Talk about the American off-year elections has been dominated by the Gubernatorial elections (victory for the Republicans in Mississippi – against a trial lawyer, victory for the Democrats in Kentucky – against an ‘ethically challenged’ Republican Governor) and by the onward march of the Democrats in the Washington D.C. suburbs of northern Virginia. And, of course, by the defeat of the voucher plan in Utah by the unions.
However, there is a another side to these elections – tax and spend is clearly not favoured by the voters.
For example, voters in Oregon voted down an increase in the cigarette tax in spite of the money being for more children’s health welfare. And voters in New Jersey voted down a proposal to borrow money for stem cell research. Children’s health welfare, and stem cell research – two poster issues for the left and they were defeated. And defeated in ‘Blue States’.
Also an election in the heartland of the United States caught my eye… the tax-and-spend Mayor Bart Peterson was defeated in Indianapolis by the almost unknown Republican Greg Ballard – in spite of Mr Peterson outspending Mr Ballard’s campaign some thirty to one (thanks to donations from politically connected business enterprises and so on) and the support of the usual suspects (the media and academia).
Message to Republicans:
If you really do oppose tax-and-spend (rather than just pretend to, whilst carrying on in your normal corrupt way) you can actually win in 2008.
Of course the Republicans can win in 2008. Can anyone in the USA face the prospect of Hilary?
Stem cell funding might be a poster-child for the left but… I’m no leftist and I’d like to see it funded. Perhaps the huge funding for “climate change” research could be re-allocated? This is real, serious, could-save-your-life-and-mean-you-celebrate-your-150th-in-fine-health stuff. It’s opponents are generally “pro-lifers” and quite frankly they can go hold a candle-lit vigil elsewhere. It pains me to say this, it really does because I’m a physicist by training, but it would appear that biology is where it’s really at right now.
I don’t care who funds it. I don’t care who does it. I just care that it is done. I know that asking for state funding for science is hardly libertarian (and whilst I don’t believe in God, I do believe in Craig Venter) but what the heck… Let’s just fucking do it!
In any case any conceivable state funding for science is tiny compared to the funding of unmitigated shite that generally goes unquestioned.
I’m looking forward to seeing the first man carry a child to term (CS delivery obviously – any alternative is way too horrible to contemplate) and seeing the “pro-lifers” having kittens over it.
It’s unnatural but then so is wearing clothes and bringing fire into the cave.
Long may we live in interesting times.
Paul,
Don’t forget Louisiana. Yes, the state that spawned Huey Long and spewed Kathleen Blanco elected its first non-white governor and first Republican in over a century.
(Okay, so Jindal has been a little goofy on Louisiana’s tax swap and the Real ID crap, but that’s still a rather substantial improvement IMHO. Now all we need is to have some enterprising young reporter catch Ray Nagin having sex with a corpse)
Nick:
Stem-cell research is perfectly legal in the US and AFAIK always has been. G-Dub was raked over the coals over funding it, not banning it. I don’t personally have much truck with the Fetus Empowerment people, but I can’t really fault the guy for sticking a pin in one of the funding balloons.
Wait, did I just say that I wasn’t going to blame Bush for something? I really need a stiff drink and a nap.
Agree – but it would be nice if he were an equal-opportunity pin-sticker, so to speak. In truth, there are much worse places to put federal money than in foetus-poking. As federal funding programs go, science and education don’t annoy me nearly as much as Welfare, Medicare, Prescription Drug benefits, War on Drugs et al.
In some even more obscure US elections, local school tax increase referenda went down in flames all over Wisconsin. Voters turned out in considerable numbers, with no other issues on the ballot, to tell the bureaucrats to live within their means.
Triticale,
I wish that were the case in CO. My own city council election saw the return of a few candidates who were some of the worst eminent-domain abusers in the area.
No actual taxes on the ballot here, though, and legally in CO they MUST be on the ballot before they can take effect.
Denver had a bundle of tax hikes, and renewals of taxes set to expire, on its ballot. I really should see how those went down before I leave for work.
Interesting that people will vote for tax-and-spend parties, but when given the opportunity to vote on actual taxes, they reject them.
One of the biggest problems with the political way of doing things is that parties assume they have a mandate to implement their entire programme (which, technically, they do), when in fact people may have voted for them because of one or two specific points. It’s like being forced to make all your purchases at Tesco simply because you like their vegetables.
This is, of course, yet another argument for severely limited government.
Re:” Don’t forget Lousianna”…as much as I like Jindal, he is, after all, a “career Pol”…but still a change from business “as usual” in that poor benighted state.
All my friends down there that are trying to grow a business are “cranked” by his election.
Sam,
It’s like being forced to vote Conservative simply because you like their vegetables. If iDave was running an organic green-grocer stall in Notting Hill I very much doubt we’d be in quite the state we’re in. I mean it comes to this… Labour says we’ll do x and the Toriies say “oh no” we’d do y instead (or do x better) and no bugger gets the realistic choice to say the hell with x (or indeed y).
Sunfish,
W didn’t ban stem-cell research (and my point was never that) but he did ban federal funding on stem-cells and essentially my position is that of Jacob’s. If the government is going to spend cash then spending it on potential cures for cancers or treatments for spinal cord injuries seems a much better idea than the generalized shite they usually spend it on. I’d rather see a biochemist funded than a feckless single mother.
Nick you know what I will say – but I will say it anyway.
If you want to fund stem cell reseach – go ahead, but do not force other people to fund it via their taxes.
On Sam’s point.
I do not think that voters supported the Democrats last November because they wanted tax-and-spend i.e. because the Democrats are tax-and-spend party.
No the Republican voters were disgusted with the wild spending of the Republicans and some stayed home – and a few even switched to the Democrats as a protest.
And no it was not just “ear marks”, it was also the money spent on a mismanaged war (not so much “it is wrong to overthrow the Taliban or Saddam” as “why have you failed to win in spite of spending all this money”) and the fact that President Bush actually added new government programs (such as No-Child-Left-Behind with Senator Kennedy) rather than rolling back government.
“But many Americans want a cradle-to-grave Welfare State with universal health care and so on”.
Sure many do – but these are Americans who would not vote Republican this side of Hell freezing over.
Winning elections is not about “winning these people over” because there is no way they could ever be won over.
Winning elections is about getting the Americans who do NOT want a cradle-to-grave Welfare State to turn out and vote Republican.
That is why “compassionate conservativism” is as much a dead end as trying to bribe people with ear marks.
Nick it is not tax money for stem cell research “instead” of anything.
It is ON TOP OF the spending for everything else.
