On your point about the distinction between activists and the average voter: this distinction is true in any political party. The activists drive the most extreme sides of the agenda while the voters are generally much more moderate in their views but have enough common ground that they identify with the extremists in one party more than they do with those of the opposing party. But yes, your point about people needing to be better informed is well taken.

Doma: I think you are drawing conclusions about which party neglects things without a solid basis in fact. Theoretically I get your point about long range goals and more creative, proactive solutions coming from the progressive side (which in fact is why I’m not a staunch libertarian type of conservative, and which is why I recognize the value of the full spectrum of political opinion). But one big caveat is that governments are NOT in fact motivated by the same forces as parents are for the welfare of their kids. Parents do indeed often make correct decisions about long term investments, because they have the correct motivations to help their kids’ futures. In the case of government though, a conflicting interest usually factors in: the self interest of the politician and political party to gain power. THAT is why conservatives tend to look for private sector solutions over government ones. Frankly it’s sometimes hard for me to understand how people can see the dangers of an authoritarian right wing government but have blinders on when it comes to left wing politicians who proclaim that they have the answers to our problems and ask us to give them the power and the money to institute their solutions.

Jim: I’m at a loss as to how you can claim that the Republicans who are currently “in charge” are those who want to “starve the beast” when the recent GOP Congress drove up deficit spending. I don’t want to elect conservatives who blindly try to cut spending to starve government, but the ones elected recently have done just the opposite. The ones I want to elect would lie somewhere in between those two extremes; they’d have a willingness to seriously cut waste and fraud but also a willingness to spend and invest in needed programs and infrastructure even if it meant giving up some tax cuts or restructuring to increase the tax burden if necessary (particularly in wartime).

Right. I didn’t say I like it, C, I just pointed out that there’s at least one Dem on the record for cutting spending, so you can start showing “a lot more sympathy for those who feel that the GOP is too set on cutting taxes”

“And please note that my last statement that you took exception to referred to the average conservative voters, not the activists.” Uh huh. Well, next time you make such a broad general statement in order to make republicans look good, pls bother to give us all the caveats, explaining to what limited group of people you’re referring, ok?

“Most have never heard of Grover Norquist.”
Hmm? If that’s true, this is an example of one of the big problems of democracy. Average voters don’t pay enough attention to the political discussion and ain’t got no clue who the main players are…
:-/

Ok, seriously, snark aside, you made some good points. Just one more correction: “I think the concept of federal vs. state funding gets lost on Europeans.”
Pls be careful with the usage of “Europeans”. In this case, it shouldn’t be forgotten that we still consist of several nations with surprisingly different political systems. Here in Germany, we have a federal republic (influenced by US advisers after WWII), and we know the problem of finding a satisfying compromise between national and state interests very well. We have both taxes going to the feds and to the state government. Also, there is a correction mechanism, so that the difference between rich and poor regions doesn’t become to large.

Actually, the main fights are not about taxes, but spending. Governors complain about federal laws that result in new financial obligations for the states. Ok, you see, at least in Germany we know those kind of conflicts.

If a child breaks a leg, getting him to a doctor might mean delaying paying the utility bill one month, or borrowing, or selling the TV – whatever it takes. A parent would look for the mostt sensible way to finance a child’s need, with all options on the table.
Taking taxes off the table of options, might mean neglecting an urgent problem, if no better avenue of resources is available. That’s what actually happens, in many cases.

Democrats, I blieve, are more oriented to solving problems. Conservatives are more willing to leave problems unsolved rather than use a taboo option like taxes.

Again, I’m speaking for myself. I have no ideas what the Democrars or the Progressives as a whole think.

Funding an expensive war could be seen as investing in the future in terms of national security.
Why is war the only thing in which we’re silling to invest with a view to the future?
Crime is fought by building more prisons, instead of investing in crime prevention, so that the budget for prisons could be decreased.
Health care costs are addressed by cutting funding to health care instead of investing in health care progaams to avoid the need for more expensive care in the future.
Bridges crumble because investing in maintenance now to prevent this from happening in the furure is not seen as fiscally conservative.
And so on down the line. Much of what is passed off as fiscally conservative today can lead fiscal bankrupcy in the future.

Frankly, I don’t have much patience with short sighted fiscal conservatism. It’s not anything like what people practice in their fiscally conservative private lives. Parents borrow to send children to college, because they understand investing in the future. People borrow to buy homes, because they
understand investing in the furure.

There is nothing new, nove or radical about the idea of being fiscally conservative by investing in a furure that would prevent even higher costs. Yet, it’s pretty much a taboo subject in many fiscally donsciencous circles.

