Beavah

Yah, nice turn in the topic. That we have to help is part of our oath, and for those of us from various religious backgrounds, part of our faith. How we help is a matter of tactics and requires good judgment. Came across this fascinatin' piece this week by one of da former heads of USAID in Somalia. It's a wonderful description of how well-meaning but inept foreign aid contributed to the disaster of Somalia. I'd encourage those with da patience to really understand somethin' to give it a read How the Culture of Aid Gave Us the Tragedy of Somalia http://michaelmaren.com/1993/01/170/ One of da things ScoutFish and Eamonn and this article all point out is that help is, at its root, a personal thing. Yeh have to really understand the person and group and culture you are trying to help. That's why personal charity by those who are committed to workin' with their hands as well as their dollars is always best, because they know the folks, or at least learn from personal experience. Eamonn knows who needs mental health help, and who is scamming, and who just needs a roof and some job contacts. No government "rule" from afar can figure da difference between all those. It's the difference between a Scoutmaster who knows his boys and an office worker in Irving. If yeh want to help a kid, you'd best listen to the Scoutmaster. That's not to say there's no place for governments or NGOs or scouting associations. Lots of problems are just too big for individuals to address without coordination or outside resources. But yeh best be careful, eh? Whether it's government or an NGO or da BSA, it's easy to use da needs of kids to do large scale fundraising for the primary benefit of da agency, with only a fraction of it ever supporting da people in the field who know what's what. Or worse, da folks in the field aren't listened to, because the "national" group are da big shots, and confuse fundraising and handling money with knowledge and ability to help. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... So I'd counsel ScoutFish that tryin' to substitute your own judgment for that of a child or adult's physician has all kinds of potential downside and no upside. If a child has an Rx for any psych agent, yeh don't substitute your own judgment and say, "Well, because your responses may be dulled by your ADHD medication you can't stay in camp.". At best, you're risking a PR disaster. At worst, you're risking the camp's license to operate and a complicated, unnecessary, and hard to defend suit. If it's a unit instead of a camp, most competent COs should remove you as a leader. It's just foolish. Yeh can't quote a private policy in da face of a public law, and yeh can't substitute amateur judgment for professional judgment. This stuff is complex and full of pitfalls. Do not rely on da generic, amateur statements in G2SS. Do not rely on your own amateur opinion. Turn to genuine, local experts and follow their guidance. B

"Potential" my eye. The debt is there. No, it's not. You are looking at a projection, based on current data and a whole raft of assumptions includin' demographic and economic "models". Such things are useful for making predictions, but there are all kinds of problems too, eh? If yeh were to try to model da U.S. economy and government expenditures in 1911 and predict things in 1941, how good do yeh think you'd do? You'd have to predict a world war, a huge stock bubble and economic collapse, and a run up to da second world war, plus several disruptive technologies like electrification, commercial air travel and da like. Why should it be any different in 2011 to 2041? And a relatively small change in revenue now wipes da whole projected debt out because of the multiplying effect of compound interest over time. AT&T was the largest business in the world Because it was formed as a government-protected and regulated monopoly. I just don't agree that the government should be doin' that. It's not that far removed from socialism, eh? Yep, investments in basic research in non-military areas pay big dividends, whether it's Bell Labs and da transistor or NASA and satellite capability or university research and da development of nanotechnology. It's telling, though, that without a government-protected monopoly funding it, Bell Labs / Lucent couldn't survive on its own. Basic research is one of the areas that government does better than private industry, because yeh need the protection from competition to make it happen. And Charley Rangel and Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff and William Jefferson... Yah, yah. And Bernie Madoff and AIG and all the many wonderful private CEOs and quant folks at Lehman and Bear Stearns and Countrywide and Enron and LTCM, and those responsible folks at British Petroleum and da brilliant decisions by the execs at GM and the 1980s savings and loans and da industries that love to dump toxics and create superfund sites and da junk bond leveraged buyout guys and on and on... Yeh find bad actors and incompetence in both da private and public sector. Only differences are that it used to be da ones in the private sector would get fired or fail, and only leave a mess for the public to clean up that they weren't personally liable for because that was da "corporate person" who mad the decision, not them as individuals. Now, they don't seem to get fired or fail either. We bail 'em out earlier and let 'em keep their capital in addition to their profits. Bonds are available to buy at low cost because the G keeps borrowing and there's an abundant supply of money to buy bonds, as well as CD's. Huh? If the government keeps borrowing, that increases the supply of bonds relative to demand, so the yields on bonds should go UP (the government should have to pay more interest to increase demand). The fact is that yields are falling, which means there's more demand than supply. That money can choose to buy anything - stocks, corporate bonds, mortgage derivatives, a new factory, pesos, etc. - not just bonds and CDs. It's goin' to treasuries and gold because da system is unstable and risky, and it's da tea party Congress that has made the system seem unstable. Markets like predictability and stability, eh? It's usually not a tax by itself that's an issue, it's the instability and arguing over it that makes it hard to plan as an individual or corporation. A stable gas tax would be a boon for the auto industry. A stable health care system would be a great thing, because it would allow corporations and individuals to make decisions rather than lock up money in hedging. Threats of default and undisclosed $trillions of cuts mean that yeh have to hold cash and hedge, yeh can't commit to investing in one direction because it's too uncertain. The Tea Partiers in congress are so completely inept at business that if they wanted to they couldn't be doin' a better job of hurtin' the country. If you feel that a lack of confidence in government's ability to fix the economy -- uncertainty, has no effect on decisions to invest, can you find anyone who agrees with you?... On the other paw, if you see government as the answer, it does not matter if private investment takes place and it may be very bad to restrict government spending. Yeh do realize these two statements are contradictory, right? They're the same paw. If think confidence in government ability to fix things affects the economy, then you believe that government is the answer. I personally don't believe government can fix the economy, and therefore I don't believe government is the answer. But like I said, I think there are proper roles for government to play, in policing/regulating, in basic research, in infrastructure. Those things create stability and reduce friction, which allows private markets to function.

