tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924903188810610343.post3289813715621122657..comments2023-09-21T01:51:15.719-07:00Comments on The Dead Horse Times: Federal Funding Fun and Games RevisitedEngineerScottyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11005863528905991434noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924903188810610343.post-72575536657690140872010-11-07T23:44:09.702-08:002010-11-07T23:44:09.702-08:00Too many interest groups, though, prefer to loot t...Too many interest groups, though, prefer to loot the treasury. And few politicians in DC really seem to be serious about debt reduction--far too many (on both sides) seem to view the present state of the economy as an opportunity to transform the political landscape in their favor. <br /><br />The GOP's posturing on the debt--along with the laughable claim that the debt can be reduced without either raising taxes or reducing popular entitlements like Social Security--makes them hard to take seriously. And some on the left (not Obama) seem to act as though it doesn't matter. And I can think of a few on both sides who think a default on the national debt would be a Perfectly Fine Idea.<br /><br />Ugh.EngineerScottyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11005863528905991434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924903188810610343.post-41864514191232716892010-11-06T17:09:42.877-07:002010-11-06T17:09:42.877-07:00Maybe the federal government needs to artificially...Maybe the federal government needs to artificially create some interest group that has a deep incentive for us to pay down debt during fat years. Like, if every federal employee or contractor got a New Year's bonus every year in proportion to declines in the federal debt as a share of GDP.<br /><br />Then they'd hire anti-debt lobbyists, right? And that's really what we need.Michael, Portland Afoothttp://portlandafoot.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924903188810610343.post-11424341371524417212010-11-03T10:08:26.522-07:002010-11-03T10:08:26.522-07:00Yes. Michael--I do realize EXACTLY that, and quite...Yes. Michael--I do realize EXACTLY that, and quite agree with you. I was "ignoring" the issue because it's largely outside the scope of local control, but yes--counter-cyclical spending is generally an excellent idea. (Unfortunately, it also needs to be matched with counter-cyclical savings--paying down debt during good times--but our political culture seems to have a very hard time with that.)EngineerScottyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11005863528905991434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7924903188810610343.post-38975255757632785642010-11-03T09:58:20.587-07:002010-11-03T09:58:20.587-07:00Quote:
(We'll ignore for now the Keynesian ide...Quote:<br />(We'll ignore for now the Keynesian ideal that spending on infrastructure is a good thing to do in a recession--which is one argument for federal funding, in that the Feds are the only layer of government capable of counter-cyclical investment, assuming there exists the political will to do so.)<br /><br />You realize of course, that this is *everything*. We've got a federal government that can borrow at the lowest rates in either of our lifetimes. We've got a huge population of de-mobilized construction workers leftover from the housing boom. It's *insane* not to put both of those to use to buld roads, bridges, sidewalks, bikepaths, sewers, and rails. How could we *not* average a return of 3% on that investment over the next 30 years? (Or 1% if the fed actually manages to hit it's target inflation rate!) It makes me want to claw my own eyeballs out that a wave of politicians were just swept into office with a mandate to prevent us from taking advantage of those facts to invest in our recovery and our next economic boom.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09343368034173586183noreply@blogger.com