“But I like scientific research” (someone might say) – yes and someone else likes modern art (and would also claim it has all sorts of good effects for the General Welfare), this does not mean it should be funded by the taxpayers.
Either we oppose the growth of government or we do not.
“But I want it done in a modern sensible way” (someone might say).
Barking cats.
Government is not a business – no matter what Mitt Romney thinks.
Saying (should someone wish to) “I want government to ensure there is universal health care, but I do not want to do it the Democrat way” is saying NOTHING AT ALL.
Give people a new “right” (in the modern sense of “thing that government will make sure you get”) and things will get worse.
Economic law is not repealed by people talking about “audits”, using “the methods of private business” or some other hog wash.
The existing entitlements are destroying the United States (and all other Western nations) quite nicely already – the last thing needed is yet more entitlements.
“What have stem cells got to do with this”.
Because it is justfied as for people’s health – because people have a “right” to “good health”.
This is not just an excuse for yet more spending and regulations to provide people with better health care (which, of course, will lead to worse and more expensive health care) it is an excuse for banning everything that might prevent this “good health” (everthing from cigarettes to fatty foods).
And the social conservatives have a point – if all that matters is this life (“me, me, me – I only have one life”) and one can use unborn babies to improve one’s life and make people pay for the program (via threats to put them in prison if they do not pay the taxes). Why stop there?
Why not take spare parts from people AFTER they are born – after all “my life is at stake”.
If I can tax other people (without limit) for my benefit (or for the benefit of other people I like) why not use bits of their bodies as well?
Absurd? No.
Already people are talking about using the organs of the dead, without prior consent.
And what do we mean by “dead” – waiting for the brain to rot is too long, and……
If “life” trumps the nonaggression principle a lot of people are going to end up dead.
The very young, the very old – anyone without political imput.
“But scientific research is nothing like this” – it will be, if the nonaggression principle does not apply and people can be taxed and ordered about (used) by those with political influence.
If there is one thing I know about it is the “Progressive” mind.
Such people often do evil things (although, of course, they deny the concepts of “good” and “evil”) simply for amusment – or to show how “liberated” they are from reactionary morality.
Paul, I don’t think your last comment absurd at all, although the reality you imagine will indeed be absurd. It is already quite absurd in many respects.
I keep hearing this (I think Mid has also said something to that effect in the past). What is the evidence for this?
Considering that Giuliani will probably be the GOP candidate, I think the GOP presidential campaign will focus on Giuliani’s only strength, which is demagoguery that morons believe is foreign policy expertise. There will be probably be a few platitudes thrown as bones to satisfy the mainstream about ‘economic conservatism’. Although Giuliani will probably parade vermin like Pat Robertson (who is backing him) about to try to win over the religious right, I doubt he can play on socially conservative issues that much because it will make him look like a complete hypocritical.
Considering Giuliani’s foreign policy views, it is really hard to believe he would do any better than Bush with regards to spending. His idea of having an army of nation-builders and a global NATO won’t be cheap. And with foreign policy advisers such as Norman Podhoretz and David Frum, it seems likely his general foreign policy will be similar to Bush II. Extremely expensive. And if you spend your political capital on an ambitious and controversial foreign policy, you can probably forget pushing for ‘smaller government’.
The stem cell research issue has been hijacked by abortion advocates that have deluded a lot of otherwise well reasoned people into thinking that cloning organs/etc matching the DNA of babies that were never born is where stem cell researches benefits will be found. Wrong.
If anyone is going to clone a heart, liver, piece of bowel, some extra brain cells, some pancreatic tissue, etc, and put it into me to cure an illness, I do NOT want cells cloned to match some baby that never made it to birth. I want my own cells used.
The future (and present) of stem cell research is in adult stem cell research. These cells are basically adult cells that are reverse engineered to turn them back into undifferentiated stem cells. At that point cloning your own organs will produce perfect replacement duplicates of the aging or otherwise damaged organs/cells/tissues.
This adult stem cell research is where all the exciting prospects are. But because we have allowed the debate to be rephrased as an abortion debate, and with funding priorities redirected to embryonic stem cells to support that false contention, the really promising stuff is not receiving the funding or the attention that it deserves.
Alisa,
The best defense against the expansion of government is a genuine, full career activist for smaller government. Someone like Fred Thompson.
But if that doesn’t work, the best hope is to get gridlock. A situation recently occurred in the US legislature where one house want to spend 14 billion, the other house wanted to spend 15 billion so they “compromised” on 23 billion.
When everybody wants to spend, gridlock is good!
Alisa
The evidence what the voters said – the reasons they gave for not turning out to vote Republican, or (in some cases) switching to the Democrats as a protest.
People were not saying “I really like these tax and spend ideas” (well apart from when Rush L. attacked Mr Fox, accusing him of pretending his illness was worse than it really was, and there was a backlash), in fact the Democrats did not stress tax-and-spend at all (quite the opposite).
The voters said they did not like the Republican wild spending – at home or overseas, and they did not like the lack of victory in Iraq.
Of course people do not always say what they mean – but I see no reason to doubt that what was said was the truth in this case.
However, I should also mention illegal immigration.
Rightly or wrongly a lot of Americans are very angry about the influx of illegal Latin Americans. Seeing this population movement (however mistakenly) as a threat to the long term existance of the United States (after all much of what is now the United States was once part of Latin America).
“But the Democrats will not do anything about that, they are in favour of it”.
True – but the anger was over Republican failure, staying home or flipping were the only ways to register a protest.
Although sometimes it was a bit demented.
For example, Mr Soros (one of the club of leftist billionaries, Soros, Peter Lewis, Marc Cuban….. they are like James Bond baddies who manage to be billionaries and “Progressives” at the same time) financed a campaign against J.D. Hayworth in Arizona.
And with the help of the “Arizona Republic” newspaper (like most newspapers this publication favours the “Progressive” side) managed to defeat him.
I say “a bit demented” – because whatever his other faults Mr Hayworth was rather hard line on immigration (although his Democrat opponent pretended that he was).
The Progressive dream (or one of them) is, of course, that the Latin Americans will produce Latin American style politics in the United States. With the rich being dragged down by the representives of the masses (why the Progressive billionaries do not think this dragging down wouldnot also include them I do not know – but perhaps they DO think it will include them, and are prepared to sacrifice themselves for Social Justice).
The final defeat of the Rednecks (the arch enemies of the Progressives) – who are poor but do not hate other people for being rich (i.e. have no interest in Social Justice).
These ‘rednecks’ of course voted for Woodrow Wilson twice, and Franklin Roosevelt four times. And a good number voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976.
