What should governments spend money on?

[Chris]

This is a spinoff of the SOTU-deficit thread, where the discussion turned to the philosophy of government spending and the role of government in society.

I'm going to keep the questions simple:

1. If possible, can you explain your overall philosophy / opinion regarding what role government should play in society?

2. What kinds of things should government spend money on?

3. What kinds of things should government not spend money on?

Other thoughts are welcome. Examples drawn from the US budget proposals or other countries budget proposals to back up or accentuate your point are welcome.

This will be another ~ 1 week thread.

[Hanover_Fist]

1. If possible, can you explain your overall philosophy / opinion regarding what role government should play in society?

I'm a Libertarian. In short, that means I believe government exists to protect people from force or fraud, but not from themselves. Government has no right to tell people what to do in their own homes, as long as they are not hurting anyone else, and they have no right to tell people how to run their businesses, so long as people are behaving honestly and legally. People should be allowed to keep as much of the money they make as possible, and control over social programs should be at the most local level whenever possible.

2. What kinds of things should government spend money on?

-Maintaining a military to protect the population from invasion or terrorism.
-Maintaining a police force to protect the population from crime (state/city/municipal governments only)
-Social Security serves a valuable purpose, but people should be able to opt out in favor of private competitors, similar to how FedEx and UPS compete with the Postal Service.
-While I'm a Libertarian, I was not opposed to all the bailouts. The stimulus to the banks and financial institutions was definitely necessary to prevent an outright Great Depression II.
-Reforms in healthcare, but not complete government oversight as in the current bill. Importing cheaper drugs from Canada and laws regulating private insurers to prevent them from dropping patients or refusing to pay for procedures are changes I would welcome.
-Helping economically-disadvantaged people get educational credentials (GED) and job skills (preferably on state level).

3. What kinds of things should government not spend money on?

-Prosecuting a War on Drugs in which drugs are still available, a black market arises, and violent drug cartels monopolize the market. It didn't work during Prohibition, and it isn't working now.
-Prosecuting people who play poker online or in private card games, or who bet on sporting events, or otherwise choose to gamble. What people do with their own money is not the government's business.
-Prosecuting prostitution, as long as it's between consenting adults.
-Maintaining the Federal Communications Commission to fine broadcasters who display "indecency."
-Remember how I said I was not opposed to some bailouts? I am opposed to others. Helping financial institutions to begin lending again is fine. Bailing out private corporations, particularly those with unions who contribute to your campaign, is not. Particularly offensive was the bailout to GM, removing control from secured creditors to unsecured unions, and Chrysler, which is not even a publicly-held corporation.
-Education, on the federal level. Nowhere in the Constitution does the word "education" appear as the federal government's responsibility. It is the responsibility of the states, and even more so the school districts, not government bureaucrats who think shoving standardized tests down the throats of the principals, teachers, and students will make us competitive.
-Minimal handouts, only for absolute necessities. Most welfare should go to the aforementioned educational and vocational training.

[AldeberanBlack]

1. If possible, can you explain your overall philosophy / opinion regarding what role government should play in society?

2. What kinds of things should government spend money on?

To adminstrate fair and progressive taxation, state infrastructure and resources, public housing and services, law and order, legislation, a public postal service, a state broadcasting corporation, public education, regulation of business, commerce and trade, emergency services, security/armed forces, and a cradle to grave social health and welfare system

3. What kinds of things should government not spend money on?

Unnecessary wars of aggression, religious matters, excessive spending on defence and foreign aid, bailouts of private businesses, prohibitions or limitations of/on drug use, prostitution and personal relationships.

[Fawkesfan1]

1. If possible, can you explain your overall philosophy / opinion regarding what role government should play in society?

I'm a Democrat myself... so I tend to think that the role that government should play in society should be a helpful one, not one that's more of a hinderance. As in -- actually having some regulations over what corporations due and don't do and that kind of thing. Not to kowtow to them... which they have been doing for years now...


2. What kinds of things should government spend money on?

Health care, getting things back on their feet again in terms of the overall economy, and helping people get jobs.


