Is there a limit to political largesse?

[RA1]

Is a 100 million dollar vacation for BO approaching that limit, especially during a time of tough economic times for many?

Any comments?

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

Care to give anymore specifics behind that question and inflation adjusted comparisons with other Presidents?

I do appreciate that it is very expensive for him or any President to travel to foreign countries. I saw a one hour program on the History Channel or some such that presented what it is like on Air Force One and what is entailed for travel to a foreign country, security to jet fuel to secure food. Quite a heavy personnel and logistics lift. Bush II was the President at the time of filming. Makes me think that Presidents should invite everyone to come to the USA and even pay their way. It would be a lot cheaper.

[RA1]

I know the program to which you refer and all that and more is true. My question is, what is the value of the trip to the US? I certainly realize that every CEO that I ever flew around never truly goes on vacation. They are doing business no matter where they are or what time of day it is and the President is the supreme example of this mentality or lifestyle. However, to quote a WW II slogan, is this trip necessary?

Regardless of what Presidents in the past did, what is right is a moral question, not a comparative one. With almost 8% of the known work force out of work and many others "forced" out, does this not qualify to make belt tightening a reasonable request?

As Everett Dirksen said, a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon it adds up to real money.

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

If we really care about the unemployed then public displays of concern with manifestly ineffective measures benefit no jobless. An effective show of concern would be tossing a few of those billions Everett used to talk about at the extensive severe infrastructure deficiencies we have in this country. That would be a show of concern. One program that both parties used to care about and support prior to the paramount goal of one party to obstruct Obama.

That doesn't mean that all monies, travel or otherwise should not be scrutinized for reasonable and effective use.

[RA1]

We definitely need to spend money on repairing and upgrading our infrastructure. As inefficient as I tend to think government is, these kinds of things are best done by government, the smaller, the better. It is very wasteful to have the US government let a contract to re-pave main street. Just having the money go to DC first is in and of itself a waste (except to the bureaucrats). One thing I think the US government has done pretty well in the past is develop technical standards for almost any repair or improvement one can imagine. Unfortunately this process has all too often been over ridden by favoritism and other variances.

I have personally observed "irregularities" during the "stimulation" of the economy and I am sure we all have. There was a lot of emphasis placed on "shovel ready" projects which led to a lot of half baked and expensive schemes getting financed but a lot fewer long term beneficial projects being overlooked or disregarded. And, we all know of "pet" green projects that have already failed to the tune of billions and billions.

Over the last many years probably some of our most meaningful progress has been when the Congress and the executive branch were of different parties. Somehow we have let "instant news" and 'instant opinions" among other things magnify philosophical differences into "open warfare". We need the "watch dog" mentality but less back biting.

Best regards,

RA1

[RA1]

Here is the real Bush flying.

htttp://vimeo.com/58091041#

Best regards,

RA1

I don't know why the link does not work. Copy vimeo.com/58091041# to your browser window and it will work.

[TampaYankee]

We definitely need to spend money on repairing and upgrading our infrastructure. As inefficient as I tend to think government is, these kinds of things are best done by government, the smaller, the better. It is very wasteful to have the US government let a contract to re-pave main street. Just having the money go to DC first is in and of itself a waste (except to the bureaucrats). One thing I think the US government has done pretty well in the past is develop technical standards for almost any repair or improvement one can imagine. Unfortunately this process has all too often been over ridden by favoritism and other variances.

I have personally observed "irregularities" during the "stimulation" of the economy and I am sure we all have. There was a lot of emphasis placed on "shovel ready" projects which led to a lot of half baked and expensive schemes getting financed but a lot fewer long term beneficial projects being overlooked or disregarded. And, we all know of "pet" green projects that have already failed to the tune of billions and billions.

Over the last many years probably some of our most meaningful progress has been when the Congress and the executive branch were of different parties. Somehow we have let "instant news" and 'instant opinions" among other things magnify philosophical differences into "open warfare". We need the "watch dog" mentality but less back biting.