“The typical Southerner:
—Brags about what a conservative he is and then votes for Franklin D. Roosevelt.
—Or brags about what an isolationist he is and then votes for Richard Nixon.
—Or brags about what a populist he is and then votes for Barry Goldwater.
—Or brags about what an aristocrat he is and then votes for George Wallace.
—And is able to say with a straight face that he sees nothing peculiar about any of the above.”
-Florence King
As Midwesterner points out “gridlock”, the great idea of the Cato institute, does not work (for all their statistical studies claiming to show that it does).
Having, Congress in the hands of the Democrats is even worse than having it in the hands of the Republicans – although the Republicans were quickly corrupted by the wild spending “compassionate conservative” Bush.
I do not think Cynic is right about Rudy G. – he is not really interested in world govenment. But he is interested in defeating the enemy (radical Islam, both Sunni and Shia – i.e. the interpretation of Islam that holds that all non Muslims or moderate Muslims should be exterminated or enslaved, whatever part of the world they live in).
Of course Cynic does not believe that this enemy exists (i.e. if only the United States would not mess them about the United States would be left alone) – and I freely admit that it would be very nice if Cynic was correct. I do not agree with Cynic – but the world would be a better place if he was right and I was wrong.
Of course, even if Cynic is mistaken this does NOT mean that going into Iraq in 2003 was the correct tactical move (however much it is a must win situation now).
I agree with Midwesterner that Fred Thompson has a better economic record that Rudy G. does – and is really interested in dealing with the entitlement progams.
Rudy G. is too impressed by tax cuts (in his early years as Mayor of New York he was good on spending – but in the latter years the Council got the better of him), he does have some free market reform ideas (for example on health care – where he follows the Cato Institute line) and he is closely connected with Steve Forbes (who has lots of good ideas).
But would he control spending?
The oddest recent defection has been Ron Paul – who I can remember having a wonderful record on spending.
Over the last year it has been pork, pork, pork and not just in his own area (which almost everyone does) – Ron Paul has even been voting for unconstitutional spending as far away as San Francisco.
It is very hard to understand – unless the Moveon.org and DailyKos types are not just feeding him stuff on the war, but are also feeding him disinformation about the Bills he is voting on (so he does not know their true contents).
This would not be as difficult as it sounds.
These documents are often very long indeed and written in weird language – a Congressman is very dependent on his staff.
Especially if he running for President – and, therefore, is distracted.
After the New Hampshire Primary (when Ron Paul will leave the race – well apart from, perhaps, in name), his friends should urge him to have a hard look at his staff.
My reply to your other comment got attacked by the great bot (hopefully it will turn up at some point).
However, your last comment is a good corrective – your point is taken. No population group is a reliable support for liberty (we are all sinners).
On the edges one could make points:
For example, that even if we mean “Scots-Irish” by “Redneck” they are not just Southern (and never were) as far north as New Hampshire there were Rednecks.
And of course, these days “Red Neck” is just short hand for those people who reject Progressive doctrines.
Voting for F.D.R., at least in 1936, was a bad thing indeed (even the suffering of the Great Depression can not really excuse it) – but unless we are talking about Maine and Vermont (oddly now the two highest taxed States in the Union) every State did – and the South had at least the excuse of voting on the grounds of voting for their traditional party.
Nixon – who else was there to vote for? “John Hospers” – well yes for a handful of libertarians (and Hospers was a good man).
Lastly “Populist” – I have a strange opinion that I can tell Southern Populists and Southern Conservatives apart by VOICE.
I am thousands of miles away and I think I could spot the difference between them – even if they were reading out the telephone directory.
It is something about the speed of the words and the tone of voice.
It is not social class – Southern Conservatives who are from poverty still sound quite different to Southern Populists (again even if they are just saying “Good Morning” or whatever).
Still, I repeat, your corrective is well taken.
On illegal immigration:
Of course if there were no such things as “free” E.R. treatment and School Boards covered as small an area as they used to and the VERY local property tax was still the only source of funding for government schools, the situation would be rather different (of course, as a libertarian, I think even this is too collectivist – but it is better than the more centralized funding there is now in the various States).
As always Welfare State principles mess everything up.
Again, where is the evidence? Polls, quotes, stats, anecdotes?
“Redneck” sir? Of course I’m a ‘redneck’ sir, and uneducated to boot, sir, pistols at 20 paces sir?
Of course, being an{ uneducated }”redneck” goes w/o saying… which is why this unwothtey reads this site, I learn stuff…fancy that!
Marvellous. Here in Seattle voters voted down a seriously needed transport bill because of a bizzare collatition of anti-tax characters and environmentalists unhappy that the bill actually looked at improving road as well as creating some much needed rail links.
Sometimes spending is necessary, particuarly in cases of certain parts of the infrastructure where no sane private company could expect to get its investment back.
True enough at the moment Daveon, but I would ask why it is that they could not expect to get their investment back.
Mid’s point is taken. But, I suspect, the details will have to wait until after I have spoken to my father-in-law this evening – he’s a biologist.
I was speaking very much in terms of the present because we are nowhere near the libertarian New Jerusalem. In that context a few hundred million for stem-cell research is utterly irrelevant compared to the hundreds of billions squandered on utter shite like welfare. Or the 2012 Olympics with it’s demountable stadium. Apparently by August 2012 there’ll be 55,000 stadium seats for sale and I dunno but I might be in the market for a new sofa.
Mid,
Whilst I get your point in general on “gridlock” (though I’m not sure I agree that it should be anything other than a staging post to smaller government, disliking as I do the implicit inefficiency) I do wonder at your comment. How is a disagreement as to 14 billion or 15 billion compromised at 23 billion a good thing? I suspect it shows gridlock just doesn’t work because everyone in congress has to deliver their pork regardless of whether it is useful or not. All gridlock will achieve is a compromise on how the money is spent, not on how much money is spent. How many states are involved in the JSF? 33?
Paul,
The “rednecks” (or in our context the working-class Tories viciously lampooned by Johnnie Speight & Warren Mitchell*) are just being sensible. They see the rich and they wanna join that club. They see ’em and it gives them hope – “One day, we’ll be millionaires”. The “progessives” (I hate that word in that context) love the poor. They love ’em so much they wouldn’t change a thing about them, even the poverty. I think a huge part of the English North/South divide is a divide in aspiration – in the 80s the North produced “Bread” (a sitcom about a bunch of scouse dole-hounds conning the DHS) and the South had the irrepressible Derrick Trotter… What happened to the North and the spirit of Stevenson and Armstrong? 70% of the employed denizens of my native North East are working for the government either directly or indirectly. At one point 1/3 of all the world’s ships were built on the Tyne but now we’re pussified. If you’re ever up North then visit Cragside, the first house in the world to be lit by electricity. It is a high Victorian confection built by Lord Armstrong.
