's inappropriate for the federal government to provide assistance to the poor.

I think we have, elsewhere, gotten to the nub of the pros and cons on this point.  I'm not restating it here to revisit the argument, but simply to make clear what I am and am not saying.

Thanks -

Hey mbecker -

I'm not a numbers guy, so I don't know in detail what the practical consequences of moving from a progressive tax rate to a flat tax rate would be.

That said, I have no problem in principle with a flat tax, nor with your suggestion that we eliminate deductions.  It would make a lot of things simpler, and remove a lot of bureaucracy.

The only caveat I'd add is that I'd like to see all personal income, period, regardless of the source, taxed at the same rate.

Thanks -

Executive Solutions, specifically, because I am familiar with the outfit and their accompishments, and a quick google should come up with what they succeeded at in Africa in 2 nations before the UN declared it was illegal to hire Mercs.

Although, as you've probably noticed, it's not in my nature.

You've made several points in this particular post that I see.

You disapprove of federal spending that:
• is not productive.
• the people don't want to spend their money on.
• spends money in ways that are unconstitutional.

  You feel:

• that "enumerated powers" arguments are made with "poverty" programs not general spending programs that affect the middle class
  

• there are unstated dynamics concerning the poor that are in play.

Let me attempt to address these, not in order.

First, enumerated powers.  Let me note here, I am not a Con Lawyer, this is a synopsis of my understanding of the Constitution as a whole, not a clause-by-clause dissection.  As I understand EP, the Constitution lists the specific powers that are granted to the federal government by the people.  It's very important to understand that it's the PEOPLE who give powers to the fed, the fed does not grant rights to the people.  The Constitution list the powers granted to each branch and then goes on to say that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people.

The SCOTUS has, in the last 60 years, expanded the interpretation of the "Commerce Clause" and the concept of "General Welfare" to cover pretty much anything that the government would like to tax, regulate or otherwise control.  I find those rulings to be an unconstitutional expansion of the powers of the federal government.  I happen to believe the founders wanted a limited federal government and that "problems" that required the intervention of government should be solved at the most local level.

I happen to be a Libertarian/Conservative if a label helps.  I am going to try to address broad issues and avoid most specifics in the interest of being able to get the yard work done that my wife just reminded me about.  The only comment I will make about specifics is that I am likely to be opposed to federal spending if there is a question about it.  Other than national defense (which I think we do OK at) and securing our borders (which we don't do OK at) there are very few jobs that should be done in Washington.  I am opposed, on Constitutional grounds, to Social Security, nationalized health care, the Department of Education, any spending on NEA or PBS and all federal spending that even remotely looks like an income transfer mechanism.  

Likewise, on Constitutional grounds, I could care less what a state or local government chooses to spend their tax receipts on.

With respect to the poor, and caring for them, I find no Constitutional or moral imperative for the federal government to be involved.  That said, I have no particular problem with things like limited emergency disaster relief.  I object to spending on "poverty" because it is outside of the EP.  It also doesn't work.  Poverty is a relative thing.  If you've spent time outside the US, most of the people in the world would do anything to be poor here.

Let me address your first points.  You object to federal spending that isn't productive.  I will accept your statement and not attack the budget with a chain saw because of it.  There are no federal spending programs that I know of that have "productivity measures" attached to them.  Let me point out an example of what I consider to be a couple non-productive programs.  

• Federal spending on poverty.
  Since the '60's, the feds have spent trillions of dollars on "anti-poverty" programs.  What we've seen, I think as a result of, is the complete disintegration of intact families, more out-of-wedlock births than births to families, etc.  By any measure, "anti-poverty" spending is a disaster.  Yet the people who support the concept argue that we just don't throw enough money at the problem.
• Education spending.
  Again, the feds are throwing money and resources at a perceived problem.  The result?  Lower standardized test scores (which result in watering down the difficulty of the tests to raise the scores), high school dropout rates that continue to increase, high school diplomas that aren't worth the paper their written on and college diplomas that need graduate work to be worth much.  The solution, again, is that we don't spend enough money.