3. What kinds of things should government not spend money on?

The rich... that means big CEO's and what not. They made their own bed, and now they should have to sleep in it. Fair is fair there, in my opinion. No more bailing out companies, if all they're going to do is use the money for rewarding others (I can't remember the exact word that CNN used there...)... *cough*AIG*cough*. I see what you did there . And it's just unacceptable.

Also, no more spending money on useless pork projects. What's the point there -- at all -- and especially since the economy is in such bad shape. It just doesn't really make any real sense to me.

[Grymmditch]

To put it succintly, I agree with everything Hanover_Fist said.

However, it also depends on what level of government you're talking about. State government has less responsibility for maintaining a military than the Federal government, for example, and I think more social programs should be State, not Federal, in scope.
We are slowly losing the concept of a "united" (yet sovereign) confederation of States, and becoming more and more of a large, centralized, bloated, monolithic Republic.

[DancingMaenid]

1. If possible, can you explain your overall philosophy / opinion regarding what role government should play in society?

I think the government should primarily be a helpful force, but not too much of a controlling one. It should work to protect the interests of its citizens, including minorities and the poor, but should not interfere unnecessarily in people's personal affairs.

2. What kinds of things should government spend money on?

I think health care is important, as is education. I'm in favor of things like social security (though it would be nice if individuals could opt out if they wanted), as well as programs to help the poor. Emergency services and law and order are also important.

I think that, as much as possible, government spending should be about creating a good quality of life for its citizens.

3. What kinds of things should government not spend money on?

I think a lot of the problems with spending isn't so much what money is spent on but how. For example, spending money on education is important, but if public schools don't put the money to good use, or it seems like they should be able to afford more than they can, then budget-makers need to take a good look at the situation.

[monster_mom]

Originally Posted by Grymmditch

To put it succintly, I agree with everything Hanover_Fist said.

However, it also depends on what level of government you're talking about. State government has less responsibility for maintaining a military than the Federal government, for example, and I think more social programs should be State, not Federal, in scope.
We are slowly losing the concept of a "united" (yet sovereign) confederation of States, and becoming more and more of a large, centralized, bloated, monolithic Republic.

Ditto. I'd say that we have a wonderful guiding light on what the appropriate role for the Federal Government is versus state government. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

As a parents of two children in public school, federal intrusion into education is a huge no no to me.

[MmeBergerac]

1. If possible, can you explain your overall philosophy / opinion regarding what role government should play in society?

I don't like labels very much, but I guess I'm a liberal (in the European meaning of the word; I think that you Americans give that name to a very different tendency). I think the government should dictate fair play rules and care that everyone abides by those rules. But as long as people respect the rules, the government shouldn't tell anyone how to play. That means that they have the duty of making me pay taxes, but they shouldn't tell me what to do with my money, once I've paid them.

2. What kinds of things should government spend money on?

Education. Not being able to afford a public school shouldn't mean that you're doomed to mediocrity. On the contrary, public education should be as good as possible, because it's the poor's best chance to have access to a better life. That doesn't mean the government should boycott private schools. And, of course, public education shouldn't mean ideological education. Scholarships for the best students are always welcome. Actually, it's an investment in the future of *** country.

Health. Not everyone can pay a private health plan, and the government shouldn't leave anyone helpless before infirmity.

Investigation. Again, when you take care that your best 'brains' can stay in the country instead of going abroad to work, that's good for the country itself.

Police and Justice. The government must protect its citizens, since they've delegated in it the use of force (and implicitly renounced revenge). So, it must have tools. Policemen should earn decent salaries to lessen the risk of corruption, and justice should be quick in resolving.

3. What kinds of things should government not spend money on?

I've never understood why here in Spain a sex change operation is paid by the Social Security while the dentist isn't included (and I don't mean orthodoncy; just simple toothache).

Propaganda

Here in Spain, cinema. Part of our taxes are destined to subsidy movies that nobody cares to see. If they made more attractive movies, they wouldn't need subsidies.

And more, bu I don't have time just now...