*The most embarrassing moment of my life involved Warren Mitchell.
Can anyone explain for me why the Iraq War is meant to have cost a trillion dollars?
Losses of men in the past four years have been at about the level of one bad month in Vietnam. Unlike Vietnam, the US has not lost thousands of helicopters and hundreds of modern jet aircraft. I doubt they have lost more than a dozen helicopters. So where exactly has this trillion bucks gone? Cheney can’t have funnelled it all to his Halliburton retirement account can he?
John K,
Iraq chopper losses are well into the dozens. Fixed wing losses are practically zilch… But wars are expensive and helos are fragile. Every sortie costs thousands… You fire a Superbug off a Nimitz class carrier and you expect change from 20 grand? And then there’s all the wrecked Bradleys and Humvees and even the odd Abrams. Wars cost a fucking fortune. In Gulf War I the Saudis (knee-deep in petrol though they are) became a net importer of avgas. They also wrote George H W Bush a cheque for 50 billion dollars as well as fueling half of NATOs airforce. And you think you get bad gas mileage in whatever vehicle you drive? Try it in an F-16…
Nick, shouldn’t these numbers have the cost of otherwise (peacetime) training and exercises figured out of them?
Nick M:
I take all your points, but seriously, a trillion fucking dollars? That’s a lot of beans.
The US may well have lost several dozen helos, in the Nam they were down over 3,500. Some carriers had lost half the planes in their airgroup by the end of a tour of duty. Iraq just does not compare with losses on that scale.
I have a sneaking feeling that there are roads and bridges back in the States which are somehow part of the Iraq war budget.
Nick M,
I can tell my comment on gridlock lost something on the way to the keyboard.
My point on that “compromise” example is what happens when the two groups reaching the compromise share a party (in this case House-Senate, both democrat) the solution is always to give the other side what it wants and spend both proposals.
The same would happen even worse if the Executive also was of the same party. The best financial situation in the country in ages was when the Reps held the Hill, and the Dems (Bill) held the Whitehouse.
Rudy, or worse yet, Mitt in the Whitehouse with a business-as-usual Republican legislature gives me nightmares. It could be as bad as an all Democrat government. When the two sides in need of compromise are busy trashing and throwing things at each other, the “work” of spending tends to take a back seat. It is when they share a party that the “work” of spending is attended to.
Having, Congress in the hands of the Democrats is even worse than having it in the hands of the Republicans
Doubtful. Both parties are terrible in Congress.
although the Republicans were quickly corrupted by the wild spending “compassionate conservative” Bush.
The Republicans were corrupted by their own lust for power. By 1997 the Republican Congress was passing massive increases in spending. Bush didn’t change anything, he just picked up some steam.
Alisa,
Good point. They do. In training, the RN have to shout “bang!” rather than fire a cannon shell. Obviously this is not something done during wartime. By the end of the Falklands antic well over half of the still floating RN was in need of serious re-fit. That’s ignoring the fact we lost a sizeable chunk of our air-defence destroyers because Sea-Dart was useless. The type-42 destroyers had to be protected by type-23 frigates with the short-range Sea-Wolf missiles. As ever it came down to fighter pilots eyeballing the bad guys and hitting them with niner-limas (AIM-9L). If it wasn’t for the ‘winders we’d have been sunk, literally.
The Type-45s we’re replacing them with are equally shite. They shouldn’t be shite, but are they fitted with Stingray torpedos, are they fitted with a flight deck for a Merlin, are they fitted with depth charges or a capacity to fire Harpoon, Storm Shadow or Tomahawk? Are they fuck but they do have 1980s vintage Phalanx CIWS so fine, whatever… It’ll do great against an Iranian Sunburn. And we’re buying six (maybe 8) so basically fuck off Nelson. And I couldn’t even give a toss about the navy. Unless warfare is carried out a least Mach 0.8 I don’t realy care….
The Type 45 is a good ship. It’s fitted for but not with loads of good kit. So long as we make sure only to get into a war with an enemy also equipped for but not with there will be no problem.
The Sea Dart was a good missile. It did exactly what it was designed to do: shoot down anything flying over 75′. It was not designed to deal with sea skimmers, and it didn’t. Even so, in Gulf War I a Sea Dart shot down an Iraqi missile aimed at one of the US battleships.
Anyhow, until the Type 45’s become fully operational in about 2009, the Royal Navy, lacking Sea Harriers, does not have much in the way of air defence. I suggest we stay out of any wars until then.
John K,
I think the “for but not with” to be a world-class duck and weave. I think you’re right about avoiding wars until the Sea Harriers are replaced (with F-35Bs about a hundred years from now) and BTW I don’t think, regardless of how good PAMS is (is it better than Aegis?) we’re safe at all. We need fleet defence interceptors and we need ’em now! The only chink of light is that nobody else has them either… If any American is going to pipe up and shill for the superbug well that’s just dandy but it ain’t a Tomcat and Amraam isn’t a Phoenix. The big question is how good will the F-35B be in the role. Are we buying a fighter or a CAS bomb truck designed for the USMC? I sincerely hope they fit it for Meteor as I sincerely hope they retrofit Typhoon with thrust vector engines, helmet mounted sighting and an AESA radar. Like that’s going to happen. I suspect our C21st warriors are going to have an awful lot of “for but not with”.
Mid,
Got ya! My understanding is that government spends money like nobody else. The finest example I can think of is our own dear leader, Mr Brown… I have frequently heard him arguing the toss with that lovely Mr Cameron and Brown’s standard tactic is to hit poor Mr Cameron with numbers (a rather sixth form ruse).
It works like this. Say I go off to TESCO and buy some groceries and I reckon I got some good deals I don’t return and boast to my wife about how much I spent. Quite the reverse. I say, I got this, this and this and I know you like those and guess what it only came to x quid. I’m sure you’ve sat through tiresome annecdotes from friends about how they haggled a couple of thousand off a new car or something. But this doesn’t work for Mr Brown. It is enough that he can claim the money has been spent. I have yet to see Dave Cameron counter with the obvious question, “What exactly on?”
Brown is a good example but this is systematic. If I were to reduce my annual spending this would be positive for me. Ditto for for you, ditto for Richard Branson. I’d be able to afford a new computer, you could upgrade the boat and Mr Branson could get a new spaceship – whatever. But this logic simply isn’t applied to “public spending”. If I could cut the weekly grocery bill by 20% I would be applauded by my wife. If I were PM and I did the same for the NHS I’d be a murderer. Even if under my reign I’d actually improved the service it wouldn’t matter because someone always dies and that would be due to my cuts. Even if they’d fallen under a traction engine it would be my fault for not being tough on traction engines and indeed the causes of traction engines.