Yah, yah, there are always ways to rationalize doin' the wrong thing, eh? Much as we occasionally go off debatin' political issues for fun in this forum, let's keep scouting and the BSA and its symbols free from politics. Surely an Eagle Scout knows enough about citizenship to come up with other, more appropriate and effective ways of supportin' a politician they like, eh? And surely Governor Perry, as an Eagle Scout, would understand the need to keep scoutin' non-partisan and non-political. Beavah

Yah, Federalist, welcome to da forums! I haven't seen anybody here support da notion of smokin' pot around kids, or even take a side strongly supportin' the medical marijuana laws. Maybe I missed somethin'. I think what we have is da prospect of camp staff and volunteers having to deal with a very complex issue that involves privacy issues and the law of the state, one where there are conflicts between medical professionals and laws and people of good will. We generally tell scouts that it's a duty to obey the law, eh? And to respect others' privacy, and help others and such. And that it's a duty to keep Clean from improper use of drugs. I'd say recreational use, but we allow recreational use of some drugs as a society, even by children. These are all very hard things to negotiate. Remember, scout camps are not just private entities, eh? They are, in most states, state-licensed child care facilities. They cannot operate without approval from the state, which includes compliance with state law and regulation. I'm an old conservative, states-rights sort of fellow. Medical licensing, medical protocols and such are state- and community- based, not federal. And we have to face da fact that the medical bodies are lookin' at MJ more closely, marinol has been reclassified as Schedule II, and the DEA is considering a petition to move MJ to the same level. Nurses groups have supported medical marijuana use, and I personally have a lot of respect for nurses. They know their patient care, better than many docs. So despite my aversion to how ill-considered, poorly implemented, and just plain dumb most of the medical marijuana laws are, and how they seem to be wide-open as a means of providing recreational pot for at least college-aged adults, that's a legal and enforcement problem. It doesn't change da fact that this is just a booby trap for scouters, and one that they'd best approach not by quotin' some G2SS text but by talkin' seriously with their Chartered Org., their SE, and very competent local legal counsel. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Hiya evilleramsfan! I actually don't know all that much about Governor Perry or his positions, but I reckon da current Republican presidential field could use some broadening. That having been said, there's a reason why da BSA doesn't like its trademarked terms like Eagle Scout to be used to endorse any political candidate (or soft drink or anything else). That's bad for Scouting. We're not a political movement, we're a patriotic movement. So I think yeh should consider whether the values of an Eagle Scout include using the BSA's image and trademarks in a way that isn't appropriate. Yah, yah, yeh can wait for da BSA to threaten you with a trademark infringement action and in the mean time cause a lot of controversy and grief, but does that really fit with the Oath and Law? Let's keep scouting for the kids free from politicking, eh? How about just settin' up "Patriotic-Minded Citizens for Rick Perry" or somesuch? Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Your analysis does not consider the $20-30,000,000,000,000 (different "economists" = different estimates) in "unfunded mandates." Yah, it does. Yeh need to understand da difference between current deficits and potential future liabilities. There's a legitimate long-term concern from structural deficits, as I said. But estimates of potential future liabilities are like estimates of future global warming effects, eh? They aren't all that reliable. If yeh were to take the deficit of 1944 and project it 30 years into the future in terms of "unfunded potential future debt", it wouldn't have just been 2 times GDP like your figure above, it would have been closer to 30 times GDP. But that wasn't reality, was it? And if I "bungled," I guess S&P did too when they just lowered the credit rating (risk rating) of the United States of America, driving up the cost of our debt. Yeh need to read da S&P report, eh? There was no technical reason da U.S. couldn't service the current debt load. The downgrade was because it became apparent that there was political instability, including the refusal to raise revenues to cover expenses and the willingness by a substantial minority of legislators to consider default. You'll notice that Treasury Bond yields have dropped, eh? It is cheaper for us to borrow than it was a month ago. The market isn't worried about our debt. The market is worried about our short- to mid-term economy and high unemployment. When you borrow money it's not other people's money. It's yours. You are on the line to repay, although the creditor's remedies are limited. When Congress spends your borrowed money it's other people's money because the politicians have no personal responsibility for repaying it. What are yeh talkin' about? When yeh borrow money, it's still da bank's. They can come and foreclose on your property. When Congress issues treasury bonds on da full faith and credit of the nation to borrow money, there is an obligation to repay it. Only the Tea Partiers in Congress think that they can just default on that promise if they wish. I simply have no faith that the government, local, state, federal, D, or R has better judgment than the private sector about where to spend money to create private sector jobs. I agree with yeh completely. Da government role should be limited to law enforcement (including regulation), basic or high-risk research, infrastructure development, defense/disaster response, etc. Compare Bell Labs to even NASA -- no contest (That would be the Bell Labs that the feds tacitly connived with AT&T to destroy. Of course much of Bell Labs' work was supported by federal grants, they never took on projects that even approached da scope of NASA, and the breakup of AT&T led to a free market in communication that produced innovation, lower costs and increased services for consumers, the internet, etc. I can't speak to Kaiser vs. the Navy Yard. I can speak to all of da private contractors in Iraq who were absolute disasters, and did a real disservice to our men and women in uniform. Point is yeh can find good and bad government efforts, and good and bad private efforts. I don't want our military replaced by private contractors, thanks very much. Nor any other government function that's important. What's worst is the uncertainty. Money is in huge supply, hence the low cost of money. But those with money are afraid to invest it because they have no confidence in government, and neither do the citizenry. That's a nice theory, eh? Again, it doesn't fit the data. People seem very willing to invest in the government (Treasury bonds) because there is so much demand for them that the yield is at historic lows. Right now, people with money are afraid to invest it in private industry and the private capital markets, because the unemployment rate and prospects of lower government spending combine to mean that there will be lower demand and economic contraction. Da only sector of the economy that's healthy right now, ironically, is luxury merchandise. Rich bankers have money to buy yachts. Why should they have confidence? There is no strong leadership in either party that I can see. Obama raised so much hope in the majority of a departure from politics as usual and politics got worse. He is into leading from behind. And Congress gets lower performance ratings than the terrible ratings the Executive Branch gets -- and deserves low ratings. Scouting is going to have lots of opportunity to be helpful to our fellow humans. Yah, gotta agree with yeh there, too! Da thing is, I don't believe that government "leadership" is responsible for private sector economics the way you seem to. That depends on lots of other stuff. Oh, sure, when da government fails in its duty as policeman and regulator, people get robbed and da robbers get away with it. That hurts the economy, because people who have been robbed can't buy stuff. And sure, the government is a pretty big employer and an even bigger buyer, so when it's buying it can make up for some weakness in da regular market (or when it stops buying, it can cause some weakness). But that's short- to medium- term at most. Long term, the economy is on us, eh? Whether our population is well-educated, innovative, working hard, investing capital and such. Has nothing at all to do with government "leadership". Has to do with whether we reward innovators and workers or just CEOs and attorneys. So if yeh really want to improve da economy, don't look to the government or da politicians for leadership. Look at the low-quality, musical chair, patent-lawsuit-crazed, over-compensated nitwits that corporate boards are hiring instead of investing in research, creativity, and da people who do the work. Beavah

