Chevy Sonic

[Dan Sarandrea (Phila)]

Re #1.....Oh, I agree that the conventional wisdom follows what you posted about the MidEast (ME).

But as you posted "never mind the facts." Which is now painfully obvious that USA involvement in the ME has nothing to do with facts and is probably severally attributable to hubristic politicians wanting to exert power by playing on the world stage (there's nothing like a ME peace deal to put a President in the lead for next year's Nobel Peace prize), the real influence of the military industrial complex, and the influence (IMO overrated) of the so-called Israel lobby.

So logically that conventional arguement of energy independence getting us out of the ME frying pan does not hold water because that's not why we're there in the first place.

#2. Well all I can say is that my perfect world:devil: of not spending all that money in the first place trumps your perfect world of overspending and scrambling to pay the bill now that it looks like the collection agencies are going to lower the boom.

#3. I think the infrastructure "needs" are not some unexpected calamity that has befallen us and thus require a collective emergency reaction. I divide infrastructure needs into two areas---"A" being maintaining the stuff you have and "B" being building the new stuff you think you need.

Under that line of thinking, "A" should have been built into federal/state/local budgets already with existing revenue streams (road tolls, fuel taxes, registration fees, etc) to support the needs. If any given government entity was underfunding their maintenance requirements, I hardly see the justification for the rest of the country to pay for the shortfall just to make sure that (for example) a 50 foot bridge over a small stream in Northeast Philadelphia does not collapse into the stream.

The problem with "B" is that government money is spent on the decisions of politicians, which are influenced only by politics and not reality. As the founders held, I think that the closer the decisions are made to the people who are actually paying for them, the better the decisions will be.

 

[usta in Portland]

Let's see here....

The comments about the ME and the logic of our continued inthralment there are well taken and mirror my own on points of actual fact, but the Realpolitick issue is that since the Carter Doctrine the Persian Gulf has become militarized in response to the perception of its strategic energy importance ( it goes beyond just the US and involves our so-called allies in Western Europe and Japan as well) giving any and all actors in the region some significant claim on our attention, our defence and our money. Obama had the perfect opportunity to move away from this whole mispicturing in Libya but decided that a liberal war of intervention trumped the strict application of 'national interest'-Gates told him not to get involved so he really has no cover on that one IMHO. So, yes the actual situation hardly supports the claim for energy independence argument, but if we are ever to remove the cost of the ME from our spreadsheets there needs to be a rationale that some leader may eventually adopt (I continue to not hold my breath). By the way, given that we are damned near independence as a trading block with Canada and Mexico that would be close enough for my tastes.

2) I guess 'perfect world arguments are not particularly useful. In fact in my perfect world we wouldn't be in debt to begin with.

3) I should probably be a bit more specific about the infrastructure thing. I agree with you that the ongoing maintenance issue should, and actually probably is, mostly wrapped into existing revenue streams.
The infrastructure I have mainly in mind is the grid and air traffic support and information tech(broadband access) Of these the grid is probably the most important, The country is continuing to grow and the power transmission structure has been woefully underinvested. I don't see how, if the investment hasn't already been made over the years how or why the delinquent entities are going to step up now.
It is a subject I was pretty conversant in about a year ago but have since lost most of the details to failing memory, but the strong impression that remains is that this part of the infrastructure issue is not some mere fever dream-it has the potential to become a material stumbling block economically in one way or another.

As far as what the 'Founders' thought-they are dead and were in error about enough things to make them unreliable guides in every instance. Besides I don't recall where in the Constitution it says anything specifically about the efficacy of local decison making as against the Federal government. Experience would tell us that this is probably more often true than not but not always and some problems are not purely local and in an increasingly connected world 'local' may not be an entirely useful term.