[Melaszka]

Originally Posted by AldeberanBlack

To adminstrate fair and progressive taxation, state infrastructure and resources, public housing and services, law and order, legislation, a public postal service, a state broadcasting corporation, public education, regulation of business, commerce and trade, emergency services, security/armed forces, and a cradle to grave social health and welfare system

Unnecessary wars of aggression, religious matters, excessive spending on defence and foreign aid, bailouts of private businesses, prohibitions or limitations of/on drug use, prostitution and personal relationships.

I more or less agree with this, except I think foreign aid is important, and I'd also like a state-funded and operated public transport system. I also think it's the government's role to encourage greener living - if we run out of energy or end up submerged under the North Sea, it's going to affect everybody, so I don't see it as an unwarrantable infringement of personal freedom for the government to penalise wasteful or irresponsible behaviour.

But I'm undecided on social care for all elderly people - I know they've been paying into National Insurance all their lives so are entitled to some payback and obviously people who can't pay for it themselves should have it paid and nobody should have to sell a house their partner still lives in to pay for residential care. But I don't know that I agree with the state intervening to avoid a person who will never again be well enough to live in their own home having to sell said home to pay for care. That's basically the taxpayer giving their children a free house.

There are certain things the NHS currently provides that I don't think they should, but I tend to avoid talking about this, because my views on this often offend and upset people. And there are things that the NHS doesn't currently provide, but I think they should.

[AldeberanBlack]

I more or less agree with this, except I think foreign aid is important, and I'd also like a state-funded and operated public transport system

I also support a public transport system.

My comment about foreign aid was more along the lines of not giving foreign aid to countries that aren't willing to carry out political and economic reforms, otherwise the aid would be wasted.

[Wab]

Increasingly, non-emergency aid from western donors is conditional on the recipient nations meeting benchmarks in human rights and good governance.

It doesn't always work. When most donors pulled aid from Fiji after the latest coup, China increased its aid to Fiji sevenfold.

[Midnightsfire]

1. If possible, can you explain your overall philosophy / opinion regarding what role government should play in society?
Goverment's role should be one of empowerment and protection for the individual. (And that certainly doesn't mean businesses.)

2. What kinds of things should government spend money on?
All that is considered infrastructure (roads, bridges, energy, land management, etc. One shouldn't worry about how clean the air is for breathing or how safe the water is for drinking. That we already have such worry is shameful)

All that is considered for security, internal, national, and international; (military, national guard, emergency services, police force, fire fighting, medical response, hospitals, including a public health care alternative etc..)

All that is considered for a top notch education (including all artistic endeavors, for to forget the various arts is to take one step towards barbarism)

Amend the Constitution to set a monetary limit on all political campaigns. Publicly fund national races with every candidate having a equal amount and equal airtime with other candidates. (this means that funding of any other kind is banned. Period. No options. No "opting out." Getting rid of the profligate waste of "advertising.")

Ban PACs and anything resembling a lobbying organization from Washington DC. (I think this will initially cost money)

Taking care of the elderly. This means Social Security and Medicare. The system should be changed from a retirement plan for everyone to a retirement plan for those who need it. (Future Social Security payments should be ended to individuals and families whose incomes exceed 2 to three times median family income.. Payments would be stopped only after retirees had collected what they had paid into Social Security with interest. This same idea can be applied to Medicare.)

Scientific endeavor and innovation should have a public fund if proven out. (The last true medical cure was the government funded polio vaccine. Now that pharmaceuticals have taken over research...we have yet to see any permanent cures. Just expensive temporary measures that have to be taken or used every so often, which suck for the those ill, but it's "just business ." And great for the stock holder)

3. What kinds of things should government not spend money on?
Subsidies of any kind need justification. (Farming subsidies..? what the...? I mean really! Paying farmers not to produce? Yeah, I know the economics, but c'mon!)

Giving tax breaks to companies that outsource jobs... (a working tax-payer has to suddenly go on unemployment because the job went overseas...and the tax-payer paid for that to happen via tax incentives...? How does this make sense?)

There are plenty of bad regulations. Any of which that doesn't assure the quality of American life: the food we eat, the medicines we take, the air we breathe and the water we drink should be scrutinized for potential waste.