Yah, perdidochas, I agree with yeh about some taxes, and that it's a risk for consumption taxes so they're best used on things yeh want to cut, like smoking and gasoline use. But when we imposed da Bush tax cuts we severely dropped revenue, so I reckon that reversing 'em it's a good bet will increase revenue. Now personally, I didn't think my taxes in 1999 were excessive and unreasonable; they were in fact lower than they were for most of da previous 30+ years, so I'm not sure where SeattlePioneer is comin' from. Tawhawk, I agree with a fair bit of what yeh wrote. We're probably not that far apart. And some of us here are old enough to remember Senator Proxmire, eh? We don't have to Google "Golden Fleece", we were there when he introduced it . He did a good job with some of 'em, especially the military which he knew well, but quite a few times he botched his analysis of science projects and had to apologize later. He just didn't understand da science as well as he understood da military. I do think we should give Reagan some credit for da Soviet collapse. Not St. Ronald, but at least an "attaboy". I also think yeh bungled da WW2 to 2010 deficit comparison because yeh didn't take into account general economic / GDP growth. The WW2 deficits were a vastly larger percentage of da country's economic output. It's like da difference between a fellow makin' 30K a year putting $20K on his credit card a fellow making $500K a year charging $60K on his credit card. Yah, it's three times as much in dollars but nowhere near as much in risk. Spending other people's money can be efficient or inefficient. I borrowed lots of other people's money to buy my first house for Mrs. Beavah. I did my homework and it worked out well. Companies that issue bonds borrow lots of other people's money to grow their businesses faster than they could by just reinvestin' the profits. That creates jobs and economic expansion. Overall, countries with robust banking systems that allow folks to borrow and spend other people's money vastly outperform those that do not. And many federal agencies are professional and efficient, so long as congress and da whitehouse don't micromanage. Every Golden Fleece has a corresponding GPS - a high expense, high risk investment that paid huge public dividends. NASA did well over the years, as has the CDC; the FAA's safety record is tops in the world, on and on. Yeh can point to good agencies and bad ones, successes and failures. But much of da rest I agree with, eh? We do have a long-term structural deficit which needs to be addressed. At da same time, as you point out, we have a short- to medium- term chronic unemployment problem that needs to be addressed. And, truth be told, we're in da midst of a long-term economic shift that we're not ready for - the worldwide loss of middle-income manufacturing and clerical jobs, in a nation where only 30% of da population are prepared to be successful in professional / technical jobs. So I get da whole "party of No" thing, eh? Yeh want to address the structural deficit. I agree. I haven't heard any coherent plans to do that out of da anti-tax/Tea Party crowd, other than just default and throw us into The Mother of Great Depressions. So what's the plan? The sum and total of all da Golden Fleece awards over 30 years doesn't get yeh enough to pay Medicare for a week. What's the plan to help all those workers with medium-term chronic unemployment? Da teabagger plan is to cut the government benefits and push 'em into poverty, on da theory that will make 'em look harder for a job. We're talkin' about scouts and scouters in my area, mind. Oh, yah, and da second half of the plan is trash da country's credit rating and reputation to depress investment and job creation. Da democrats aren't doin' much better, eh? They can only muster temporary payments to get 'em by, but nothin' to actually address the problem. So what's the plan? And what's the plan for da long term economic shift? America is still da biggest manufacturer in the world; we only get a small amount of cheap household goods from China. Offshoring has played a role, but da real story is automation and efficiency. We don't need to spend union wages on boltin' things together anymore, or on harvesting crops, or on filing stuff in offices. We never will again. So what are we goin' to do with the 70% of da country who aren't skilled enough to hold jobs that offer a middle-class wage? They can't all flip burgers or mop floors. Neither da teabaggers nor the Dems have a plan. Only difference is that da teabaggers want to cut education, because that makes sense when da majority of the population is underskilled. So what's the plan? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm.... Not sure I quite got all that, Gunny, but I like your family analogy a lot. Let's flesh it out a bit, eh? Da family has been putting up grandma in da spare bedroom and helpin' her with her medical expenses, and those together account for more than half da income. They have a security system that costs tens of thousands of dollars, and also protects three neighborhood parks, two abandoned lots, the kids being tormented by da bully a few blocks over, and dad's favorite gas station across the lake. . But they feel they really need it, and it's a source of pride. Oh, yah, and last year young Alan and his buddy Phil accidentally burned down half da house. Mom thought he was old enough not to need direct supervision anymore and let him get out of sight, so he gambled with derivatives played with matches. It was awful but da family did what it had to do and borrowed a bunch to get through the crisis. It's still a sore spot, but dad values his marriage more than assigning blame. What's da family to do? Now, yeh could drop da cable TV service. That would save a few bucks. But Al uses da cable Internet for his high school homework, and yeh want him to do well in school. The money yeh save wouldn't even come close to payin' for grandma. Yeh could stop putting a few bucks each week in the church collection basket that helps other needy families, but that wouldn't even come close either. Yeh could stop payin' grandma's medical expenses and put her out on da street. That would work. Young Ryan even suggested that because he wants Grandma's room. Since da the family can still borrow money at 1%, then one option is to borrow and pay for grandma and da security system that way. Tempting, but we all know that's a poor choice. However, borrowing money and buildin' an addition that yeh can rent out for income, that would be a good choice. So would borrowing money and paying for Ryan's education in math so he can get a better job, or borrowing to expand da family business. All of those would bring in more money each year than the loan cost. Most families, after all, start with a debt of several times gross family product for their home, and our family isn't there yet. In a real family, of course, there'd also be no squabbling over who is paying more. Of course dad is payin' the most, he's got a good job. Of course Alan isn't payin' anything yet, he doesn't have a job, and sis is barely gettin' by in her startup. And in a real family, we wouldn't put grandma out, either. Dad and mom would sacrifice and take a second job to contribute more, while the family took da loan to invest for the longer term. Yah, sure, and dropped to basic cable. Beavah

