Submitted by Jim (not verified) on May 8, 2008 - 3:50pm.
There's a lot here to chew on, and some of it goes over well, some not so much. Still, we need to ask ourselves whether the responsibility for much of this lies with the government.
I agree with the pre-K investment for disadvantaged areas, particularly because poor and single-parent households can't make the time investment with the kids as easily. But my wife and I invest a lot of time on my (almost 2-year old) son, and that attention is well-repaid. I don't need federal intervention, and it would appall me to learn that tax dollars were being spent for relatively well-off families like mine.
The China point- well, yes, they better have plans to deal with China's growing clout, but I think you presume way, way too much. China will only reach the heights of Britain in the 19th or America in the 20th century if they liberalize their political system substantially. Their current growth is primarily input driven, rather than innovation or productivity driven. That will slacken if they can't find a way to evolve into a liberal democracy. If they do that, then our worries should be a lot less.
I agree with what you say about innovation, but be careful how you ask the gov't to solve it. We ought to have a more expansive immigration policy for H1-B visas, certainly, to keep the bright minds that our universities educate here in the US. Otherwise, the main way you facilitate innovation is to lower the regulatory and tax barriers to entrepreneurial risk, and keep them low.
Your entitlement point is entirely correct. Not sure of the exact mix of tax hike/benefit reduction, but it needs to be fixed. Yesterday.
I'd prefer to keep the government out of regulating our private behavior. The main problem in health care is the fact that employer-based insurance tends to create a disconnect between health care consumers and the payer, interfering with the price mechanism for regulating supply and demand. That also tends to freeze out individuals who are self- or uninsured, since those with insurance place higher-than-normal demands on the system, and raise the costs. Eliminating the absurd tax preference for employer-based insurance would encourge more individual choice, leading to disintermediation and, eventually, more rational healthcare choices.
The water issue is a big one, probably the most significant environmental issue today. However, I think you misdiagnose the problem. We have the technology to clean water for drinking. What these folks around the world need is the wherewithal to use that technology. The greatest help we can give them is to open up our markets, especially agricultural markets, to trade with poorer nations, to allow them to develop economies that can sustain clean water usage.
Trey, I think you're right about mothers taking time off to bond with their children in the first year. My wife did just that, and stayed home even longer because she loved it so much. I suspect it impacts that pre-K development point made above; schools are less important when parents are heavily involved with the kids. I tend to disagree that the government should subsidize it, though. I grew up with one working parent and a stay-at-home mom, and there were years (most of my early ones, in fact) when we could really have used the extra income. Ultimately, though, i think it was best for all of us, as a family, that my folks chose not to maximize income, but have my mom around when we were all young, just as my wife is currently doing. Everyone makes that decision for themselves, though, and I think it's one of those tough choices parents should be relied upon to make, without government intervention.
Well meaning, but...
There's a lot here to chew on, and some of it goes over well, some not so much. Still, we need to ask ourselves whether the responsibility for much of this lies with the government.
I agree with the pre-K investment for disadvantaged areas, particularly because poor and single-parent households can't make the time investment with the kids as easily. But my wife and I invest a lot of time on my (almost 2-year old) son, and that attention is well-repaid. I don't need federal intervention, and it would appall me to learn that tax dollars were being spent for relatively well-off families like mine.
The China point- well, yes, they better have plans to deal with China's growing clout, but I think you presume way, way too much. China will only reach the heights of Britain in the 19th or America in the 20th century if they liberalize their political system substantially. Their current growth is primarily input driven, rather than innovation or productivity driven. That will slacken if they can't find a way to evolve into a liberal democracy. If they do that, then our worries should be a lot less.
I agree with what you say about innovation, but be careful how you ask the gov't to solve it. We ought to have a more expansive immigration policy for H1-B visas, certainly, to keep the bright minds that our universities educate here in the US. Otherwise, the main way you facilitate innovation is to lower the regulatory and tax barriers to entrepreneurial risk, and keep them low.
Your entitlement point is entirely correct. Not sure of the exact mix of tax hike/benefit reduction, but it needs to be fixed. Yesterday.
I'd prefer to keep the government out of regulating our private behavior. The main problem in health care is the fact that employer-based insurance tends to create a disconnect between health care consumers and the payer, interfering with the price mechanism for regulating supply and demand. That also tends to freeze out individuals who are self- or uninsured, since those with insurance place higher-than-normal demands on the system, and raise the costs. Eliminating the absurd tax preference for employer-based insurance would encourge more individual choice, leading to disintermediation and, eventually, more rational healthcare choices.
The water issue is a big one, probably the most significant environmental issue today. However, I think you misdiagnose the problem. We have the technology to clean water for drinking. What these folks around the world need is the wherewithal to use that technology. The greatest help we can give them is to open up our markets, especially agricultural markets, to trade with poorer nations, to allow them to develop economies that can sustain clean water usage.
Trey, I think you're right about mothers taking time off to bond with their children in the first year. My wife did just that, and stayed home even longer because she loved it so much. I suspect it impacts that pre-K development point made above; schools are less important when parents are heavily involved with the kids. I tend to disagree that the government should subsidize it, though. I grew up with one working parent and a stay-at-home mom, and there were years (most of my early ones, in fact) when we could really have used the extra income. Ultimately, though, i think it was best for all of us, as a family, that my folks chose not to maximize income, but have my mom around when we were all young, just as my wife is currently doing. Everyone makes that decision for themselves, though, and I think it's one of those tough choices parents should be relied upon to make, without government intervention.