Best regards,

RA1

I agree that money should be spent locally but it cannot be paid for locally because not every locale or state can afford it. The Mississippi tax base just isn't up to keeping all of its bridges, airports and highways including the big interstate lanes up to par. Add also Rhode Island, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho. Some of those don't need a lot of roads but they need long roads. We need an integrated transportation network for this nation not a patchwork quilt of good roads dumping into dirt roads at state lines. American business would hardly thrive without the trucking industry. Add in airports and power backbone infrastructure as more anchors the states have to swim with. Keeping it all local may sound warm and fuzzy but it just is not practical for a modern nation. It is no longer the 1880s where communities lived isolated unless they sprang up along one of the few railroad lines.

Any large number of programs are bound to have some failures. That is a facet of there being a large number. Individual local programs fail too, mostly due to corruption and some due to inadequate planning, resources or technology. They do not make as big a splash except in the community they are in. I knew of Florida bridge construction that used sea water to make concrete. A lotta bridge had to come down on that one. It wasn't a mistake. I also watched them take two years to pave a mile of four lane highway in Tampa that cost between 30 and 60 million dollars and that was in the early 70's when a million dollars bought something.

The government is in to venture capital funding for certain developments where the commercial environment cannot support the infrastructure development. The government has been wildly successful at it. Just take a moment to consider what fell out of Kennedy's Space Program. The technology list would take a ream of paper to enumerate. The internet is another. That was done by the Defense Adanced Research Projects Agency. Consider all the medical research seeded by government grants that led to conquering Polio and treating certain types of cancer to name two diseases. All of this, well 99.99% gets transitioned over to private industry to make jobs and rich people.

Were there some failures? Of course, that is the nature of research development and innovation. Yet some taxpaying individuals and more so the political opposition, whichever the party, demands 100% success, that is unless they are the ones in power.

It is a fact that only government can do some things worth doing, at least initially. That government research and development largesse has made us a fabulously wealthy country and the leading world power all in a time when the government engaged in a lot of that type of spending. The overall balance sheet of achievement versus waste is staggering to the positive and people nit pick about an occasional failure here and failure there. They cannot see the forest for the trees.

I long for the days where divided government could function. That seems impossible now with the present make up of the GOP. Most just do not want to do much more than dismantle or let what is in place wither on the vine. One need look no further than continued denial of infrastructure renewal and to sequestration to conclude that.

[RA1]

I certainly do not disagree about the interstate highway system being logically funded and repaired by the federal government. However, one reason the states cannot afford to do some "other" things is because so much (needless) tax money is funneled through DC. However, there can be a case made for the highways being the result of the trucking lobby, not necessarily economic sense. Our railroads are in pitiful shape and Congressional efforts to fix them are little more than more pork barrel. The FAA has been charged with controlling our national airspace and it would be chaos as well as expensive if the states were allowed to put in their two cents, although they are certainly trying to do so.

I agree with your analysis of the Kennedy/Johnson space program. Too bad BO has no such vision.

We have gained a lot from government sponsored scientific research but, as seems inevitable, entrenched bureaucrats now control it somewhat to my dismay and detriment to the public they are supposed to be serving. Not Invented Here is a common appellation for the National Institutes of Health, meaning don't bother us with any new or different ideas.

You seem to think the Republicans are largely at fault for most of our present problems. Do you not think that both parties and virtually all politicians have contributed to our 19 trillion dollar debt and possible 100 trillion dollar contingency liability? I certainly do.

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

You seem to think the Republicans are largely at fault for most of our present problems. Do you not think that both parties and virtually all politicians have contributed to our 19 trillion dollar debt and possible 100 trillion dollar contingency liability? I certainly do.

Best regards,

RA1

Of course I agree both parties are to blame. Both parties had a taste for pork. However, I must lay the vast majority of the debt to the GOP who funded two wars without paying for them or even putting them in the budget and myriad tax giveaways that did little more than fuel an out of control banking system with bogus trading schemes that ultimately crashed our economy.

If you add up:

the cost of those wars to 2008 and the interest on that debt through today, plus

the loss in tax revenues that Bush put through in his tax cuts and the amount borrowed to replace it and the interest accrued through today on that borrowing that had to be done to replace that missing money up until the Bush Tax cuts were revised in 2012, plus

the loss in tax revenues due to our economy melt down in 2008 that we still suffer today, plus

the cost of TARP demanded by Bush and passed by a bipartisan Congress and the interest accrued to pay for it through today, plus

the cost of the unfunded prescription drug program passed by a GOP government and the interest to pay for it through today.

