A friend recently sent me an article where the writer Tim Bedore tries to blame our deteriorating infrastructure (and therefore bridge failures) on conservative principles. See the original article at
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/08/10/PM200708106.html
My friend asked me if I have any comments. I do. The author's claim that "conservativism's[sp] short-term, bottom-line, give-the-people-only-what-they-think-they-need-now approach as our governing theme has been a giant bust" really got me going. First off, Conservatism generally doesn't offer people "what-they-think-they-need" easy answers as it promotes individual effort, self control, individual responsibility and other distasteful "hard-work" related steps rather looking to others for solutions. He rails against tax cuts without recognizing that tax cuts always increase government tax revenues and therefore help the government to spend more not less. We don't ridicule tax and spenders because they want to spend money on bridge repair but rather that they want to spend our money on every kaka idea but bridges (and other proper and appropriate ends). That might have something to do with the fact that bridge spending doesn't gain them votes.
Conservatism is not the conservation of money or spending or "doing it on the cheap" as the editorialist says but rather the conservation of principles. The principle of being willing to pay treasure and blood for the sake of freedom is conservative. The principle that immigrants should come here legally or not at all is conservative. The belief that parents should have a say in how their children are taught (not just in private schools but in public ones as well) is a conservative principle. Recognizing that we formed a nation to promote freedom of religion not freedom FROM religion is a conservative principle. In other words honor the Creator how ever you want but don't try to force me to DENY or IGNORE Him publicly even if you choose to. Discipline in schools is a conservative principle.
As for money, the conservative principle is that we formed a government with certain LIMITED rights and responsibilities and we expect it to spend money on those things alone and all money spent should be spent wisely. Look at any government budget closely and you will be astounded at what they spend money on. Maybe if we actually exercised some conservative principles we would actually have enough money to work on the bridges. Being a grownup and competently spending money on necessary but not flashy purposes is what we elect our leaders to do. Unfortunately they instead offer to spend on unproven "candy" and we and the media fall for it again and again.
Which is a bigger threat to American society, the state of the nation's bridges (i.e. infrastructure) or the impact of the "No Snitch" mindset [meaning don't cooperate with the police even when you see a crime committed] fostered by prominent Rap artists and the record industry executives that promote them? The inner cities are in great turmoil, black-on-black violence is epidemic despite what we have spent on this yet liberals attack Bill Cosby when he says that community can only "come up" when they take responsibility for themselves (another conservative principle) vs waiting for the government. Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton on that? Why are Condoleezza Rice and Clarence Thomas not promoted in the black community as role models (the type of role models that that community dearly needs instead of Micheal Jackson, OJ Simpson, and many Rap artists)? Are these issues the fault of conservatism? No but those are the areas of spiritual and civic infrastructure where conservative principles are sorely needed. By comparison bridges are easy.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 13
When I was younger I thought that to be patriotic meant to love your country and by extension your government. I have since realized the fallacy of that. Take a few examples: Should I love the Social Security program when it must, due to demographic pressures, fail eventually. No, I recognise that it was conceived in a different time but now needs to be changed (and privitized). Should we accept that the Medicare/Medicaid bureaucracy cannot be improved and streamlined?
To your point we have poured many dollars into social programs over the years and yet because we don't manage to get across to people the idea of personal responsibilty, things don't seem much better.
Should parents or bureacrats control schools? Should we have open borders regardless of impact or cost? Are sanctuary cities a good idea?
You've got the rock throwing down - how about some solutions?
no one looks at the states or counties for fault, wonder why?
I dont think it is necessarily the conservative that are to blame for our failing infastructure but the government as a whole. Yes we need to work for what we get and pay our taxes but for the most part the taxpayers dont pick and choose what our tax money is spent on.
This is absolute nonsense. Had republican presidents not been robbing the trust fund over the past 26 years, the program would be permanently solvent. In fact, even after 12 years of republican theft, Clinton's budget would've had the program completely solvent for as far as the eye could see.
And, the greatest lie of all is that privatization saves ANY public money, regardless of what infrastructure is privatized. Had Bush been allowed to privatize SS, it would've cost more to do so in the first ten years than it would've cost to simply prop the current program up with additional funding.