It’s pathetic. There is a really good reason why I don’t own a Rolls Royce – I can’t afford one. If only our government didn’t have an infinitely extendible cookie jar to raid which means they have the Roller (and because they’re prepared to borrow too the Bentley as well). I have a modest proposal. If I borrow or steal money there are consequences. My children could be saddled with any mortgage I take out. And that’s potentially a couple of hundred grand to buy a house, it’s peanuts to government yet because of the electoral cycle they’re sleeping in the Lords by the time the chickens come home. Is this fair? I get my ass nailed to the floor for a few grand (in a Micawberish manner) but UKGov can blow half a billion (current estimate, will go up – how come I can’t get away with quoting folk for jobs and then charging them three times that – no fair!) on an Olympic stadium which… Sebastian Coe (who looks increasingly uncomfortable in his role as head cheerleader) had to admit was a temporary structure although it will also be used for the paralympics. Oh be still, my fluttering heart, so it’ll get two months of use! The BBC then said that the organisers had called in the people who had “worked” on the ’96 Atlanta games. By this point I was behind the sofa. Didn’t LA make a profit in ’84?
So, my modest proposal is that politicos are banned from borrowing monies that can not be repaid within their tenure. If they fail to repay it during their tenure then we get medieval on their asses (in the Marcellus Wallace sense). Yes, we can even have a gimp, or Hilary Benn as he’s usually known. It’s a start. I watched Pulp Fiction last night and every line is 24 carat. That only cost 6 million dollars, right? The dog and pony show in NE London will cost countless billions and will amuse vastly less.
I mentioned stem cells and the Olympics because one is cheap and the other will cost the earth. The stem cells are controversial but cheap. So cheap that the funding hardly matters. No country ever went bankrupt spending on basic research. Should this be funded by the taxpayer – hopefully not but in the grand scheme of things…
I would ask why it is that they could not expect to get their investment back
Because certain parts of a modern infrastructure is insanely expensive to build and operate and the costs have to be amortised over periods far far far far longer than any sensible private company would be willing to live with.
Replacing the current 4 lane SR520 bridge over Lake Washington is going to cost a small fortune. As I understand it, the geography of the area alone makes it a cutting edge prospect, and having Seattle-Redmond commuting and routes tied to a 50 year old bridge which now has to be closed in bad weather (hardly rare in the Pacific NW) is economically dumb.
But nor do I blame companies for not lining up to build a complicate multi-million dollar bridge which would take decades to fund and pay back through tolls before you saw any kind of return.
Big, complicated, infrastructure is like that.
Short of a massive change in the economic paradigm along the order of that in The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson we’re going to stuck with tax options.
Sorry, I should have read that before clicking “post”, bad Dave, bad.
Plus I also meant to say “multi-billion” dollar bridge. They’re not going to build a bridge over a 1000 foot deep lake which cuts into property on the same length as shore as BillG lives (it’s about a mile South of the current cut) and only get away with a few hundred millions.
Daveon,
Fair comment and the economics of seriously front-loaded enterprises are clearly problematic but…
The Settle to Carlisle Railway was the last one to open in this country until the Channel Tunnel high speed rail link. It opened in the 1890s. It wasn’t funded by tax-payers and it was hardly a cheap line. It still functions primarily not because folk want to get from Settle to Carlisle but because the viaducts and such are spectacular. A huge investment was deemed worthy by private enterprise to connect a third echelon British city to a fifth echelon one. The result was fuck me gorgeous and it was doable because people had the will and the belief to bitch-slap mother nature. George Stephenson’s Rocket killed a member of Parliament at the Rainhill trials and did that stop the Liverpool-Manchester railway (the point at which the world just took off – yes it was done by Geordies hitting metal with hammers)? Did it fuck. The point at which the world really took off, December 17th 1903, Kill Devil Hills, NC wouldn’t have happened now. Just estimate the number of ‘elf and safety violations Orv and Wilbur were guilty of. But they’re delivering the dream of millennia and a mere sixty-six years later Neil and Buzz holidayed on the sea of tranquility? Oh do behave. You know just as well as I do that regardless of whether or not it’s the coolesr thing ever done, ever, doesn’t matter. It clearly violates health and safety and probably causes global warming.
I didn’t see the Wright Brother’s plane because I was at the Smithsonian in DC and it’s in Dayton, OH but I saw one of their bikes. nicely engineered.
Nick, not entirely sure of the point you’re making here. There have been private railways, there still can be, although this can also be a factor of demand and geography. Paul Allen just steam rollered a Tram line through the middle of Seattle connecting his property empire in South Lake Union to downtown – aptly named the SLUT (South Lake Union Trolley) this solution links two places that people don’t need much help to get between with an expensive solution designed to block up traffic. The really important stuff Allen wasn’t interested in, i.e. sorting out the mess of the roads in the area – that’s up to the tax payers. So Paul Allen’s investments post being Bill Gate’s roomie continue to be stunningly.
Likewise a LOT of people were working on flight at the same time, I think it was one of the those technologies whose time had come. It was going to happen around 1903 whether Wilbur and Orville did it or Bleriot or one of the others playing with the technology. The use of military air cover though, I think that really brought home the bacon (quite litterally in the case of Boeing and others).
The moon landing was cool, but sadly I think it probably put back manned development of space by 50 years precisely because it was a huge soviet style government investment with no real plan other than a flags and footprints endevour.
Finally, and while I know this is an unpopular sentiment around here, what worked and was popular 50,100,150 years ago etc… isn’t relevent to what you can get done now.
Doing stuff more dangerously than we have to because we could do it faster and cheaper if we cut corners doesn’t strike me as a good argument, anymore than going back to slave labour becuase the pyramids and Stonehenge are seriously cool bits of slave built construction.
Times, thankfully, move on. I remember the 70s, and wake up every day that time has moved me forward another day from that period of time.
Daveon – so you are in Seattle.
I seem to remember you were in Texas (poor memory on my part) – it fits my view of the world much better to have you in Seattle (although Marc Cuban is in Texas).
Are you are reader of the main newspaper in your city? I am not saying you are – it is a real question.
As for railways – J.J. Hill, Great Northern.
Mass transit – most of the large cities in the United States in the late 19th century and early 20th century.
“But General Motors bought them and closed them down” – quite true in some cases (such as L.A.) but only because the government (local, State and Federal) built “free” roads and undermined mass transit by price controls and other regulations.