I have no problem with reducing future social security benefits for people under about 55. That's not da way insurance works, of course. Insurers who are losin' money can both increase premiums or reduce da sort of benefit contracts available. Since raisin' more taxes is out because of the attitude of the tea party folks, the only choice is to reduce benefits. Not in the future, now. That's da consequence of the Tea Party tax pledge, if yeh want to reduce the deficit/balance the budget. No question, it's rough for da seniors who relied on SS for their planning. Just like it was rough for those GM folks who relied on their company pension and saw it evaporate. That's what yeh get for not doin' due diligence. Many of us have been sayin' Social Security is a Ponzi scheme for decades now. But I get where you're comin' from. I don't want to see a few million seniors get bankrupted either. Which is why I and every reasonable person who has ever looked at the problem believes yeh have to increase revenue, so as to give yeh the space to make more targeted and gradual reductions in benefits of the sort you're talkin' about. Now, for seniors, the best choice would be lettin' the Bush income tax cuts expire, because income taxes wouldn't affect seniors as much as a consumption tax like I and most conservative folks prefer. If we hold to the Tea Party line, though, then the only choice is substantial to massive cuts in current senior benefits. That's what they want, after all, eh? Beavah

You present a false dichotomy - endlessly spending massively more than we have to spend VS. something bad happening. Morgenthau saw the truth. Morgenthau? LOL. That's rich. He'd be da fellow who cut spending in 1937 leading to a double-dip and extending the mass unemployment. He'd also be the fellow that led us out of the depression by massively spending money at deficit levels far exceeding what ours are as we moved in to World War II. That's just too funny. Does the tea party crowd ever understand history? I take it yeh got that quote off of one of their sites somewhere, which just demonstrates how it's possible to confuse da well meaning folk with absurd quotes from various "authorities." Nobody is suggesting "endlessly spending massively more than we have". That's the only false dichotomy here. I've been reasonably happy with every one of da serious deficit reduction plans, from Simpson-Bowles to da thing Obama and Boehner agreed to in principle before his caucus shut him down. We have to make substantive cuts in defense, genuine reform and controls in Medicare, substantive adjustments to social security, and raise revenues. We can do the latter by just lettin' the Bush tax cuts expire (which is all that's really possible politically unless/until we toss the witless teabag representatives), but I prefer that we do it more intelligently through things like a consumption tax on gasoline, closing loopholes that allow businesses and individuals to avoid payin', and taxin' the cockamamie businesses and investment vehicles that cause the mess to pay for proper oversight and regulation (and a few federal prisons for future perpetrators of large-scale financial fraud). There's nuthin' wrong with massive spending to avoid a catastrophe, like what was necessary in 2008. But then yeh have to have the moral fortitude after yeh recover to pay your bills. Back in my day, we called that "character." Too bad in Congress we only have characters, not character. Beavah