Every time a part of the infrastructure is privatized, costs soar and service tanks. The reason? There is profit motive in private business. The only reason business exists in a capitalist society is to earn a profit. They do not care how poor service is, how much it costs, or if it's even delivered as needed at all. Witness ENRON, for example. Perfect example of what happens when private companies take over public infrastructure. Prices skyrocket, service tumbles.
On the other hand, the motivation for public management of infrastructure is simply to provide effective, safe infrastructure. There is no motive for profit. There are no $200 million salaries. There is no billion dollar annual advertising budget. There are no private jets or mansions. There are only public servants, doing the public's work.
"Should we accept that the Medicare/Medicaid bureaucracy cannot be improved and streamlined?"
Medicare operates at a "whopping" 2% administrative cost. How much more can you streamline and improve that? Private health care costs 20-30% to administer. No comparison.
"To your point we have poured many dollars into social programs over the years and yet because we don't manage to get across to people the idea of personal responsibilty, things don't seem much better."
That's simply not true. Untold millions of people have been lifted out of poverty over the decades.
As for personal responsibility, why is it that this is only something that the poor should do? How quickly people forget massive corporate fraud. For example, look at Halliburton. This is a company that has literally STOLEN hundreds of millions of debt dollars, yet is allowed to continue profiteering without end. This company served our soldiers ROTTEN FOOD and POISONED WATER for ridiculously overpriced fees, yet is still on the government dole.
What would happen if a government agency had distributed rotten, poisoned food and water to our soldiers, and was literally stealing hundreds of millions of dollars? It wouldn't happen.
"Should parents or bureacrats control schools?"
You're assuming that parents know how to teach and control other parent's kids. I'd just as soon not have some freak teach my kids any of their hatred and intolerance, thank you.
"Should we have open borders regardless of impact or cost?"
As long as private companies are allowed to hire them, we will continue to see them pour across our border. Btw, how many illegal aliens do you suppose the government employs?
"Are sanctuary cities a good idea?"
Again, put an end to the hiring of illegals, and the problem disappears. There's a very good reason why it's allowed to continue. American companies are hiring them for cheap labor, so that they can make more profit on whatever they're producing. Again, profit motive is at the heart of the matter.
"You've got the rock throwing down - how about some solutions? "
End neoconomics forever. It's an absymal, drastic failure by any measure, except in how it fattens the wallets of the already wealthy. It is, in effect, a return to feudalism. America deserves, and had, far, far better.
"no one looks at the states or counties for fault, wonder why?"
What are you talking about? Our republican governor is at the center of the I35 bridge collapse, because he has continually vetoed legislation that would've provided transportation funding.
Not only did we lose out on the much-needed state funding for highway repairs and construction, but we lost literally billions in federal funding as well. Penny-wise, dollar foolish. Because he simply refused to allow any new tax (he's fine with numerous fees, however), even one that was overwhelmingly supported by the majority of the population, he screwed MN out of critical infrastructure funding.
For the past 26 years now, republicans have been fomenting visceral hatred for the government. The result of that hatred is a badly neglected infrastructure. The great mistake that they've made is to believe the lie that there is such thing as a "free market." Nothing could be further from the truth. A market is only as strong as the infrastructure that society builds to support it. America has been king of the world for decades because we've had the best infrastructure. That is no longer the case.
Thanks for your reply but other than a little Republican and private business bashing I saw no solutions offered.
Social Security (SS) has always been a simple transfer program - NO trust fund exists except on paper and no investment. Everybody borrows from it, not just republicans and even if they wanted to the President can't do it alone. It requires a budget which is Congress' responsibility to pass and present to the President. Brazil privatized their social security program very successfully some years ago. The average black man in this country (at least through a few years ago) collects nothing from SS because he dies too early. SO he pays in all his life, dies and collects $900 toward his funeral, and has NOTHING to leave to his family. What a great program. Privatization will work but I agree it is not a good socialist solution like raising taxes or cutting benefits.
I suppose you would say that the privatization seen in Fedex and UPS are failures? Their success is the platform that the planet's commerce runs on and is forcing the US postal service to get better. Why can't you get a driver's license or go to the post office or call most any government agency outside the 8-5 window? Because they don't have to provide customer service as they are the only game in town. That's what you seem to miss about business. Sure they want to make a profit but if Blockbuster is mean to you, you'll just go to NetFlix. That is competition and it works and has worked to make our economy the robust envy of the world that it is. The government rarely feels any such pressure.
