Priorities in the wrong ballpark

by Joan Vennochi

(snip)
This year, the Boston Red Sox successfully lobbied legislators and Governor Mitt Romney for $55 million to beautify and upgrade the Fenway area. This is the same ballclub that is spending $51.1 million simply to talk to a Japanese pitching ace about coming to Boston and would put another $40 million to $50 million on the table to sign Daisuke Matsuzaka.

Now, as the year draws to a close, Romney is slashing $425 million from the state operating budget. The cuts address some pet legislative projects that could be defined as pork. But some cuts also punish the poorest, sickest, oldest, and neediest.
(snip)

(snip)
"Sometimes it's not sexy," said Judy Meredith, a longtime human services advocate, who is working to rally supporters to fight the Romney budget cuts. ". . . Sometimes it's the same, old same old -- making sure the basic state infrastructure for taking care of people who can't take of themselves is in place."

In other words, "infrastructure" means more than streets, parking garages, and train platforms -- the kind considered vital to the Fenway/Longwood area. Meredith is talking about social infrastructure -- paths and networks built by government to connect citizens with services they need. It, too, generates benefits. Society is richer when it looks out for those in need and provides pathways to independence.
(snip)


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/11/23/priorities_in_the_wrong_ballpark/

The specifics talked about here are Mass centric but provide what I think a typical example of rethug economics/gov policy.

big commercial interests (often sports teams) extort public funds to line their pockets. We saw it here in Washington with the Mariners (gotta tear down that 20 year old stadium - there's no room for luxury suites) The Seahawks and now the Sonics. Meanwhile, funding for people with developmental disabilities has been cut and the waiting list for services grows.

I see this phenomenon as a non-partisan problem. This happened under the last two Democratic governors.

The rewards never come close to what it costs them.

Republicans have made Tax a dirty word, when it should be understood as being a person's civic duty--their chance to contribute. To keep their government working, provide for the common defense, and help others with social programs, a "safety net", and 'infrastructure' improvements which helps all (actually, all of them help everyone (by providing jobs, improving the environment, providing a justice system (such as it is), and many, many other ways).

Our problems now, less involve too much taxes as too little. Inefficient spending is always a contributor, as is spending on the wrong things (IRAQ? Well, it's necessary--thanks the GWB). There is a fine balance between too much government and not enough, but, at least for now, we need what we have. When facing a budget, rather than trying to squeeze it to death (inevitably harming programs needed for the poor--and most of us are closer to that than we realize), why not restore the taxes to at least a properly adjusted variant of what they where when George-let was appointed President (2000)? At least for those deemed relatively "wealthy"?

For obviously, there are two sides to the equation. Spending/Costs versus Revenues. The biggest reason we're spiraling around the bowl and watching the Debt grow at seemingly astronomical rates is... the revenue side. Drastic tax cuts. Before we cut spending and cut needed programs, we should restore taxes on those who have more than enough--thanks to our great nation--anyway.

That can be seen even here. People went crazy at the mere mention of National Service, it didn't matter that it wasn't MILITARY SERVICE, they are totally unwilling to give anything to their Country! Slavery they mewl, indentured servitude. "Fuck you old bastard" I was told by one of our members. NO, if our Country is relying upon people such as these, there isn't very much to give thanks for.

I found the recent week a real eye opener, taxes? People aren't willing to give a damned thing for the privilege of living here. It's not our fault we were born here, we should just bitch about it. For the first time I feel like the guys on the other side have a valid point about us Are we the hate America crowd? If we aren't willing to contribute to serving her what else are we?

edit: My point is those without money are unwilling to give time.

Even given the edit.

Community mindedness, self-sacrifice, and even merely being of charitable nature are indeed becoming foreign notions. That certainly includes any notion of paying taxes, as well as any ideas about a "national service" requirement.

As for Democrats "hating America" or always "whining". No. Democrats, by and large, are merely highlighting the many flaws and transgressions in which America has failed to live up to the ideals the word "America" has come to represent. It's because we love our country we demand that she live up to her best self!

I'm not familiar with whatever threads or arguments about "national service" you mention. No doubt there are many--both Democrats and Republicans--who wouldn't want to face any such requirements--unless it pays very well. Though it does seem there are more Republicans in our "volunteer" military, it's probably a result of many things, not the least of which is general ideological orientation (being more aggressive/violent, not just having more likely grown up in an environment with a family history of military service).

The big problem, as I see it, is that being "selfish" (looking out for "number one"; "getting ahead by any means") has been becoming a more accepted part of the American Ideal. I see that as being the fault of Republicans in general. Their insistence on "free market" to the extent that in "business" it's okay to act unethically--anything to get ahead. Their insistence on "rugged individualism" or individual accomplishment--which again promotes getting while the getting is good, taking care of one's self, winning at any cost... Republicans, via their project to cut taxes actually help to teach people that they should be selfish; taxes are bad--government that takes your money is bad, you should keep your money--who better than you to decide how to spend your money. Our modern age, where self-gratification is of utmost importance; entertainments, recreation, etc... it's all to avoid work, struggle, discomfort/pain. It seems one could say, to some extent American's are "spoiled". Spoiled people who are most often concerned with their own comforts--react strongly to any suggestion that might involve having to do unrewarding work, facing discomfort, being put to any inconvenience... especially for the benefit of others/the group. The size of the population also means that people begin to feel faceless, unimportant, uncared for (individually) such that it seems almost a "rational" decision to place one's own personal well being as a priority over that of "community". Republicans work to spread intolerance and bigotry which also serves to make some people resist doing anything that would benefit groups other than their own--even if it benefits their own as well. Then too, consider the growth in the gap between haves and have nots; a Republican specialty. If people fear not having enough, they could be forgiven any lack of sense of community. Many (including those who are among the "haves") might ask "What has the community done for me lately?" Thanks to the Republicans, and their cuts in government programs and budget cuts, it's probably not done very much. For that matter, "community" hardly even exists anymore--most people don't even know their own neighbors.

Many people simply overlook the myriad ways in which living in the United States has benefited them; most have never been anywhere else (foreign or third world countries), so how can they really get a feel for it? It's many things, no doubt.

Most of all, though, is a short-sighted, narrow-minded selfishness.

My lament is that I believe a form of required National Service would be of tremendous benefit to the national character. I marvel every time I go to the Veteran's Administration, take any group of Veterans and place them together. In no time they will have a conversation going as if they are long time acquaintances.

That was the biggest benefit of the military was the mixing of all the disparate elements of America. But the majority obviously thinks it is a lousy idea, non military service or not. So be it, I am only a single citizen and my thoughts on the matter are only my own.

Here in the Twin Cities, the Twins and the Vikings and the Gophers all want new stadiums. Separate new stadiums.

Adherents of the sports religion want to subsidize all these with public money.

Meanwhile, there's "no money" for libraries, schools, or tranist. :grr:

If Karl Marx were alive today, he'd say, "Professional sports are the opiate of the people."

At least people involved with a religion do something. Pro sports nuts just sit slack-jawed in front of the TV and seem to be unable to work themselves up about anything but their team's fortunes, unable to learn anything except sports statistics.