To turn to other matters:
Transport budget – vast incrases in recent years, certainly lack of taxpapers money was not the reason for a bridge in the Twin Cities area collapsing (try government being no good at looking after its own stuff – not matter how much money it spends).
Republicans always wild spenders: Joshua.
Quite true – but every year the Democrats press to spend even more than they do. It may not show up in the statistical studies of the Cato Institute but it is so.
Which is why having Democrats in charge is normally even worse than having Republicans in charge.
Alisa – “all of the above”.
Polls, and so on. The former Republican voters were not staying at home in November 2006 or (in some cases) voting Democrat, because they wanted tax-and-spend – quite the contrary.
So both hard and soft evidence.
However, you are looking for “links” are you not?
Sadly I am the sort of person who knows there really are not little men in the computer box – but that is about as far as my knowledge goes.
I do not know how to do links – or even what I would link to.
I tend to find interesting facts and remember them.
“But you just said you had a poor memory” – only for some things.
Lastly I am still very impressed by Greg Ballard defeating Bart Peterson – even though Mayor Peterson outspent him THIRTY TO ONE and had the support of the media and so on.
It almost restores my faith in democracy.
Yes, Paul, I know you don’t do links, and that’s fine with me. I take your word for it, problem is, when I try to convince other people, they will not take my word for it. I’ll ask Mid, maybe he has something more concrete. In any case, I am glad that there are some things in the news that brightened your week:-)
Paul M: There are 2 main papers the Time and the PI – they have different editorial positions, although frankly I struggle to see the difference between them. We subscribe to the PI mostly because of an offer for an Umberella and a travel bag as a gift (if memory serves).
Both of them were in favour of Proposition 1 on Roads and Transit, mostly because the city and surrounding road networks are grinding to a standstill and several of the key roads and bridges are in danger of falling down. The PI today has a resaonably sane “Plan B” proposal for the transit options – something does have to be done and no private businesses seem to want to do it.
Mass Transit doesn’t work every where, especially in the US where you have distributed suburbs with spread out communities. It works in New York and other cities because they don’t. Likewise, Seattle has a “liveable” urban downtown with a high population and a small number of core regional employers working from campus locations which are walkable from central transit stops.
It wouldn’t work, for example, in Dallas because you can just drive around there, even in rush hours – although stopping for toll gates on all the freeways every 2 miles is a royal pain in the arse.
Governments aren’t always great at spending money, but it’s a myth that private companies always are. Somethings don’t make money, but then you have to look at the opportunity costs associated with not doing them. If the company running a piece of essential infrastructure – a road, a bridge etc… finds it can’t do it and make money, then the best option for them and their share holders is to stop doing it. If nobody else sees a viable business there either – then what is the option?
I’m interested in your view? It seems that the assumption here is you can always operate something in a free market at a profit. That’s not a valid assumption to make.
Thank you for your tolerance Alisa – it IS bad of me I know.
When I was young I remember being irritated that Ronald Reagan would say something in a interview or whatever and when challenged as to where he got the information from simply would not know.
The left used to think that was because the information was false – but normally it was true (it was just the sort of thing they would never come upon in school, college or in the media).
I think I understand what was happening now. He would come upon a bit of useful information – check it (at least if he was anything like me) and if it was true remember it. The source was less interesting – and therefore would be forgotten (long before he became senile).
Of course sometimes the sources can be found (for example his copies of Hayek’s works, not just “The Road to Serfdom” but longer works such as “The Constitution of Liberty”, are covered in written comments), but one should not need to go and find where someone got a bit of information or an argument from – they should say where it was from.
Read, check, and forget source, is fine in a one-man-universe but, as you justly point out, very bad indeed when one is dealing with other human beings.
When I was at the various universities I attended I would carefully note down sources (the full drill, book, page etc – cross reference and research to see if the information was correct and ………) but in recent years I have got LAZY and I apologize.
Realclearpolitics is a good place to start for polls and stuff.
Daveon
The Post Intelligencer – I will not pretend that does not fit the sterotype I had in my head, but that does not mean the sterotype is true (I have to guard against my own bigotary). I know nothing of the Washington Time.
Do I believe that everything has to be run for a profit?
No – I have nothing against charitable trusts or whatever.
Although sometimes “profit” is a broad thing – and I do not just mean the “profit” of feeling good about something.
Take the example of the Dukes of Westminister – a couple of centuries ago they had fine free roads built in certain parts of London (and maintained them as well). Now was this just public spiritedness on their part – or did the fact that they owned a lot of the buildings on these streets have something to do with it?
A bit of both most likely.
Still many undertakings have been undertaken and run in a non cash profit way.
As long as a project is neither owned by government (or something controlled by government) or subsidized by government, I am not going to be upset.
Well I might be upset (say a railroad was being shoved through a forest I liked), but as long as their was no stealing of land (no forced sale or anything like that) and no subsidy for the railroad (constrution or operation) and everything was privately owned (including by a charitable trusts) then I can not complain that the nonaggression principle has been violated.
On Rednecks:
Last weekend I stayed in the home of a couple – and the man is a Redneck.
He is not an American and nor is he uneducated (he is very well educated).
But he is an Ulster Protestant – and he does indeed burn in the sun.
He does have very “unProgressive” attitudes on most things, but he is not a racist.
As for antisemitism (another thing Rednecks are sometimes accused of) his wife to be is Jewish – although a covert to the Jewish faith.
Thanks for the tip, Paul, I’ll check it out. Mind you, I am just as lazy, as I probably could work Google until I found the info myself:-)
Daveon: modern technology has made it easy to operate toll roads without tolls. Here in Israel there is one where cameras take a shot of your license plate, and you get the bill in your mail.
Also, I suspect that the way Seattle’s, and some other cities’ suburbs are laid out may have to do with government planning and zoning. Maye if that was not the case (if in fact it is), these cities would be naturally better suited for profitable private initiative in transportation solutions?
I meant without toll stations, of course.
Paul M: I got the PI for the free Umbrella and the bag – not sure what that says about me. It’s not a great paper. In the UK I would typically get the Guardian, TImes, Economist, New Scientist and occasionally the Spectator when I’d want to read some news.
Paul, it’s not just about profit. A business has a responsibility to the share holders and the people who own it to give a return on their capital. If people want a private business to run things, that private business needs an ROI of some kind, otherwise there really isn’t much point.
I have nothing much against charities, my wife did some work in that space when we moved over here. What I have learned is they seem pretty badly run, at least the ones around appear to be and again, comparisons with 200 years ago don’t really mean much.