In the personal responsibility department, have you seen any Democrats trying to get to the bottom of the former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger's actions? Remember he went to the National Archives and put documents in his pants and stole them? Do you care about that or is Halliburton your only target? Enron was not a structural failure. It happened because there were dishonest people in control. They like Berger and all other criminals should be be in jail. Are you saying that private electrical utilities are not doing a good job? Don't your lights and computers work essentially all the time? Go get a passport and let me know how that goes. There is a field someplace in Arkansas filled with trailers never used in Katrina. Why is that? On that subject, The Katrina hurricane was different that essentially all previous ones in that the flooding it caused didn't just go away after a few days so that more usual recovery efforts could begin. Who is responsible for preparing for that? Is it the Federal government who has responsibility all over the nation or is it more locally the State of Louisiana or the City of New Orleans that should have recognized the unique features about their city that might contribute to such an event.? No they didn't take responsibility and prepare and now they and others are blaming George Bush for that problem. Sophomoric!
Sure private businesses' hiring practices have a role in the immigrant problem but NEWSFLASH - It is the role of the Federal government to control our borders. It is one of the jobs they ARE responsible for. Why won't you say what you think about open borders and sanctuary city policies rather than using the question as an opportunity to simple bash business?
As for schools, you don't want hate and intolerance taught. Fine but give examples please. You don't think that there is not an indoctrination program going on now? "Heather has two Mommys" and a drumbeat of "Man is evil , nature is good" to give two examples.
Ok. Other than a healthy dose of misinformation, I haven't seen any solutions from you, either.
I will say, however, that common sense would seem to indicate that, if a conclusion is drawn that republican fund gutting and hatred of government has caused the problems cited, doing pretty much the exact opposite would resolve it, wouldn't you think?
"Social Security (SS) has always been a simple transfer program - NO trust fund exists except on paper and no investment."
Another factually defective statement. The trust fund was created with US bonds. The government is obligated to honor every penny of that trust fun, that the republicans have stolen. To renege would issue a statement of economic insolvency to the world.
"Brazil privatized their social security program very successfully some years ago."
You'd better re-check your facts. England also privatized their SS system some years ago, and has had to re-trace their steps as well. These privatization schemes are disasters, and there's simply no reason for them, other than to allow corporations to devour yet more public funds. SS was NEVER designed as a retirement program, and there is absolutely nothing about the current publicly managed system that precludes anyone from establishing their own private retirement account. Quite simply put, there is no justification for privatization of a social safety net program. We already know, up front, that it would add TREMENDOUS costs to the system, all of which would simply go into the pockets of the companies that manage it. We don't need that.
Raise the maximum limit for SS taxation and cut benefits to those who make more than $1,000,000 per year in retirement. Additionally, get republicans to stop their GD reckless debt spending. Problem solved forever.
"I suppose you would say that the privatization seen in Fedex and UPS are failures?
These are private companies. They were never part of the public infrastructure. I suppose you'd say that the post office is a failure? That is the one government agency that continually runs a surplus. For a measly .41, I can mail a letter from one end of the country to the other. What private company does that?
I suppose you'd say that medicare is a failure? Or, the electrification of the nation during the 30's? How many people do you think would be without power and phones right now, if it had been left entirely to private companies?
How about the pentagon? One side manages the public entity of the military, and it is the world's standing model of military efficiency. There is, and never has been one better. The other side deals with private contracts. It is the world's standing model of gluttony, corruption, fraud, and inefficiency. No comparison to be made, and frankly, no finer example of the contrast between private companies managing the public infrastructure and the public managing that infrastructure.
"Why can't you get a driver's license or go to the post office or call most any government agency outside the 8-5 window?"
Is that really such a hardship that it requires gutting and destroying the entire system? I think not. How much better (and cheaper, for that matter) is your electrical power and phone services now, after they've been handed over to private companies? When was the last time you tried to get hold of one of THOSE people for something? Assuming that you actually CAN find a human being after 5:00 pm, good luck interpreting what they're saying, in whatever language it is that they're speaking. When was the last time you saw a public servant job outsourced to India or beyond?
I honestly don't think you're going to find a single person who would claim that customer service these days is better than it once was.