I won't even include the cost of the stimulus since only a few GOP supported it.

Against that add up whatever Obama has spent to get the economy moving again and fund his programs, including the Stimulus and saving our Auto Industry.

Who created the vast vast majority of this debt. We had a small debt compared to today when Bush II took office. We were deficit free. The cost of several of Bush's programs and that includes ongoing interest for those costs outlived his presidency continue to accrue today. Obama brought many of those cost out of the dark and put in the budget so they can be tracked openly and dealt with.

I know you will say that you hold Bush in no high regard for his economic stance. But that begs the question of who dug this 19 trillion dollar deep hole we are in. Neither side's hands are clean but a fair accounting of the sources for the debt - not some simple-minded measure of debt accrued in which calendar year -- are credited to Bush and the GOP Congress that controlled this government for the first several years of this century. That is a fact.

[RA1]

I have "preached" and supported the idea for many, many years that if the US is going to war, we need to go on a wartime footing or basis. That means increased taxes to pay for it and personal and business "sacrifices" to support it. We have seen little to none of this beginning with LBJ whose guns and butter theory sucked, to put it mildly. Nothing has improved since that I notice.

To state things in pure politics: if the public is not willing to do more taxes and more sacrifices, then it must be a bad idea. Obvious, isn't it?

It can be argued that Clinton "inherited" the good things that Bush I left as a legacy and Bush II inherited the bad things that Clinton left. Regardless of all that, both parties are liable for the estimated 100 trillion dollars of contingent liabilities that are in front of us.

Also, regardless of finger pointing and who is to blame, someone (our children and grandchildren) will have to pay the 19 trillion dollar debt.

Do you think electing a series of Democrat Presidents will solve any of these problems? Do you think electing a Democratic Congress will? I have little to no confidence in either solution. But, I also have little confidence in electing more Republicans.

Libertarian Party, anyone?

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

I understand and respect that you are more of a 'classical' conservative than Bush and his gang. I wish there were more of you on that side of the spectrum. I understand that Bush is not a favorite of yours and you find him wanting.

You may not deserve any blame for Bush's actions but your hands aren't clean if you voted to return him to office in 2004. (Please, I am not asking you to state how you voted. That is private and should remain so.) It was clear by then that we had two unfunded wars going and the biggest tax reduction in history up to that time. To conservatives that should have been a clear sign of disaster.

To ask for more of that governing philosophy was not conservative. Not to mention that he clearly was mismanaging the wars politically and militarily by that time.

I used to flirt with the Libertarians twenty years ago. A lot of it appeals to me on one level or another. But as I said in another context, this isn't the 1880s. A modern nation cannot take a go at it alone locally or individually philosophy. I give Ron Paul a lot of respect though, he make clear arguments for his side and holds to them. He does not go-along-to-get-along and will stand staunchly against his party when he disagrees philosophically. He has paid the price for that by being shunned to the wilderness. It never weakened him.

[RA1]

Thanks for giving Ron Paul respect. I did not vote for Bush II, although I had hopes for his presidency, especially after 911 but that was a bust.

I did vote for Bush I and hoped he would succeed but alas, Clinton inherited his early "plantings' and did some good with them and some not so good. However, I recognize no one is perfect.

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

Thanks for giving Ron Paul respect. I did not vote for Bush II, although I had hopes for his presidency, especially after 911 but that was a bust.

I did vote for Bush I and hoped he would succeed but alas, Clinton inherited his early "plantings' and did some good with them and some not so good. However, I recognize no one is perfect.

Best regards,

RA1

We voted the same on Bush I, both time I surmise. I was sorry to see him go and sorry the the GOP base undercut him the second time around.

I opposed Clinton on ethical grounds, for starters. I have to confess that he is a much better statesman than he is a politician from an ethical perspective, as far as I can tell. I believe the Clinton Global Initiative does him proud.