Very principled Beavah. You don't like the spending the Republicans did and you really like the much greater spending done by Democrats. I don't "like" any of it, and it doesn't have a thing to do with Democrats or Republicans. That kind of "my tribe vs your tribe" stuff I mostly find just juvenile. Though my personal votin' record leans fairly heavily Republican over da years, I believe in America, not political parties. While I don't like any of it, what I said was that the tax cuts in 2001 and not funding two wars and not funding a vast expansion of Medicare into prescription drugs were unnecessary. Those were voluntary choices by leaders who believed "deficits don't matter." By contrast, TARP (which was done under President Bush, if you'll recall) and da stimulus were necessary to avoid massive cascading bank failures and a depression. Da whole thing made me angry, but it was necessary. Remember, in a depression, your debt load gets worse as da currency deflates and the economy shrinks. So not acting would have had da same consequences of massively increasing the debt, but much worse consequences on da nation. Your suggestion that we can choose between the massive spending we've done in recent decades and Somalia is offering the error of false alternatives. Not what I said, eh? You're claimin' all taxes are evil, or at least that paying taxes is not a civic duty but a highway robbery. Somalia is what yeh get if yeh cut all taxes. By contrast, modern Greece is what yeh get if you encourage a culture where people don't consider it a civic duty to pay taxes. Greeks have believed what you believe for decades, and acted on it. How's that workin' out? You'd like Greece. They're even followin' da program of massive spending cuts with no tax increases, even selling off da equivalent of Yellowstone to foreign developers. It's causin' their economy to contract so their debt is actually gettin' worse. But while the electricity is gettin' sketchy, yeh can warm your hands by da fires of burning cars caused by da riots. In America da "government" in the end is just US, eh? You and me and our fellow citizens. I like my fellow citizens. I appreciate 'em. And I don't mind joinin' with 'em to do things for the country, or joinin' with 'em to pay for things for da country we share in common. Just part of bein' a good neighbor, and a good citizen. And personally, I'd rather pay taxes directly than be taxed indirectly by havin' Congress fumble da credit rating and seeing indirect taxes as business costs get raised all across da country as a result. The latter is da same as a tax increase, but it's much less predictable and therefore much less stable. Also prefer taxes to monetizing the debt, which is also much less stable. Otherwise, there's always Greece. Or Somalia. Beavah

People spend their life earning income, and government should lay a claim to that income only for the best possible reasons. People are only able to spend their life earning income because they are part of a community that provides support for that enterprise. Roads, laws, a system to enforce contracts and employment law, on and on. The people can vote to tax themselves for any reasonable reason, from maintaining roads to providing group campsites in da state park for scouts to use. If yeh really don't want to pay taxes, try Somalia. That's what yeh get. Sovereign bankruptcy, lawlessness, no stable commerce. Or go live in a shack in da Canadian outback off da grid. Personally, I don't choose to live in Somalia, eh? So I cheerfully pay my taxes as a duty of citizenship. Just like those who like the right to trial by jury should cheerfully serve on a jury, and those who want to be defended by da military should be willin' to serve in it. That's being a good citizen. Yeh can claim any of those things is being forced against your will and all that nonsense, of course. In which case, again, I suggest Somalia. No military or police to protect yeh against pirates or armed gangs, and no juries to serve on. ----- Tawhawk, yeh need to go back and read your history books more carefully. As often as they considered da risks of government the founding fathers spent more time worryin' about the mob of unruly people and tryin' to insulate government from the masses. Especially da risk of populist loonies in da House doin' somethin' stupid. Remember, the folks at the Constitutional Convention were there to strengthen the central government by abandoning the Articles of Confederation. They felt a weak and ineffectual central government was dangerous and not in da best interest of the new nation. Yah, there is a risk of da populace votin' itself largesse out of the public purse. We have that issue with Medicare in particular, and with uncontrolled and unfunded military and security expenditures. The spending binge from 2001 to 2007 was bad, because it was discretionary, and interest rates were higher. We cut taxes goin' into two wars and a major expansion of da Medicare entitlement. Haven't done anything that foolish since Johnson's "guns and butter" during Vietnam. Most of us conservatives in 2001 were arguin' for just keepin' the taxes in place and payin' down the debt. We lost that argument to da Dems and neo-cons. The spending from 2008 to 2010 was not discretionary. That was a simple choice, between Great Depression II and massive intervention. Without the rescue, the banks would have failed, the FDIC would have collapsed, unemployment would be above 20% and the deficit would be just as large, because of greater loss of revenue. It's OK to be angry about it, I reckon almost all of us are. But there really wasn't a choice, for either Bush with TARP or Obama with da stimulus. Happily, our borrowing costs were phenomenally cheap. Even now, we can borrow on 30-year notes at well below 2%. Borrowing at that rate is a no-brainer. Yeh do it and invest. There's almost no downside. We've been blessed, because until a week or two ago everyone in the world felt our debt was the safe haven to retreat to when everything else was uncertain. This means we could borrow very, very cheaply in bad times. Nobody else in da world has had that privilege that Congress is doin' its best to squander. At da current rates, good business sense says we should be borrowin' more, and usin' it to fix our infrastructure. Build roads, fix bridges, build high speed communications, modernize the power grid, fund research. Put people to work on stuff that yields long-term economic growth. Yeh do that, because that economic growth will pay off at more than 2%. Anyone who understands business knows that. So there's no point in freakin' out about cheap, long-term debt. Cheap borrowing is an invitation to invest. What is worth addressin' is long term structural deficits. Those are worryin'. And those need to be addressed by a combination of entitlement restructuring, military cuts, and revenue increases. Da best time to do that is after we're further along in the recovery, as interest rates rise. Not right at the moment when da stimulus and Fed intervention are ending and that blow (coupled with da damage Congress just did) hasn't been fully absorbed. Now back to reality, eh? Plenty of scout families in our area were saved from homelessness by da extension of federal unemployment benefits the last two years. Some more that were helped by job retraining, because their old manufacturing jobs are not comin' back. Simply put, private charities and individuals were caught in the same downturn and didn't have da resources to help. Was that a worthy investment? Kept house prices from collapsing further and other families from goin' under. Put some taxpayers back to work who are contributin' to da rolls again. Kept some boys in scouting. If yeh had had the money, wouldn't you have helped such families? B