"The average black man in this country (at least through a few years ago) collects nothing from SS because he dies too early. SO he pays in all his life, dies and collects $900 toward his funeral, and has NOTHING to leave to his family. "
Where on earth do you get this nonsense? SS benefits would allow for his wife and children to go to college, if they so desired, and would pay a monthly amount. Granted, they're not going to be considered wealthy with what they get, but it's more than "nothing." What exactly was it about the man's SS that prevented him from buying private insurance or having a private retirement fund? Nothing.
"That is competition and it works and has worked to make our economy the robust envy of the world that it is"
Competition is not what happens when the public infrastructure is sold to private companies. What happens is that one company buys out all competition, and stands as the only provider. How many phone, power, and cable companies do you have to choose from in your town? I've got one of each. Luckily for me, they use that "competition" to drive up costs and provide crappier service.
You see, the CONservative mantra of privatizing everything is nothing but lip service. We're all promised that competition will thrive and will create higher efficiencies, lower costs, and better service. Instead, every single time, the exact opposite it what really happens. Private companies make great widgets. They suck at managing public infrastructure, because their only motive is profit.
"That is competition and it works and has worked to make our economy the robust envy of the world that it is. "
Our economy is soon to be a disheveled scrap heap, as a direct result of abuses by corporate interests and reckless republiCON spending. China and Russia are positioning themselves to far surpass us economically, because they're investing heavily in their infrastructure at the same time that we're gutting ours.
"In the personal responsibility department, have you seen any Democrats trying to get to the bottom of the former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger's actions?"
Gosh, what a shocker. We just cannot stray too far away from the "Yeah, but Clinton..." nonsense, can we? Last time I checked, sparky, the republiCONs were in charge of the DOJ. You might want to ask why those republiCONs aren't moving faster on that issue, and while you're at it, ask them why they dragged their feet for so long on the Jefferson cold cash issue as well. Two years to get an indictment, after the FBI found $100,000 in cash in his freezer? WTF? I would think that even the blinding incompetence of the BA would be able to produce something a little quicker than that.
" Do you care about that or is Halliburton your only target?
Ok, so you're fine with Halliburton serving our soldiers rotten, poisoned food. Got it. How "patriotic" and "supportive" of you.
"Enron was not a structural failure. It happened because there were dishonest people in control"
That's utter bullshit. ENRON, Worldcomm, Global Crossing, Qwest, TYCO, etc., etc., etc., etc. would NEVER have happened, had republiCONs not gutted federal regulatory oversight. Just as was the case when republiCONs wrote banking laws to allow rampant looting of S&L's, they were warned what would happen when they opened the doors to white collar thieves, but they ignored the warnings, and just as was the case then, republiCONs quickly tried to avoid responsibility for their own catastrophic failures.
"Are you saying that private electrical utilities are not doing a good job?"
Were you sleeping during the last black out that affected about 1/4 of the nation? That wasn't an accident. It happened as a direct result of private companies ignoring scheduled maintenance, because it was "more profitable" for them to ignore it than to spend the money to do what was required. You'll see much more of this in the coming years, as the infrastructure continues to crumble from lack of maintenance.
"Go get a passport and let me know how that goes."
At Kinko's/Fedex. or elsewhere? What documentation can you share on this subject, or is this just more of your unfounded BS?
" There is a field someplace in Arkansas filled with trailers never used in Katrina. Why is that?"
Because FEMA was removed as a cabinet level agency by this president, an incompetent fool was put in charge, and significant parts of it were privatized. Welcome to the "wonders" of the "Free market."
"On that subject, The Katrina hurricane was different that essentially all previous ones in that the flooding it caused didn't just go away after a few days so that more usual recovery efforts could begin. Who is responsible for preparing for that? "
First, the levee broke, quite probably because funding was gutted from the project, and it was about $26 million short of completion by the time Katrina rolled in.
Secondly, once the president signs a declaration of federal emergency, which Bush did a day or two before Katrina hit, the entire emergency response management is federalized. Anything that the local and state officials do is directed by FEMA from that point on. It was absolutely an institutional failure that was directly the result of mismanagement and privatization of infrastructure, and it pointed out more succinctly than anything else could at the time, how critically important EFFECTIVE governance is.
"NEWSFLASH - It is the role of the Federal government to control our borders."
This is yet more proof that the "war on terra" is complete bullshit. However, rest assured, the moment the federal government begins to enforce employment laws regarding illegals, the border problem will disappear. It is not the illegals who're to blame for companies in America who're willing to hire them.
