Even if it's a question of policy, it's still a matter of money. Getting the money, assuming the policy wants it, requires taxation of someone or something. Aye, there's the rub. You've noticed, no doubt, the ongoing dispute about the debt limit. I'm not disagreeing with you about what ought to happen; just noticing the obstacle and being of the opinion that the obstacle is not easily overcome.
I dunno, Jack. I'd say the money is available; just misallocated.
I agree that the obstacles are extremely difficult to overcome, when the majority of federal legislators—all of them on one side and more than not on the other—are being paid not to overcome them. There's no inherent structural impediment beyond that and the billions of dollars spent propagandizing the public against sensible reforms. And even with that, support is stronger among voters than it is among the people they vote for, which is the product of gatekeepers who work against candidates who might make those changes.
The context in which we can be said to live in a democracy is pretty limited.
I remember when they closed the hospitals in Illinois. That was state money, not federal. There could, theoretically, br federal money but I think that when the change you write about occurred it was mostly state funding all over the country. Support for the general policy may be stronger among voters, but I suspect support for increased taxation or reallocation of existing funds isn't nearly as strong. The issue of who are you going to take the money away from is pretty contentious. Many liberals (for lack of a better term) say reduce the defense budget. I'm not real confident there's a majority for that.
State money, hence the reference to governors Reagan and Dukakis. There was federal money in the mix, and the initial intention was for most of it to be federal money.
I don't disagree with you, Jack, on the difficulties of doing things like reducing the defense budget, but I do have the sense that you don't consider the degree to which the resistance is a product of money. The reason, or at least one huge reason that federal legislators constantly pump up the defense budget is that they get money from weapons makers and their districts get money from the Pentagon. It's not some circumstance-free philosophical predilection.
By the same token, the enormous amounts of money devoted to riling people up against rational distributions of tax money have a lot more to do with public resistance even to tax raises aimed at the very wealthy than does an understanding of what's gained and lost.
None of this is happening in a vacuum, and I think one could make a fair case that the purpose of political parties, which are the beneficiaries of massive donations from opponents of social welfare spending, is to ensure that it keeps happening by controlling to a large degree who gets to run for office.
I've mentioned a few times before that we have solid research showing that what money wants is what money gets, and that what the majority of people want doesn't count unless it coincides with what the money wants. And again, that's not something that just happened, and neither is it written in stone.
No quarrel from me about that. The fact remains that no matter how it got formed public opinion resists increased taxation, particularly at the state and local level, and supports the defense budget. Money does talk most of the time but if it did all the time, Republicans would never lose.
The public attitude toward tax increases isn't static, particularly when it comes to taxing the rich. And I think for purposes of countering a public position on something, how it came to be what it is matters.
Even if it's a question of policy, it's still a matter of money. Getting the money, assuming the policy wants it, requires taxation of someone or something. Aye, there's the rub. You've noticed, no doubt, the ongoing dispute about the debt limit. I'm not disagreeing with you about what ought to happen; just noticing the obstacle and being of the opinion that the obstacle is not easily overcome.
I dunno, Jack. I'd say the money is available; just misallocated.
I agree that the obstacles are extremely difficult to overcome, when the majority of federal legislators—all of them on one side and more than not on the other—are being paid not to overcome them. There's no inherent structural impediment beyond that and the billions of dollars spent propagandizing the public against sensible reforms. And even with that, support is stronger among voters than it is among the people they vote for, which is the product of gatekeepers who work against candidates who might make those changes.
The context in which we can be said to live in a democracy is pretty limited.
I remember when they closed the hospitals in Illinois. That was state money, not federal. There could, theoretically, br federal money but I think that when the change you write about occurred it was mostly state funding all over the country. Support for the general policy may be stronger among voters, but I suspect support for increased taxation or reallocation of existing funds isn't nearly as strong. The issue of who are you going to take the money away from is pretty contentious. Many liberals (for lack of a better term) say reduce the defense budget. I'm not real confident there's a majority for that.
State money, hence the reference to governors Reagan and Dukakis. There was federal money in the mix, and the initial intention was for most of it to be federal money.
I don't disagree with you, Jack, on the difficulties of doing things like reducing the defense budget, but I do have the sense that you don't consider the degree to which the resistance is a product of money. The reason, or at least one huge reason that federal legislators constantly pump up the defense budget is that they get money from weapons makers and their districts get money from the Pentagon. It's not some circumstance-free philosophical predilection.
By the same token, the enormous amounts of money devoted to riling people up against rational distributions of tax money have a lot more to do with public resistance even to tax raises aimed at the very wealthy than does an understanding of what's gained and lost.
None of this is happening in a vacuum, and I think one could make a fair case that the purpose of political parties, which are the beneficiaries of massive donations from opponents of social welfare spending, is to ensure that it keeps happening by controlling to a large degree who gets to run for office.
I've mentioned a few times before that we have solid research showing that what money wants is what money gets, and that what the majority of people want doesn't count unless it coincides with what the money wants. And again, that's not something that just happened, and neither is it written in stone.
No quarrel from me about that. The fact remains that no matter how it got formed public opinion resists increased taxation, particularly at the state and local level, and supports the defense budget. Money does talk most of the time but if it did all the time, Republicans would never lose.
Sorry, Jack, I just now saw this.
The public attitude toward tax increases isn't static, particularly when it comes to taxing the rich. And I think for purposes of countering a public position on something, how it came to be what it is matters.