Alisa: Two things…
1) London uses cameras for the “congestion charge” so that’s certainly possible, as is GPS tagging and road use charging. Of course, I really am alarmed at the idea of anybody (private or public) having a system which tracks my car useage. I know the technology exists, I don’t particuarly trust it in this day and age and it does seem to be another step we’ll take on the route to a full panoptican.
2) The history of Seattle is quite interesting and, if anything, zoning had little to do with how the city was set up and laid out. For a start the city street plan is actually 2 laid on top of each other by Denny and Maynard who owned most of the land when the city was founded. There are some messy bits where Henry Yesler (who got his land from Maynard in exchange for a Steam Saw Mill) refused to let them clear up part of the mess. Yesler himself drove the city administration to bankrupcy to avoid paying tax. The history of the city is most interesting (Skid Row by Murry Morgan is a pretty even handed dealing with this, _The Sons of the Profits_ by William Speidel is a more left leaning one).
Either way, the city grew up pretty free form on what little land there is between Elliott Bay and Lake Washington, a lot of which was pretty marginal when they arrived in the 1850s. Interestingly, more soil was moved in leveling the ground to build the modern city than they moved in building the Panama Canal. But I digress.
Seattle was founded on sound business interests first and public needs later. It’s a fascinating place and it says a lot about the city, I can’t help but like living in a place where they funded the city largely on fining prostitutes for over a decade.
Alisa – yes Seattle is zoned (and so on).
Of course this does not mean that Daveon point about “business interests” is wrong – “business interests” and “free market based on property rights” are wildly different things.
Daveon charitable trusts may be badly run – but they are wildly better than government. Nor do the laws of political economy change with time or place (see the “War of Method” in late 19th century German scholarship – Carl Menger won that dispute against the “Historical School”).
We could discuss modern examples such as the National Trust, but I have no interest in doing so.
All I would say is that the idea (of Adam Smith) that big complex projects either need government or do better with government is as false as the Labour Theory of Vale (which also comes from Adam Smith, at least at times – although it was really pushed by David Ricardo).
On your choices of publications.
The Guardian in no way offends me. It is a newspaper of the left and does not pretend to be anything else – so that is fine by me.
The Times is irritating (it was rather New Labour) but it has little importance any more.
The Economist makes me spit blood (as people round here know) – this is because it pretends to be one thing and is really something quite different.
It claims to be the great defender of the free market – but its contents tend to be slanted (in cunning ways) to promote a bigger government not a smaller one.
I have nothing against people arguing for a bigger government – but I do dislike someone pretending to be on one side when they are really on the other.
For example a couple of weeks a go the Economist came out with a big feature demanding a vote on the E.U. Constitition “but surely you agree the people should get a vote Paul”.
Ah, but the Economist also said that the new “treaty” did not give much more power to the E.U. – and “surprise” this week it published two letters saying that as the “treaty” did not give more power to the E.U. there was no point in letting the people vote on it (of course no letters were published pointing out that the “treaty” does give a lot more power to the E.U.).
So by making itself the great spokesmen for a vote, the Economist managed to attack the case for a vote- this is not an isolated incident.
On regulations – it will say that it is in favour of deregulation, but also say that it is hard to tell whether regulations are really increasing (a blatent lie) and say that regulations would have to become much worse before they bacame a serious threat (quite false – they are already doing vast harm).
So the Economist sets itself up as the defender of “deregulation” whilst undermining the case for deregulation.
In almost every policy matter the Economist tries the same game.
When the Financial Times played this game (I do not know whether it still does, I would not touch the thing – let alone read it) it was eventually discovered that the “newspaper of business and finance” had a load of Marxists on its staff.
I doubt that the Economist staff contains many Marxists – just irritating nonentities.
The trouble with the Economist is that once upon a time it was quite free market (indeed was considered the leading journal of the free market in Britain) – so it still is seen to represent this line of thought (and does not).
It is the deceit that irritates me.
People who read things like the Guardian know what they are getting – so it does no real harm.
Well Zoning exists for a reason and it’s not always about the government. There was a huge and IIRC reasonably nasty thread here recently about it. Geography plays a major part though, as does availability of land. They’ve recently enacted some rules about the maximum height of buildings in certain areas as they found people were building ever taller apartment blocks in front of existing ones and blocking views. It was getting legal and the council stepped in. As there are 2 27 story blocks in the way of my view of Elliot Bay I have some sympathy, but I rent here at the moment so I don’t feel I have too much to do.
The Economist: I don’t particuarly like the editorialising they do in exchange for reporting, however, it’s a good size and length for flying. Depending on the articles it’ll either get me from boarding to 10,000 feet (when I can start working again) or even beyond at. As I fly pretty much every week, it’s a useful thing to have and none of the US papers are particularly plane friendly (the Times’ new format scores big here).
I don’t really agree about charitable trusts versus government – what did work in simpler times doesn’t necessarily work now. And big projects are hard to manage. I’ve been involved in 2 moderately large projects in my life, one as a very junior engineer and another as the lead sales person. Both didn’t quite turn out as expected and a lot of it came down to how to manage projects involving tens of thousands of man hours.
Government is an excellent tool, but like all tools it needs to be looked after, cleaned, repaired and replaced when necessary, otherwise it stops being of any use and takes up too much room in the shed.
The more complicated things get the LESS government can deal with them.
As F.A. Hayek was fond of pointing out, concepts like “central planning” and “social justice” may work (sort of) in a small hunter gatherer pack – but they are not compatible (in the long term) with a large complex society.
As for the harmful absurdity that is zoning – I will not waste my time refuting something that has been refuted (by much better people than me) so many times already.
Especially as I have just written a comment on zoning-planning controls on another thread (Brian’s thread on the Hollywood strike – the thread took an odd turn).
The size of the Economist – now there I agree with you.
Format is important.
One of the reasons I no longer tend to buy the Sunday or Daily Telegraph is there broadsheet format. They even made the format worse by having supplements.
Think about a malcordinated man (“dyspraxic” I am told) with rather short arms trying to deal with such a publication…..
The Economist would be ideal for me – small and the pages do not fall out. The problem is the contents (not that the contents of the Sunday and Daily Telegraph are anything like as good as they once were – which is a reason for not putting up with the absurd format).
Actually the Guardian has a good format – the “Berliner” size I believe – but the contents remind me of the B.B.C.
By the way I do not take the Bill O’Reilly line on the Seattle P.I.
If the newspaper wishes to refuse to show photographs of people the F.B.I. is looking for – that is up to the newspaper.