The governing philosophy of fiscally conservative Republicans is “starve the beast”.

ALL “fiscally conservative Republicans”?

Any one around here?

Or is this just yet another cartoonish stereotype hurled against people here who never themselves endorsed it?

The Economist has an article about some new research about the efficacy of “starve the beast”.

And please note that my last statement that you took exception to referred to the average conservative voters, not the activists. Of course I was making a generalization and obviously there are GOP voters who want to “starve the beast” but that is mainly a strawman because the average GOP voter isn’t a strict small govt libertarian, or a member of Clubs for Growth. Most have never heard of Grover Norquist.

There are a lot of us who felt that Reagan had it right on downsizing the federal govt (the concept of it if not his implementation) but that doesn’t mean that we don’t want to fund the important functions of the feds as well as funding state and local needs. I think a lot of the problems that liberals criticize him for occurred because the states neglected to pick up the slack in funding- they didn’t want to raise local taxes or reappropriate their own funds, so it was easier to blame their shortfalls on Reagan’s evil cuts. And yeah, Reagan was criticized by many on the RIGHT (like myself) for allowing the spending to increase so much. The military buildup was necessary IMO but was done wastefully as usual, and other programs should have been cut more (of course I can understand the political pressure not to do so when one is demonized even if one cuts the rate of increase in spending on a program instead of cutting the actual amount of funding.)

I think the concept of federal vs. state funding gets lost on Europeans. Think of it this way: would you prefer changing to a system where Germans pay most of their taxes to EU, and have a central govt administer your roads, social spending and other needs or should that money be handled by your country? The US is a big country and oversight becomes much harder when the money goes to DC and then back to the states instead of staying in our state capitals for the needs of the state’s citizens. The DC politicians of both parties tend to welcome growth of the federal government and to sell to the public the idea that they can solve various problems which really could be better handled closer to home.

How about Richardson and his ‘balanced budget’ talking point? And, btw, Reagan didn’t cut spending, but raised taxes, too (and still made lots of debts). And Clinton raised the revenue and manged to pay back the debts, without ruining the economy at all.

So, I don’t think this shouldn’t be about which means to use to finance the nation, but about which way is reasonable and responsible.

Oh, and: “Conservative voters aren’t out to destroy the country by drying up all sources of tax revenue”
Never heard of ’starving the beast’? Never read about a Dem proposing this, but lots of Repubs.
:-/

What bothers me is that just because some people have a kneejerk opposition to taxes, others seem to have a kneejerk opposition to those people.

It is foolish for anyone to say that taxes should never be raised (and as Bush 41 and a host of other politicians have found out, certainly foolish for them to take such a pledge).

I’d have a lot more sympathy for those who feel that the GOP is too set on cutting taxes if I’d hear a Democrat EVER talk about cutting spending. Most people can appreciate from their household budget that you can’t just get a pay raise every time a new need comes up, you have to reprioritize your spending.

When we let the two parties deal with budgets in these black and white terms (as in, we either vote in Republicans who will cut taxes, and at least in the past would trim spending though that hasn’t been true lately- or elect Democrats who will talk Paygo but that means that we will pay and they will go) then we will never get anywhere toward reducing deficit spending OR getting our priorities right. Instead we get the worst of both worlds.

It’s time for us as voters to see through the rhetoric. The trouble with partisanship isn’t just in our elected officials who put party ahead of public good, it’s also with the voting public who fall for the divide and conquer tactics that they use to get elected. Conservative voters aren’t out to destroy the country by drying up all sources of tax revenue, but we are interested in having the politicians demonstrate actual need for new funds before they force us to open our wallets. That’s also one reason that I favor projects being devolved to the local level as much as possible: voters can at least try to keep an eye on how money is being spent and new taxes usually require ballot initiatives so that we know what we are agreeing to.

In the meantime, a lot of important issues are put off indefinitely, because the perfect solution, pleasing in every way, shape and form is simply not available.

If it’s corruption, then there should be the obvious investigations and prosecutions, BTW. That’s something all parties should support.

As to responsibility in VA- I have no idea, since I don’t know any of the specifics. If the project was a boondoggle, then good on the GOP legislature for voting it down. If it was a well planned mass transit project which should have been funded, then the legislature should have either found funds in their current budget or proposed reasonable taxes to cover the expenditure.

