Adam Phillip Churvis wrote:
>
> Thanks for the reassurance. It came at a good time for me. I owe you one,
> my friend. :)
>
Same to you, Adam. I have longed for reasoned discussions on the net for
some time now. But, remarkably, impassioned attacks seem the norm rather
than calm discussion with an eye to learning more. You're fast becoming
one of my teachers. Having said that, I'm still going to split some
hairs with you below. ;-)
I agree with the next 8 points, except #6.
> Why? Because:
>
> 1) Paying for hundreds of failed "social services" (really just siphoning
> mechanisms for political friends) costs billions of dollars,
>
> 2) Those billions come from tax payers, so tax rates are high,
>
> 3) High tax rates mean more work in order to survive on what's left over,
>
> 4) More work means mothers working full-time jobs in order to make ends
> meet,
>
> 5) Working mothers cannot raise and school their children at home,
>
> 6) Educational needs must be (supposedly) met by yet another failed social
> service: public education,
>
I've watched a full frontal assault on public education for more than 30
years, and I think it has suffered enough already. Public education can
work. I saw it with my own eyes, in several states and several school
systems, growing up as an Air Force brat. However, what I saw was a
segregated system that received the support of the white people who saw
the benefits it offered their children and had the time and means to
support it through their tax dollars, admittedly, as well as through
their time, attention, and involvement.
Desegregation produced a new attitude toward "public" education. Living
in the South most of my life, I witnessed the exodus of the white people
who could afford it from the public school systems. For many of these
same people, there was a concomitant flight to more rural areas -- in
many cases, just white suburbs where, miraculously, brand new public
schools were built. The schools they left behind simply dwindled down to
shells of their former selves -- a lack of money, a lack of superior
talent, a lack of parents with the time to be involved. As the
communities surrounding these schools deteriorated, a death spiral
ensued. But drive just 10 miles or so, and you could find both public
and private schools with new facilities, full libraries, band programs,
sports of every sort, etc.
Public schools in the deteriorating areas, if they were to keep their
doors open, had to seek help from wherever they could get it. Federal
government, with their increased involvement through the period of
desegregation -- busing, maintenance of racial quotas, etc., were faced
with increasing demands from their constituents to do something about
the problem. And of course, to a federal bureaucrat, the solution is
always to throw money at the problem. Increased control ALWAYS follows
federal dollars. Since federal government has no concept of local needs,
most of their efforts have failed miserably. But note that federal
involvement has been, primarily, as a result of the vacuum created by
parents and local officials who either fled or simply threw up their
hands, along with the drying up of financial resources.
I would conclude that our public schools have not failed us. We have
failed them. I get absolutely livid with people who want to continue
collecting taxes and distributing them to the private schools and home
schoolers. If they want to use these avenues to educate their children,
I say, fine. But don't turn them into quasi-public institutions. They
are not. They are private and, thus, not entitled to any sort of public
support.
> 7) The child comes home at 2:30 PM with "nothin' to do" until mom gets home
> at 6:00 PM (this time span is commonly known as "the sex, drugs, and
> rock-and-roll hours"),
>
I spent over two years in this condition from age 11-13. I'm only
thankful that life then was simpler and more innocent. I suffered no
lasting damage as a result, that I'm aware of, anyway. Kids nowadays
face a much more complex and dangerous society and need even more
parental control and guidance to get through, unscathed.
> 8) Now the child has neither a real education, nor sufficient family
> guidance, nor any sense of self-control, and is easily manipulated by the
> wrong elements.
>
As you've mentioned elsewhere, parents have to work longer hours to
achieve any decent standard of living, leaving less time to spend with
their kids. The problem seems intractable, but I'm not sure it is.
> My proposal is this:
>
I like all of the following, except 5 and 6, and would make minor points
on a couple of others.
> 1) dump the majority of social services (most of which are horribly failed),
>
> 2) lower the total tax burden at point of purchase to a maximum of 25% by
> Constitutional Amendment (no more income tax, social security tax, etc.),
>
I've always favored something closer to 10%, but I'm certainly no
economist.