With respect to your comment that we shouldn't spend money on programs that people don't want, I would argue that by-and-large people don't care.  The federal government has been allowed to grow to such a pernicious size that nobody can wrap their mind around it.  This thread started out discussing a program that spends a BILLION DOLLARS a year.  That's a lot of money.  Or it's only $3.25 per person to keep somebody from freezing to death.  And it's only 0.004% of the budget so what's the big deal.

With respect to spending only on programs that are Constitutional, rather than arguing about EP, I would offer this as a solution.  Or at least a direction.  When Congress wants to spend money or regulate something, I would ask that they do a couple of things.

• In the preamble of the legislation, list their specific Constitutional authority to spend or regulate.  That way the Executive Branch can agree or not, in a signing statement and SCOTUS will have a benchmark to measure the Constitutionality of the legislation.
• Provide specific measurement for success of the legislation as written.  In other words, this act will do the following in X time frame.  That way we can measure the effectiveness of the legislation in question and repeal it when (not if) it doesn't work.

I see I wasn't concise.

Hope this addresses your points.  

Taken hand in had with "keep your money" comment, i hope you stick to your word. It sounds like you are saying that if democrats get into office they will lower federal taxes and entitlements just for red states and raise both for blue states.

Actually, I think if programs like LIHEAP devolve to states, federal taxes for everyone will go down.  What I mean by "keep my money" is that my state currently gets less back than it pays at the federal level.  So, if federal programs devolve to states, and assuming my state picks up the slack, which is not an unreasonable assumption, I'll probably pay less for those services.  Red states, conversely, will have to pay more than they pay now for the same services, because they are currently a net consumer of federal money.  Or, they can go without.

the true nature of Democrats revealed: Omnicaring on the outside, but really caring for the sake of self gratification.

I'm not a Dem, but I'll assume your comment is directed to me.  It appears you would like to call me a hypocrite.

Here, as we used to say in my youth, is the real dog tip.

Blanton's original post contains this statement:

The program is a consumer subsidization program for home heating and primarily affects New England. If New England states like Vermont and Massachusetts would cut out a lot of burdensome government regulations that drive up costs across the board, a lot of people would not need LIHEAP.

As it turns out, that statement is false.  How do I know it's false?  I looked it up.  It took me all of 10 minutes.

Now, maybe Blanton was aware that what he was saying was false, and decided to present it as he did anyway.  Maybe he didn't know, and just shoveled out some press release he stumbled across or was given, without thinking about or questioning what it said.  Happens every day.  In any case, somebody somewhere wanted to create the impression that LIHEAP is a program intended for, and primarily consumed by, New Englanders, and in particular residents of MA and VT.

Why would someone do that?

Someone would do that because it makes the pitch an easier sell to his audience, namely conservatives and red staters.  The reason it makes the pitch an easier sell is because not only do they get to kill this wasteful, burdensome program, but they get to stick it to VT and MA in the deal.

I live in MA.  For every dollar I pay in taxes, I get less than a dollar back.  If you live in a red state, chances are that for every dollar you pay in taxes, you get your dollar back, and some of mine.

I'm actually not complaining about that.  I'm in favor of a robust government, it behooves me to pony up and be cheerful about it.  And, frankly, I do, and I am.

Here is what I am complaining about.  I'm complaining about Blanton selling public policy on the basis of the appeal of saying "screw you" to blue states generally, and my state in particular.  Especially when that pitch is based on a lie.  It pisses me off.  If that pitch is attractive to you, I'm pissed at you, personally, and next time your state needs a hand, I'll be that much less inclined to say, "Sure, I'll pitch in".

If that makes me a hypocrite in your book, so be it.  In my book, it just means I'm tired of being the hand that gets bit.

Thanks

regard to source.  I like the picture Steve Forbes painted about filing on a postcard.  

My only caveat would be a tax exemption for Corporations on dividends paid.  Income should only be taxed once.  And on that note, I don't know how I would treat income earned outside the US and taxed outside the US.  I haven't thought that through, although my guess is that Forbes has.

Just to restate a point, I would kill off all tax credits.  Earned income, etc.  The only thing I would be open to is a portable floor on taxation.  For instance (numbers are for illustrative purposes only):  a single person could earn $25,000 tax free.  A married couple, $35,000.  Add $5,000 per dependent up to a max of $65,000.  Or something like that.