Excuse me? One is a "freeloader" to not "want" to pay taxes that the transient majority wants them to pay? Nah, one is a poor citizen not to be willing to pay taxes as part of da obligation of citizenship. One is a freeloader if yeh don't pay taxes. So enforcing taxes isn't an act of robbery, it's an act of going after freeloaders and cheats who don't take their responsibilities as a citizen seriously. Of course griping about taxes is as American as apple pie . Let's just not get all foolish about "evil" and "robbery." So you may not agree with Jefferson, Washington, and others about the danger of government. Fine. Just leave off telling those of us who have lived the wonderfulness of ever-larger, ever more expensive, ever more wasteful, ever more intrusive government that we are, somehow, bad people because we don't like what we see or its consequences. If yeh read some of my posts, yeh know that I've warned consistently about da dangers of large and intrusive government. Everything from government run education to da vast expansion of the patent and copyright system that is stifling innovation and small business growth. But that's different than calling taxes robbery, eh? One is conservative citizenship, the other isn't citizenship at all. Yep, government has gotten bigger. Most of that is in proportion to the population, but some of it is additional. We have commercial air service where we didn't used to. GPS satellites. Highways. A vast increase in da military and in border security and prisons. Yep, a lot of that is horrifically wasteful; TSA alone has cost us a huge amount of money in order to prevent ... nothing. But we do get da intrusive theater of the government looking at our wives and children naked and having our elderly parents groped. What we haven't been is overtaxed. Da marginal tax rates are well below anything they've been since before da cold war, despite the addition of all the things mentioned above and more. So we've added to da government, and in some dangerous ways, but haven't paid for it. At the same time we've cut government in a few areas that have cost us. Financial regulation and oversight and prosecution, offshore drilling regulation and oversight, da current FAA fracas. Those government cuts have in the end cost us trillions of dollars. It's just staggeringly irresponsible. And da current folks just toyed with default and cuts which cost us our credit rating and reputation, which will gradually amount to an increased tax on every municipality and individual through added borrowing costs. Conservative government is prudent, not irresponsible. It pays its way with revenues to match expenses, not threatening default. It avoids wholesale intrusion into private liberties like the right to travel or innovate or communicate, but regulates and safeguards commerce to ensure a fair and transparent market free from fraud and coercion. B

Gary_Miller, yeh have to do the math. There's a reason why everyone who has served on a deficit reduction commission, Republican or Democrat, has come to da conclusion that it is necessary to raise revenues. If you're 30% in da hole each year, and your "discretionary" spending amounts to only 20%, then even zeroing your discretionary spending won't get you to balanced. And that's where we're at, eh? And we all recognize that relatively little of that "discretionary" spending is truly discretionary. It's da FAA and the border patrol and the firefighters and the highways and the food inspectors. So maybe in the end, with much pain, yeh can get 4% out of that 20%, or a 20% cut in discretionary spending. A 20% cross the board cut to all programs like that would be huge, and painful. You'd see mass protests, you'd see a big jump in unemployment and homelessness, you'd see real downward pressure on da financial markets, you'd see aircraft accidents and foodborne illnesses and prison releases and bridge failures and you'd really hurt a lot of real people, but it might be doable. It's not *quite* as bad as what Greece is faced with. Then yeh have to cut da remaining 26% from da military and entitlements. That means those programs are devastated. One must go, effectively, and one or two more have to be severely cut. Cutting discretionary spending really is like laying off da ice cream cone when you owe owe thousands of dollars. It's nice and all, but the savings won't get yeh anywhere near balanced. That's how big the military and entitlement programs are compared to everything else. Cutting the entire NASA budget doesn't even pay for air conditioning for soldiers in overseas deployments. B

Yah, Eagledad, I seem to remember it startin' to show up after the 1990 revision. Same time we bumped youth leaders off Boards of Review and introduced new scout patrols and first class first year. I agree with yeh and with dkurtenbach that some of da requirements need modernization. A bit more LNT, a few changes for new gear or new realities. Water treatment, for example, should probably be part of T21, as well as bloodborne pathogen protection. Maybe GPS along with map and compass (or as map and compass ). B

Yah, Kahuna, Social Security is just an insurance program, eh? It takes current premiums and uses 'em to pay current beneficiaries. If it's smart in invests any excess premiums, but then we haven't been particularly smart. If the insurer can't afford it or otherwise goes into default, then the insured doesn't get paid. That's the insured's fault for relying on the insurer without doin' their due diligence and keeping tabs on its financial health. Doesn't matter a lick if they were planning on it for retirement, any more than It did for the GM or Enron workers who planned on their pensions for retirement, and were left high and dry when those companies collapsed. Now, yeh could argue that most citizens don't have the time, access, or expertise to keep track of da financial health of their pension provider or insurer. In that case, those citizens should pay those evil taxes to hire those meddlesome regulators who do have the time and expertise to track and enforce pension soundness or demand adequate reserves of insurers. Or in da case of Social Security, they should have voted for more responsible representatives. . Right now, quite a few have elected Tea Partiers who have essentially pledged to dismantle or default on those programs. Any way yeh slice it, it comes down to personal responsibility. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I'll agree that taxes are a necessary evil. But that means they are BOTH necessary AND EVIL. Yeh do understand that da term "necessary evil" has always been a bit of a joke, right? It's an oxymoron, used to gripe in a humorous way. No real evil is ever necessary, evil should always be opposed. Taxation in a democracy isn't robbery, and it isn't evil, it's citizenship. It's people recognizing that if they want roads and police and health insurance for the aged and a national defense that they actually have to pay for 'em. And that it's better to do some things as a community than it is to do 'em as individuals. The issue of forcing payment of taxes only comes up when yeh have freeloaders who want da benefits of living in a community but who aren't willing to pay for 'em. Yep, and that includes those who don't want to pay for some things that the majority wants but they personally don't. Just like a family, you get input in a community, but yeh don't get to dictate. Pacificists have to support da army, non-campers have to support da national parks, folks without kids have to support da schools. That's citizenship. Yah, sure, we can debate what services we want and whether certain things are better done collectively or privately. A lot can depend on your community. If yeh live in rural areas yeh might be willing to dump trash on your back 40, but if yeh live in a city the community really doesn't want yeh piling trash in your backyard, so payin' for trash pickup makes sense. Small towns can get by with volunteer fire fighters, but not larger ones. Maybe insurance should be like payin' for da police, somethin' the whole community does, or maybe it should be private, where only those who want it get (different levels of) coverage. Maybe it depends what kind of insurance. Debating what's best is part of living in a community, too. But it's only a debate among community members, eh? Let's not confuse it with good vs. evil, or with committing a crime like robbery. when that special duty is enforced by the Govt by fine or prison, it ceases to be charity Yah, I agree papadaddy. It instead becomes an obligation of citizenship, because unlike real charity we expect to get something in return. We expect to receive social security, we expect to collect unemployment if we suddenly lose our job through no fault of our own, etc. That's not charity. Charity expects nothing in return. By and large, when it comes to charity, I prefer that to be done by individuals. We're better at it than government in individual cases, and it helps avoid silly sentiments like SP's if things are a religious obligation rather than a civil one. If we're honest, though, we have to admit that most of us Christians, Jews, and Muslims don't live up to our religious obligations of true charity without social pressure at least. The Bible tells us to tithe 10%. That's 10% of our total wealth every year, on top of what we pay for taxes for things like police and roads and defense and insurance and such, for which we receive or expect a benefit. Us Christian folks are challenged by the Lord and da early Christian community to do even more than that, eh? To sell all we have and give to those in need as an important act of real discipleship. Beavah