> 3) collect it as a national sales tax on all goods _and_ services (even
> Internet purchases),
>
If national, the money still has to be distributed to local government
in some way. Given the current (and perennial?) state of friction
between many Southern states and the Federal Government, this might be
an extremely tough sale in the South.
> 4) lower taxes will let Mom come home to raise and watch over her children,
>
There is the additional problem of raising incomes. It's not merely a
factor of taxation. Compare the cost of living in the 1950s or 1960s
with today, and compare average incomes between the two periods, as
well. The two have not grown at the same rate. The cost of housing has
risen by a factor of at least 10 to 15. Cars: 5 to 10. Incomes: 2 to 3.
> 5) privatize everything feasible (water works, jails, schools, health
> programs, road repair) and pay for these from the appropriate portion of the
> 25% tax,
>
I mentioned my objection previously to privatization of prisons.
Everyone should consider this far more carefully than they appear to
have done so far. It's another one of those things that looks wonderful
on the surface, but is difficult to implement without causing still
further problems. The trend toward privatization is merely a way of
shifting responsibility from one recipient of tax dollars (government)
to another (corporation). The idea that a profit motive will cause the
system to work more efficiently is valid. But it ignores the social side
of the equation. Despite what many say these days, I don't agree that
prisons are merely for warehousing criminals. I still (perhaps naively)
believe that they "should" maintain a focus on rehabilitation -- at
least on humane treatment that will not further criminalize those it
locks up. Otherwise, why not simply impose a life sentence for every
crime and be done with it? That would get the bad guys off the street
and create a huge incentive to obey the law (kind of like the theory
behind capital punishment). If that's what the public really wants, what
better way to accomplish it?
Seriously, though, what about the private corporation given the
opportunity to make a profit from incarcerating people? Consider the
bottom line, and you'll see why such a scheme runs counter to the public
good. A corporation needs a product or a service, and it needs to grow
to remain profitable and return a dividend. What is the product of a
private prison? An incarcerated individual. When they let him out, they
lose money. So there is absolutely NO incentive to provide this person
with any guidance, training, inspiration, or other assistance intended
to get him back on his feet and out of prison for good. In fact, a
prison that profits by his presence wants to see him come back as soon
as possible.
If you consider privatization of the other services you list above, you
may be able to see the same flaw in each of them. At least, when
conducted by a public authority, even if they are wasteful, they are at
least accountable to voters, instead of to the stockholder. The
stockholder cares about only one thing, despite a minuscule number of
socially responsible investors to the contrary: profit. Do you want to
drive across a bridge built or repaired by a corporation bent only on
saving money?
IMO, some functions are, properly, public functions and have no place
being handled by for-profit corporations.
> 6) let free markets and non-taxed religious organizations span any truly
> needed gaps left behind by the former "social services,"
>
I've never had the occasion to use any sort of public assistance. I know
that it could happen, and I would hope that I would not be forced, under
such a scheme, to submit to religious proselytizing, in order to get fed
or receive a bed to sleep in. The situation would be degrading enough,
without having to be assaulted by bible-thumpers or other do-gooders who
thought religion was the answer to all my problems. The freedom "of"
religion in America has always included the freedom "from" religion. I
fear the current blurring of the lines between religion and government.
> 7) remove laws that prevent adults from doing things that do not infringe
> upon the Constitutional rights of others by either force or fraud,
>
> 8) fasttrack these changes within a single four-year presidential term, and
> gladly suffer the necessary consequences of such a quick change.
>
> Remember: businesses make more profit when more people from all walks of
> life have good jobs, and they know this fact very well. Businesses will
> create good jobs as fast as the government can get out of their way.
>
I wish I shared your regard for the goodness of corporations. I also
wish they were competent to actually create the jobs you speak of. I
have seen several corporations at work, from the inside, and my
experience of them is not nearly as rosy. They are staffed and run by
people. People don't change their basic attitudes and tendencies as a
result of involvement in corporate work environments. They are just as
stupid, thoughtless, selfish, self-centered, ambitious (in the negative
sense) and blind to logic and common sense as they are anywhere else.
Consequently, corporations that are not led by extremely capable owners
or managers, with a strong sense of social responsibility, simply bungle
along from one fiasco to another, with an occasional success thrown in.