I know that you don’t like the groups which push for “no new taxes”, Kim, but sometimes they are doing so because they refuse to allow legislatures and governors to keep going back to the taxpayers to fund more and more projects and programs which are wasteful and rife with fraud. These people aren’t trying to send a message that they don’t want to pay for needed infrastructure, they’re saying that the govt’s already have enough to do so if they would allocate the funds properly. Saying that there will always be some fraud is a given but how much of that are we willing to tolerate?

Hmm, about how big a distance are we talking here? Here in Germany, I can cover about 20 miles in 60 minutes, even though I have to switch from subway to light rail in the center…

As far as budgets go its a shared responsibility- so both share the blame.

CS- Who will you blame if a similar occurence happens in Virginia, where the (R) legislature refused to pass the governor’s (D) mass transit bill because it involved a tax increase?

Good for Pawlenty!

I would say that what limits public transportation in the U.S. is that people will not limit their job hunting to short commute areas. In a large area like DC, if you are changing jobs you can quickly go from a short commute to a long commute. But people just cannot sell their homes and move to the other side of the city.

A classic example in DC is what is called the U-commuters. The live in Rockville or Reston but work in the other town. Public transportation would take over two hours and require several connections. However, there is only one overused bridge that connect the areas. thus, people sit in their cars for 90 minutes instead of stand in the metro for 90 minutes.

Your arguments are
1) circular –
We defer to ‘children’s demad’ and then point to the fact that children still demand the same thing.. If the public wants all the comforts you describe, then they should pay via higher gas taxes, higher road tolls, hicher car registration fees, etc. Instead we make travel by car cheap and then wonder why people like it.

2 proof of the truth of my statement
You exclude all innovation. There is no reason why
suburb to suburb commutes, should not be possible by public transportation modes: buses, minibuses, trams, etc.. Also, suburb to suburb commutes should not necessitate a huge mnay-lane highway system.

Why is the demand for ease and comfort sacrosant, anyway?
When re-cycling was first introduced, it was very unpopular: extra work, not efficien, not cost effective. Look around now. People are more likey to complain if a local community lacks suffiediently stringent recycling regulations. The cost effectiness picture is improving every day, too, with innovative approaches and applications.

In this whole picture, you also omit telecommunications. Why is it necessary to travel every day just to shake your bosses hand , when much of your communications could be done by videoconferencing, e-mail, fac and telephone?

We can either stick to the past like a burrs,only to get mired deeper in the expansion of today’s problems, or we can look for new ways to deal with a new world situation.

Needless to say, there are numerous examples in Europe. I don’t know of any mayor city that doesn’t have at least an acceptable public transport system. Many are connecting suburbs with the center, too. If it’s faster depends on where you want to go, of course, but most of the time it’s cheaper than using the car.

That’s not necessarily true. NYC is the one example in the US where public transport actually is faster, cheaper, and most convenient for many citzien. That this doesn’t work in other cities is because they weren’t designed with public transport in mind (was it you who said that above?) and that the political will to spend the necessary startup investment isn’t there. Well, and the way many systems are run in the US is actually a bad joke.

I still remember standing at a bus stop in New Orleans years ago. No time table, no informations about the route, no nothing. And this wasn’t in a suburb, it was on Tulane, not far from the courthouse, maybe a twenty minute walk from the center. I was about to start hiking when out of the blue an old, scarcovered and battered battle horse of a bus pulled up. Not surprisingly, the passengers were mostly minorities, and nobody looked like he was making enough to afford a car.

Well, of course you won’t get more people to use that joke of a transport system without spending a heavy dose of money for it first! However, I’m still wondering what may be the reason behind refusing to at least trying to run transports on schedule. This would be quite cheap, just a matter of introducing new rules and a plan, but it might do wonders for the acceptance of public transport if interested ‘customers’ would have some confidence that their bus will really arrive at a certain time. Public transport 101, really.
|-(

I quite agree that Governor P should be given credit.

After all, it would be better than washing dishes at an IHOP, which is what he’d be doing after the next election if he didn’t change his mind.

Mass transit in the United States are called roads and Highways. If you want to talk about public transporations (those trains, buses, and subways operated by the government) then please used the correct term.

There are only a few places in the U.S. that are dense enough to justify public transportation. Look at DC where Metro is experiencing record levels of ridership and still losing 100’s of millions of dollars a year and traffic is still bad.

No matter how it operates (with a few exceptions) public transporation is much less comfortable, takes longer, and is less reliable than driving. Also, public transporation does not allow for suburb to suburb commutes. In DC one of the biggest problems are people who live in Maryland and work in Virgina (or vice versa). No public transportation system can be designed to effectively move people on such commutes.