Cut now, pay later

I recently wrote about the Free State Project centered in New Hampshire in which members declared that the gov't should not run assistance programs. Instead, those programs should be run by citizens and private organizations. The members backed up their claim by being active participants in such groups and seeing the benefits of community.

But I asked a series of questions about whether that idea could spread nationally, covering all the needs the gov't currently meets.

I had lunch yesterday with my friend and debate partner who said my questions are right on target. From research he has seen (no details provided and I didn't ask):

* Private organizations simply cannot raise enough money to meet all of the need.

* Many important needs, currently met by gov't, would not be met by private orgs. because citizens would tend to gravitate towards certain orgs. and ignore others.

My friend said people in the Free State Project believe: We're talking about my money and I'll make sure it is spent properly. In contrast he (and I) believe in community and it is important for the broad spectrum of needs to be met. All of us have an interest in all of the needs being met. The decision-making bodies that are designed to make sure all those needs are met is our various levels of elected government.

As I made my way to class today I saw some big posters in the hall. The college is the home site for a social justice organization (they offer a strong social justice degree). Alas, I don't remember which organization and the posters were gone when I headed home. Alas again, I don't remember the exact slogan (though I think this version is pretty good), but it was something like this…

One poster showed a pregnant teen in which the head was replaced with a photo of a toddler's head. The words beside the head were "Cut now…" and beside the swollen teen's belly, "Pay later." In another poster the heavily tattooed torso of a gang-banger had a similarly replaced head with the same words by the head and torso.

That makes for a fine introduction to a posting by Dave of the blog 4 Quarters, 10 Dimes. I wrote about his opinions of the GOP, which brought huzzahs from my friend and debate partner. In a previous post (which I haven't read) Dave had a short section saying he is a fiscal conservative, with not much explanation beyond that. Since that seemed at odds with his previous posts (including the one I mentioned) Dave wrote a full post to explain exactly what he meant. What follows is my summary of his thoughts.

If you aren't willing to create a way of paying for a program, it isn't worth doing. Note that the wars of the last decade were fought without a way to pay for them. The flip side: if it is worth doing, pay for it. The budget does not have to be balanced in any given year. Sometimes a deficit is needed to improve the overall economy. But an allocation of money does need a payment plan.

We live in a democracy. We may not approve of all the things our leaders put in the budget. Deal with it -- shut up or work to get the laws changed.

We must spend money to make money. Stretch that a bit: We must spend money to improve our circumstances and not all of our improvement will be in a fatter wallet. The definition of whether it is worth doing is that the improvement is worth more than the money.

When I pay taxes for good roads and I get good roads to drive on and perhaps avoid a front-end alignment on my car.

When I pay taxes to my city I get a stronger community. I pay federal taxes that are given to cities across the country because my country is stronger when all of its cities are strong, not just the one I live in.

I pay taxes for job training programs so others are well off, are in a more stable situation, and stay out of mischief. I pay taxes for education so that others can share the burden of upholding the community so that it can come to my aid when my resource fail. I pay taxes for after-school sports because they are less expensive than crimes and prison and make my community less dangerous, even if I'm not the one shooting hoops. I pay taxes for education because the kid I see getting off the school bus may someday treat me for cancer. I pay taxes for education because knowledge is better protection than armies.

What about waste and fraud? That must be rooted out and eliminated -- as is done in a corporation. And programs must be periodically evaluated for effectiveness and modified accordingly.

Says Dave, "People are an investment. You invest money and resources into them, and you get a functioning society out of them."

All that is in my own self-interest. Which is sharply different from greed.