Responsible leaders are the exception rather than the rule, I would
submit. If you think otherwise, please explain why we have need for
trade unions.
I don't suggest that government can do any better at creating jobs. And
I agree that it can create impediments to business. But I can't go along
with the notion that corporations are always good, and government is
always bad. I know you didn't say this, but it seems to be beneath the
surface. It sounds sort of like the bleating of "four legs good; two
legs bad!" Don't forget that, there was a time in America where two legs
were, in fact, good and four legs were bad. For a decade or more,
federal government was the only force with the capacity to create an
economic climate where we, business, all of us, could move forward from
the debacle created by corporations. And the WPA did produce, not only
jobs, but lasting structures that many communities still treasure --
courthouses, post offices, highways, bridges, dams.
> > But if I'd
> > quit high school and spent the last 30 years doing manual farm labor,
> > that would be a tall order, indeed.
>
> If you had quit to support your family (i.e., responsibility), then you rose
> to the occasion and chose your course in life, you are now gainfully
> employed in your trade, you pay your taxes, and you have society's respect.
> This is now your lot in life, if you choose to remain there. If, however,
> you want a better way for yourself, and you're not too close to retirement
> age, then there are ways to be trained in a totally new field and be
> supported until you can get on your feet in your new trade -- all without
> government help. You just have to look for the business to whom you can
> successfully plead your case. It happens all the time.
>
You live in Atlanta. This would appear reasonable from that vantage
point. This is simply not the case in less populous areas.
> > I have no problem with at least some portion of my
> > taxes going toward supporting the less fortunate.
>
> Actually, I agree. But I would restrict this to a government-run
> "clearinghouse" that finds the private program that best fits their needs.
> This would be an efficient and reasonable use of minimum tax dollars.
>
I think we may be agreeing on this. This sort of model might be the best
way to approach 'some' public functions, where efficiency and cost
saving doesn't negatively impact the public good.
> > If the truly rich in
> > our nation would pony up for charity, maybe government could get out of
> > the business.
>
> If the government got out of the business, and corporations didn't have to
> pay for this business, they _would_ give much more than they already do. By
> the way, I'm not picking on your words, but do you by chance mean
> "philanthropy" rather than "charity?" I ask because philanthropy is a
> hand-up, whereas charity is a hand-out. Philanthropy invests in a man's
> future; charity hands him a dollar. Personally, I don't believe in charity
> outside of one's own family or religious organizations.
>
I understand the difference between charity and philanthropy. The former
is personal. The latter is societal. The origins of the two words are
similar, but distinct. Charity comes from Latin and originally, simply
meant love. During it's turn through French and into English, it has
come to signify a giving of one's earthly goods and good-will to others.
Philanthropy came from two Greek words, love and man, and signifies the
more generalized desire to elevate the well-being of mankind.
I'll stick with the word I used. Providing an endowment for certain
types of individuals to receive a college education is philanthropic.
Contributing a portion of the funds needed to build a public library is
philanthropic. Funding worker training programs is philanthropic. Giving
time or money to assist a soup kitchen or other charitable organization
is charitable. Helping to build a home through Habitat is charitable.
Being willing to forgive a neighbor for a transgression is charitable.
I forget who first said it, but this is as true today as it ever was.
The poor will always be with us. I would add that true poverty is a
vicious trap from which only a special few ever escape. Don't forget
that there is a difference between being broke and being poor. Those who
are merely broke can understand the difference and can be held to a
greater level or responsibility for their condition. The poor cannot --
not, at least, without significant help. To measure them by the same
yardstick is just as vicious as the poverty from which they suffer.
> > Personally, I see a difference between greed and ambition.
>
> Yes, and what a difference! True ambition has an honorable objective; greed
> only feeds gluttony.
>
Amen! And Gluttony, BTW, is one of the seven original sins.
> ###
>
> I have enjoyed this debate very much, and will be happy to continue it as
> time allows.
I couldn't agree more. Fascinating, isn't it, how we've traveled from
drugs to government vs. industry to poverty? And practically no serious
insults or sniping.
--John
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