Look guys the point I'm trying to make is that there are other area besides Social Security, Medicare, Veterans, and Defense to cut. But everyone just looks at these because thats where the big money is at. Yah, hmmm... Yeh do understand that we owe big money, right? That da deficit each year is big money? Yeh could cut all da things you mention... no more Department of Interior fire fighters fighting forest fires out west, no Army Corps managing da Mississippi floods so that hundreds of thousands more people lose their homes and livelihoods and nationwide gas prices go up 70% due to refinery and port damage, no more Department of Education enforcing equal access to schools for scouting programs and all da rest. And then, to balance da budget with no additional revenue you would still have to obliterate Medicare and make real cuts to social security and/or veterans as well as defense. Or wipe out defense and make real cuts to Medicare and vets, or... While we have a few other programs, da US government is essentially just an insurance company with an army. To eliminate da deficit yeh either have to cut insurance benefits and the army or increase premiums. No way around it if yeh want to pay your way. A pledge of no tax increase is a pledge to utterly decimate the military and the entitlement programs. Either that, or it's a pledge to bankrupt the nation and sentence our grandchildren to riots and poverty. It's really that simple. As for industry self-regulation, we just tried that, eh? Phil Graham got da Congress and President Clinton to sign off on dismantling GlassSteagal and da other depression-era financial regulation. Banks could self-regulate. Their shareholders would apply pressure. Insurers like AIG could do their own inspections. Customers would choose stronger institutions. So within 10 years they trashed da global economy and cost da taxpayers and da Fed something like $4 trillion directly, plus lots more in collateral damage. Yeh see, da average bank customer doesn't have the time, the expertise, or da access to be able to know that his bank is gambling his deposits in da derivatives market. Just as the average airline passenger doesn't have the time, expertise, or access to be able to tell that the airline is takin' maintenance shortcuts on that jet he's climbing aboard. Same with the food consumer not knowin' from whence his food comes and da risk of contamination. These all take time and expertise, eh? So it's reasonable for the people to pay experts to regulate and inspect. If yeh don't, yeh get Latin America, eh? Weak governments and regulation, but lots of resources. How has that worked out? Free markets require stability and objectively enforced fairness. Yeh have to have confidence in da market to have liberty. That's the job of da people, not the industry. B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Or is simply voting to confiscate the treasures of others to force them to give to their fellow man good enough Oh puhlease. I expect papadaddy didn't mean this the way it sounded and was just echoing some of da Tom-fool bloggers he's read, but I am sick to death of this disgusting, anti-American rhetoric. it's just shameful. Taxes are an obligation and duty of citizenship in a democracy. We (hopefully) teach that to every First Class scout as he comes up for rank, right along with service on a jury and being an informed voter and takin' up arms if called to do so. We vote taxes on ourselves as citizens. And, because there will always be a few freeloaders who try to dodge or cheat their way around their obligations, we provide for enforcement. Of jury duty. Of selective service. Of taxes. That isn't "confiscating the treasure of others". That's enforcing the law against cheats and villains. Conservatives believe in paying our way, and that those who have been given much have a special duty to others. Liberals believe in paying their way, and that those who have been given much have a special duty to others. Christians, Jews, Muslims... all believe in paying their own way, and that those who have been given much have a special duty to others. We can differ on specific policies, eh? That's fine, and engagin' in that is part of citizenship too. But just being mindlessly anti-tax ain't compatible with da Oath and Law, or with citizenship. Poor choice of rhetoric aside, I agree with papadaddy, eh? Just giving money, or just giving labor aren't enough. Christianity and citizenship demand both. B

Yah, all this shows are da dangers of trying to second guess physicians as amateurs, and of not trusting fellow scouters. Best not to do it over any scrip, which is a health and medical necessity not an optional beverage. There are just too many variables and privacy traps, eh? Dosage, individual tolerance and other stuff all come into play. And no, federal law does not always "trump" state law. It's complicated. In this case, though, the Feds have made it clear they are not taking enforcement action in medical MJ cases. Da Feds can't do anything if the state chooses not to renew a camp's license to operate in da state. ADA may not apply, but similar state laws might, and we can go on and on about other scenarios like preventing a boy's dad on chemotherapy from attending what may be his last summer camp with his son. These laws are a mess and created problems for everyone, eh? But this is not a decision to be made by amateurs or folks sittin' in offices in far away states. Yeh need responsible local folks assisted by knowledgeable local counsel to make intelligent individual decisions. B