Those most in need of the competitive effect on wages, namely those in poverty, don't have the resources to pick up and move.

I dont really agree. Arent illegal immigrants poor? You can find jobs across states online at the library, you can get a bus ticket pretty cheap and I am sure that poor people could get state govt assistance just as well as they do federal assistance. I am even sure that if there is someone with the sincere desire to move to another state to find work they will be accomodated. The real problem is that you are thinking that in the current situation there is no poverty problem. The only difference is that people would have an option to move to a different state if theirs is failing.

Few states have a dearth of unskilled labor

Well, if we got everything we wanted, there would be no illegal immigration problem either. Or would there still be jobs "Americans wont do"?

I'm not sure what the Republican line would be on this kind of state government expenditure.

It wouldnt matter would it? If Blue States are truly the "friend of the poor" they claim to be, they can have as costly of an entitlement program as they want, Republicans wouldnt be affected in their state.

I have fears about educational equality in the mix. It is in our national interest to ensure that we have a thriving education system in all states.

Again, you are basing your premise on the fallacy that we currently DO have a thriving education system in all states. In my perfect world, the teacher's union would also not have the power to block vouchers. Teachers could actually get fired. Failing schools would be able to close. Currently, you see small examples of competition, where some states have school programs that work well. I believe these would work even better if they werent overly regulated by the strings that come along with federal money. By creating this "sameness" oftentimes you end up with the lowest common denominator. Now, lets talk about the Dept of Education. Did you know they lost 9 billion in 1991? Just one year. Couldnt find it. Makes Enron look like small potatoes. This bureaucratic waste would be smaller in state governments and one states screwups wouldnt affect anothers.

...because a number of blue states, with smaller populations and larger average payrolls, would be able to collect a greater amount in state taxes, allowing them to set smaller or non-existent corporate tax rates

you mean blue states like California? They have some of the most business un-friendly regulations as it is, I doubt they will ease up on the corporate taxes. Honestly, the market would take care of it. Today with the internet and fedex, etc, a business can set up shop anywhere. If a state starts failing because of high taxes it would have to get smart and lower taxes. At a certain point the land value and cost of labor would become attractive enought for any company. Also, without a world of federal regulation there could be even more reasons a state could thrive, which I cant quantify now.

I seem to hear from two heads about the issue of social safety nets and/or welfare

I think it is a little of both. I dont think that anyone is of the mind to "let grannies die" even if that is how Republicans are portrayed. It is probably more a frustration of abuses to the system. Even the most Objectivist school of thought states that if you want to give your money away to charity and it makes you happy, by all means, but you shouldnt be forced to give money to some recipient on the other side of the country that you dont even know.

Here is a great example: welfare reform. Dems literally said we are trying to starve children and throw unwed mothers out on the street. Look what happened, when people get their unending supply of welfare cut off, they actually get off their butt and do something. It works all the time. I look at entitlements as modern slavery, not help. You get addicted and lazy and dont want to work if you dont have to, and then you become dependent on the government. I do think that there are also different definitions of what qualifies as a safety-net.

Lets say, though, that there ARE a lot of people who are OK with grannies dying, well, its their right to think that way and that is where the theory of free will comes in. YOU may think that we as a society need to help others, but that is your belief. You dont however have a right to impose your beliefs upon another human being, much like the "keep your hands off my body" crowd on the left. That is why we have a Constitution, a legal document to write out the terms of our co-existence. If most of the electorate agrees then you can change the terms by amending the Constitution, but as soon as you start making an end-run around it, then the agreement is pointless.

It seems like what they REALLY want is for social programs to be agreed upon as states-rights issues, so that they can then destroy them at home and be done with them.

If thats true then, so what? It would not likely affect you. It kind of is a good conclusion to illustrate my point. lets say everyone in Congress believed that and passed a law doing just that. What recourse do you have? None. Now, If this same thing is "destroyed at home" in, oh, lets say, Massachussettes :-), you at least have the option of leaving the state and going to another that has more entitlement friendly people.

Running on ideologically pure concepts is the quickest way to get tossed out of power

Bingo.  

People, real people, are interested in results, and in the effect that policies have on their own lives.    To the vast majority of people, political or economic theory is of no interest whatsoever.  

And that is precisely as it should be.