And if the P.I. also wishes to describe President Bush trying to limit the increase in a government health research program as “Bush robs cancer sufferers”, or has columns by a lady who says that she understands why someone would strap a bomb to himself and try and destroy a church in San Francisco (the Catholic Church being “oppressive” and so on) – well that is also up to them.
People who buy the Seattle P.I. know what they are buying (apart from the umbrella) and, like the Guardian in this country, it does not pretend to be something else.
Of course I suspect that local and State government (and politically connected private business enterprises) direct a lot of their advertising to the Seattle P.I. – but apart from that I do not have a problem with it.
Most interesting about the PI although I limit my exposure to Bill O’Reilly on medical grounds. He recently did a piece of a solider being attacked in northern Seattle where it was stated “this is a city with a statue of Lenin, you know what I’m saying here…”
The PI has an interesting mix of columns and frequently post contrary positions which is interesting, although more frequently it does read like the Microsoft and Boeing in-house magazine. As I understand it the PI and The Seattle Times have the same owners and some agreement that they have to take opposite editorial positions.
When the subscription expires in a few months I’ll not be renewing and then it’ll be a random matter of what paper I read here. I’ll admit that I haven’t found any US paper that approaches the quality of UK reporting regardless of the politics of the organisation.
“As F.A. Hayek was fond of pointing out, concepts like “central planning” and “social justice” may work (sort of) in a small hunter gatherer pack – but they are not compatible (in the long term) with a large complex society.” – I’m not entirely sure what does work in large and complex societies without some form of maintained controls and some form of arbitration and control system which doesn’t just mean those that can, will do and those that can’t may as well shut up.
I don’t have an easy answer for this.
I do not listen to the radio show, but I watch the O’Reilly Factor on television and the “Lenin in Seattle” bit passed me by (was it on the radio show?). I know I do not do links – but a link to the actual broadcast would be useful (as Media Matters and so on are smear merchants).
Why would the city have a statue of a mass murderer – especially as (as far as I know) the person never visited Seattle?
Do you also have a statue of Hitler? Or do you NOT have a statue of “Lenin” (V.I.U.)?
A variety of voices in the P.I. – pro Bush voices?
Hearst Newspapers own the P.I.
As for Bill O’Reilly – he was praising some of his favourate people again last night.
F.D.R. and Robert Kennedy – not exactly my favourate people.
And the day before he said (in conversation with that pro tax increase man Ben Stein – the “Republican” who writes for the New York Times) that he would never cross a picket line of his union (as you might guess union picket lines are not exactly sacred to me).
Still I watch the show because he does attack a lot of P.C. targets – and at least he writes all his own words (unlike so many people on television and radio).
Of course the people who really make Bill O’Reilly are the left.
Take the example of the attacks on Judges who are soft on child abusers.
This is apoltical story – the left could simply say “thank you for bringing this to our attention” and then take over the story.
But, instead, the line is “well Bill O’Reilly said it so it must be wrong – we will try and cover up the matter, and if the evil Bill carries on talking about it we will defend Judge X”.
Which goes rather wrong when Judge X is found to have really been soft on child abusers.
And then there are the silly smears – from Media Matters (taken up by CNN and the rest of the mainstream left media).
Taking words out of context is a clever tactic if you are not dealing with a man who records everything he says – and then plays it back to show you have taken him out of context (or just made the words up).
If it were not for the cover ups and then defenses of obvious scum bags (on the grounds that if Bill O’Reilly does not like them they must be good people) and the silly smear attacks on him – well then I doubt Bill O’Reilly would be very successful at all.
Oddly enough the only threat to “sanity” stuff I have heard on the O’Reilly Factor (apart from various leftist guests) was from the above mentioned Ben Stein.
It turns out that Mr Stein is an “intelligent design” man – which Catholic Bill O’Reilly thinks is a bit dodgy.
Now there is one issue the liberals would agree with him on.
As they would the death penality (he is against it), and the use of the “N word” (should never be used) and many other issues.
It interests me that the left really hate this Long Island middle of the road guy.
What they would think of someone like me I dare not guess.
Apparently a school teacher saw the statue in a scrap metal yard in the mid-90s and had it moved back to Fremont. Not entirely sure why, but as Alexi Sayle once said, there’s something amusing about large statues of Lenin hailing a cab that all cities should have on.
I used to watch O’Reilly on a semi-regular basis in that his show would be on air when I’d get to my hotel after arriving from a flight to the US. It would spurn me to get showered and go and get some unhealthy food and beer quickly.
We could have an entire thread on things O’Reilly has said which are wrong, you could build entire web sites about it… oh… they have…
There you go, somebody did it for me.
With regard to the cost of the war in Iraq, I see the Democrats are trying to sell a figure of $1.6 trillion. Even Newsnight did not buy that one, but the official figure for Iraq and Afghanistan is $800 billion. In real terms Vietnam is meant to have cost $600 billion.
How does this work? I am really baffled. The US lost about twenty times as many men in Vietnam. Thousands of helicopters and hundreds of planes. I believe they lost about 30 B52’s in the Linebacker raids over the north in 1972. That was a real war. Iraq and Afghanistan consists of trying to whack a few thousand loons with a penchant for IED’s. Not nice, but not in the same league.
Using the same costings, World War II came in at $4.9 trillion. Can it really be the case that Iraq/Afghanistan costs about a sixth of World War II? The USA had about 12 million men under arms, with the whole of its industry geared to war production. It must have churned out about 100,000 armoured vehicles, and a similar number of planes. The US Navy got 24 Essex class aircraft carriers and ended the war with thousands of ships. They built the atom bomb! All for six times the cost of what is essentially a counter-insurgency operation in Iraq/Afghanistan? Pull the other one.
I think there is something very dodgy about the figues being given for Iraq/Afghanistan. I have a feeling a lot of pork barrel projects are being marked down to the budget for these campaigns.
John K
Actually, before the latest bill that President Bush signed (the bill the Democrats stuffed with pork) there was oddly little pork in Iraq war bills.
It was just that the military spend money like….. well in a way only government does.
And they have got worse over time – and not just on war spending (take a look out how long major ships take to build these days and how much they cost).
One of the reasons that I opposed the judgement to go into Iraq in 2003 is that I guessed (no not “guessed”, I knew) that the costs would go up, up and away. I know that sounds cold hearted – but then I am cold hearted.
Daveon.
Smear web sites Daveon – filled with claims that have been proved to be lies.
For example, the “insult every …. seconds” claim from the University of Indiana study – which turned out to include words like “conservative”, and “moderate” as insults.
Still one person is secretly glad that the left attack Bill O’Reilly – Bill O’Reilly.
Each time there is a major attack his ratings go up.