"Why won't you say what you think about open borders and sanctuary city policies rather than using the question as an opportunity to simple bash business?"
The problem of illegal immigration is 100% a problem with business who're hiring them. Period. You cannot honestly discuss illegal immigration without addressing the source of it.
" You don't think that there is not an indoctrination program going on now?
I have a great deal of issues with the current education system. Teaching tolerance and acceptance is not one of them.
Your article is amazingly free of reason, and amazingly devoid of logic.
This little game of verbally claiming all good things are "conservative principals" is childish. These are just mantras fed to a gullible public. You are actually avoiding the fact that some who call themselves conservatives didn't see fit to conserve a bridge which people use all the time. They chose to save some bucks for the folks who make tremendous amounts of money by having good infrastructure available, but don't like the idea of contributing to it's upkeep.
Go research the actual history of this matter, and quite simply assuming worshipping Mammon has somehow magically become the same as worshiping God.
Clark,
Since business is so evil and government is so good (so long as no conservative has anything to do with it) and anyone who disagrees with your socialist thinking is an idiot - please just educate us all and put up an article describing your utopian America? Don't forget to include such areas as:
1) Would all businesses or just large ones be nationalized?
2) Could people own property?
3) Would gay marriage be legal everywhere? what about polygamy?
4) Would you legalize drugs and prostitution?
5) Would contributions to churches be tax deductable?
6) What would the tax rate be for those who make over say $200,000?
7) Would the US exist or would we just form a North American Union (solves the messy immigration problem)?
8) Could Christians speak in the public square? how about on public air waves?
9) Which parts of the Constution would continue to be ignored (or perhaps repealed out right)?
10) As a percentage, what would be the size of the "new " US military compared to today?
Have a great day!
John and Clark,
Why haven't either of you guys addressed my last paragraph above concerning the state of the predominently black inner city community "social infrastructure" and the impact of the "No-Snitch" sub-culture? I'm certain you can blame it ... and the weather... and Microsoft Vista ....and global warming.....and dog poop in your yard....and the Air America bankruptcy on conservatives also!
So you are saying that defending freedom, legal immigration, parent-involved schools, and real freedom of religion are good things just not conservative?
No, I'm saying you aren't "defending" anything. Talk is cheap. Running around sticking little 'conserative' labels on every dreary platitude that you can still get a jolt of arrogance and pride from, is kid stuff. You obviously have no idea of the actual history of this man's grotesque behaviour in regard to the infrastructure decay.
Either go look into that, or continue to be spouting utter non-sense for you own kicks, cause in the real world, you are flat out wrong. The little platitudes just didn't quite work their magic spell and take the place of the NUMEROUS attempts by the legislature to address the problem rationally. Your veto happy little hero mouthed platitudes about how evil taxes are, in the face of overwhelming evidence that money was desperately needed to maintain this bridge.
What in God's name this has to do with the race of the people in a neighborhood, I cannot imagine. Shall we just let everything crumble, as we dance about thumping a big C on our chest, while reciting "conservative" bitching points?
You Mammonites are getting weirder by the day.
Fact 1 - Congress authorizes spending by passing legislation which the president then affirms or vetoes..
Fact 2 - Bush 43 has vetoed exactly and only 3 bills (2 on stem cell reseach, and HR 1591, supplemental spending for 2007 which was largely passed as HR 2006 approx. 25 days later. This is the lowest number of Presidential vetoes since Garfield.
Fact 3 - Your reference to our President as "veto-happy" is therefore wrong (BTW , President Clinton vetoed 37 items during his 8 years).
My larger point in general is that I believe the decay of our social "infrastructure" (as evidenced by the "No-snitch" subculture and the systemic disrespect for authority either parental, police, Federal law, etc), is more of a concern to our future than is the current state of our "physical" infrastructure. You and your collegue Mr. Kent contribute (albeit fully within your first amendments rights) to this decay when (during a time of war) you have NOTHING but ridicule and disdain for our President and ascribe to him without stated evidence all sorts of actions over which he has no control or direct influence.
- - End of brief interlude of reason - Bush bashing can now recommence.--
I wasn't referencing the President, but the Republican Governor. You simply don't understand what actually occurred.
It is you who are fixated on Mr. Bush, to the point of not even grasping that he is not the god of America. He's just a sucky President.