Now for my Conservative side to come to the forefront:

Healthcare of illegal immigrants needs a great deal of justification. There is good argument that the state of California is a "failed" state. And I believe that one of the biggest things dragging the state down is this very issue, costing the tax-payer billions when such illegal immigrants aren't even protected under our own legal system.

Supporting illegal immigrants in any fashion. Far too many have no interest whatsoever in becoming an American citizen.
I may think of some more later…

[monster_mom]

This will come as a shock to many, but I agree with MNF on much of this.

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

1. If possible, can you explain your overall philosophy / opinion regarding what role government should play in society?
Goverment's role should be one of empowerment and protection for the individual. (And that certainly doesn't mean businesses.)

I agree, though I'm not sure what empowerment would entail. I would argue that the government needs to stop being a mother to its citizens and empower citizens to make their own decisions - even bad ones.

2. What kinds of things should government spend money on?
All that is considered infrastructure (roads, bridges, energy, land management, etc. One shouldn't worry about how clean the air is for breathing or how safe the water is for drinking. That we already have such worry is shameful)

I tend to agree that infrastructure that is national in nature (cross country high speed rail, the interstate highway system, etc) are a federal responsibility. I tend to see state and local responsibility for transportation networks within their states / municipalities. If you want a peace garden in your town, then your towns folks should pay for it.

All that is considered for security, internal, national, and international; (military, national guard, emergency services, police force, fire fighting, medical response, hospitals, including a public health care alternative etc..)

I'm not sure we'd agree on how to deliver health care stuff, but I do agree with you on national defense. I tend to the think that police, fire, and rescue are better met at the local level than the federal level, but do agree that they are the responsibility of the government.

All that is considered for a top notch education (including all artistic endeavors, for to forget the various arts is to take one step towards barbarism)

I have a hard time with government in education because I see firsthand what that has turned into. Schools should be accountable to the parents and their children. But when government dictates content and controls funding, the schools aren't accountable to the parents - they're accountable to the government. In districts with more than a few schools one parent, even hundreds of parents, opposed to the programs used in their schools will be unable to force changed because the district doesn't answer to them.

Amend the Constitution to set a monetary limit on all political campaigns. Publicly fund national races with every candidate having a equal amount and equal airtime with other candidates. (this means that funding of any other kind is banned. Period. No options. No "opting out." Getting rid of the profligate waste of "advertising.")

I'll have to think about this one a bit. I have to admit that I do tend to agree with the approach you've suggested here, but I'll need to think about whether such an Amendment would compromise freedom of speech.

Ban PACs and anything resembling a lobbying organization from Washington DC. (I think this will initially cost money)

I'm not sure this would be possible. I'd say we need to severely restrict the gifts and benefits PACS and lobbyists can spend on politicians and their staffers, but I'm not sure we'd be able to ban lobbying. AAA is one of the largest lobbying organizations in the country. They don't endorse candidates, but argue for car and highway safety.

Taking care of the elderly. This means Social Security and Medicare. The system should be changed from a retirement plan for everyone to a retirement plan for those who need it. (Future Social Security payments should be ended to individuals and families whose incomes exceed 2 to three times median family income.. Payments would be stopped only after retirees had collected what they had paid into Social Security with interest. This same idea can be applied to Medicare.)

I'll have to think about this one a bit. What gives me pause is the ending of payments to those with 2 - 3 times the median family income and stopping payments because it almost seems to be a punishment for doing well and living long.

Scientific endeavor and innovation should have a public fund if proven out. (The last true medical cure was the government funded polio vaccine. Now that pharmaceuticals have taken over research...we have yet to see any permanent cures. Just expensive temporary measures that have to be taken or used every so often, which suck for the those ill, but it's "just business ." And great for the stock holder)

I'll have to think about this one as well. I'd also point out that there are a great number of vaccines (DTAP, MMR, HPV, HIB, chicken pox) which are as permanent as they can be and effectively and inexpensively manufactured and distributed by pharmaceuticals.

[Mundungus Fletc]

Originally Posted by monster_mom

I'll have to think about this one a bit. What gives me pause is the ending of payments to those with 2 - 3 times the median family income and stopping payments because it almost seems to be a punishment for doing well and living long.

What is being suggested is unfair and is as you say hitting people who have been prudent (and have had incomes at a level for their prudence to be effective). I am a great supporter of universal benefits (ie not means tested) but resources are limited and governments cannot always be fair.

There is a great deal of debate over here about old people having to sell their houses to pay for nursing home care whereas people without houses get it free. That isn't fair but I find it hard to argue that it should be any other way. We cannot allow elderly people with dementia (as an example) to go without care but why should younger people pay for it when the recipient has the capital to pay for it?

[Chris]

I'm a big supporter of funding at the highest levels on R&D, but I'd note that there's a twofold set of problems with a lack of true cures:

1. Many diseases just aren't amenable to true cures. Viruses and bacteria mutate like crazy (pharma thought it'd solved the antibiotics problems permanently in the 60's and even up to the early 90's, but then drug-resistant strains came in and there's been a scrambling to restart antibacterial programs in pharma and academia that were long dormant), and cancer's such a complex set of problems that the cure for cancer will be many small ones and not one big one.

2. Vaccines have very little profit in them, so there's little incentive to sink research $$ in pharma into vaccines.

#2 touches on one thing I firmly believe governments should invest in: they should research in areas which have a clear public benefit but don't have a clear profit benefit. (I'd even take this a step further: government should intercede and invest and / or regulate when the common good and individual profit motives conflict, like they do on smoking, etc).

**********

Moderator note: I kind of yanked the deficit thread fast, before some things had a chance to get responded to. The Congress thread or this thread can be used to reply to appropriate parts of the debate in there, and I trust people will use good judgement as to which is more appropriate a place .

[flimseycauldron]

Originally Posted by Mundungus Fletc

There is a great deal of debate over here about old people having to sell their houses to pay for nursing home care whereas people without houses get it free. That isn't fair but I find it hard to argue that it should be any other way. We cannot allow elderly people with dementia (as an example) to go without care but why should younger people pay for it when the recipient has the capital to pay for it?

With individual liberty there also comes individual responsibility. By denying nursing home care and making the recipient pay for it then you are effectively double punishing those recipients. They had to pay for their elders and now have to pay for themselves?

The whole premise behind tax payer funded social benefits is that if you need it it will be available to you. People don't pay taxes out of the kindess of their hearts. They pay because their government forces them to pay with the promise that those benefits will be available to them.

If those funds were not available to them would it not fall under the heading of taxation without representation?

[Wab]

Originally Posted by flimseycauldron

The whole premise behind tax payer funded social benefits is that if you need it it will be available to you. People don't pay taxes out of the kindess of their hearts. They pay because their government forces them to pay with the promise that those benefits will be available to them.

But that is making the argument that welfare benefits are a right and not a safety net.

For all welfare there should be some form of means testing, however assets such as a primary residence should not be part of the calculation.

[flimseycauldron]

Originally Posted by Wab

But that is making the argument that welfare benefits are a right and not a safety net.

There's a difference between a safety net and simply a net. There are people who live their entire lives on government subsidies.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by flimseycauldron

There's a difference between a safety net and simply a net. There are people who live their entire lives on government subsidies.

I think a judicious use of government money is rooting out waste and / or fraud, so that people can evaluate whether these people who spend their entire lives on subsidies are legitimate or just trying to freeload. I'm in favor of making sure that fraud departments at various agencies are fully funded and empowered (with a proper appeals process in place to swiftly render verdicts in case of disputes).

[Wab]

Originally Posted by flimseycauldron

There's a difference between a safety net and simply a net. There are people who live their entire lives on government subsidies.

Inter-generational welfare dependency is relatively rare and combatting it effectively (without allowing people to starve) is an expensive, difficult, long-term and therefore politically unpopular.

Of course, legislating and enforcing minimum wage laws which mean that a person working a full-time job can support and average family would also reduce the "attractiveness" of welfare. (And speaking of someone who has had long term bouts on benefits, it's no picnic.)

It's a similar situation with, for instance, agricultural subsidies. US sugar subsidies to the local industry actually makes sugar almost twice the price it would otherwise be, but it's easier to leave it that way.