Yah, good points, Gunny. I don't mean to be paintin' ordinary folks who sympathize with some of da Tea Party principles with any brush. In a lot of ways I'm one of 'em, especially when it comes to accounting trickery. I guess I'm limiting my critique to the members of Congress who claim Tea Party affiliation and some of their other spokespeople. I believe they acted stupidly and recklessly, and showed they were willing to destroy the nation if they didn't get their way. Unbelievably, mindlessly dangerous. Such people have no business being in public office. Real conservatives care about da country more than any one policy position. That's the point, eh? Folks in da armed forces are willin' to give up their lives to protect da country from harm. These buffoons weren't willing to give up tax loopholes even though it would cause the country enormous harm. There's just no comparison. It's shameful. Yah, Kahuna, to my mind pledges to special interest lobbying groups of any sort should be considered anti-American, whether it's a pledge to da ACLU or to Norquist's group. Da only pledge that should matter to a public official is the Oath they swore to the country. I agree with yeh though that no one is blameless. I think da president showed a real lack of leadership. Sure, he proposed a $4T compromise that was pretty well balanced, but he never really called out the opposition. Da fellow is too much of a moderate manager rather than a leader. Me, back in May when we first crossed the debt limit and started "accounting tricks", I would have started shuttin' things down. By May 15, congressional pay and benefits would be suspended. By May 30 all pork barrel projects would be halted. By mid June, all national parks and federal convenience services closed; by the end of June all non-life-threatening Medicare and veterans services would be halted. And by mid July, no Social security checks. Somewhere in there we'd get to break-even, so I expect we could have a lottery to see who gets their check each month and which senior dies for lack of ability to pay the air conditioning bill. But by then I'd be instructing da Interior Secretary to sell the congressional office building. Hey, they're only there part time, and they don't do much productive work anyway. They can rent space out of their tax savings. I figure da TPs would fold pretty early on rather than face da sort of nation mindless balance and cap would create in real life. Their constituents may care about da country, but their congresspeople have demonstrated that they only care about their popularity and re-election prospects. B

Yah, vol_scouter, I'm an old school conservative, eh? I'm definitely not a modern "conservative". No real conservative considers defaulting on da sovereign debt a political option. That's just lunacy. What S&P actually said was that the long term debt should be cut by $4T, not that the budget needed to be cut by that. Why modern conservatives either can't read or insist on just fabricating stuff is a mystery. It ain't hard to read the S&P report instead of a nitwit's blog. The presumption in da S&P models was that the Bush tax cuts would be allowed to expire in 2013, but in light of the recent political debate they had to recalculate assuming they might not be. So S&P presumes that added revenue needs to be part of the equation, just like everyone who can do arithmetic, and in the absence of that we have a problem. Couple that with da significant number of congresspeople who were willing to default, to Hades with da Nation and the consequences, and they have a point. Funniest thing I saw recently was da head of Tea Party Nation talkin' about how cuts to defense were unacceptable, and that we should really be building new aircraft carriers because that would provide jobs and get the economy movin'. Yep, that's right, da fellow thinks good ol' Keynsian federal spending will stimulate the economy, but doesn't think that cutting all kinds of other spending will hurt it. No doubt about it, just irresponsibly stupid. Nope, I ain't a modern conservative. I don't get my jollies over shuttin' down the FAA, idling workers on security projects and costing da nation revenue, and then head out of town on a month long vacation. I'm one of those old school fellows who must be a neo-liberal because I believe in responsibility. Now personally, I don't hyperventilate about Al Gore so much. Da fellow is a bit of a fop. Always has been. Besides, Arab Spring started as students and workers assembling peaceably to petition da government for redress of grievances. That's at least a few steps better than da next fellow to join the Republican presidential race, who at one point advocated secession (aka treason). . All just political ranting. No reason to get your dander up. As for da rest, it's Defense, social security, medicare, veterans benefits. To balance da budget without adding revenue, you must eliminate one and severely cut another. Which do yeh choose? At least representative Ryan had part of da equation, even if he couldn't do math. He was willing to obliterate Medicare. All he needed to add was one more - obliterate defense, social security, or all vet programs. How'd that work out for him? Did the electorate respond positively? Yep, there are serious problems with da entitlement programs. But we can't blow 'em up overnight without hurting real, live people. Yeh have to be more responsible than that. Personally, I confess there's a part of me that wants to give da Tea Partiers their entire wish list. Eliminate Medicare, trash Social Security, default on the debt, tax the crap out of unemployed families and let da kids die of treatable conditions. No Obamacare! No Medicaid or AFDC. Kids don't need vaccines. The country doesn't need roads or air traffic controllers either. The resulting catastrophe would wipe da Tea Party brand of foolishness out for at least five generations. Maybe then I could find a real Republican again. Beavah

Yah, travelin' internationally in da last few weeks, it's been truly amazin' watching the U.S. Congress and da train-wreck gawking by our international friends. If ever a group proved themselves completely incapable of governing intelligently and responsibly, da Tea Party Republicans did. The message is probably the same one as always, that electing politicians and lawyers instead of people who actually understand things is a bad idea, and electing ideologues instead of pragmatists is a terrible idea. For da record, in the short term at least, yields on Treasury Bonds are incredibly low. If any of us could borrow at a bit over 1% interest we would, eh? Any reasonable inflation or growth makes that beneficial, if yeh invest it. So anyone who actually understands business would say "Borrow and invest!" at these rates. We should be borrowing and investing in infrastructure that leads to growth or supports growth: in high speed communication, in roads and bridges, in updating da power grid, in research. We should be makin' more SBA loans and help states and municipalities fix water problems. Any and all of those things will bring more than 1% return in economic growth. And anyone with at least a little bit of a brain would recognize da economy has been limping along only with unusual support from da federal reserve and da stimulus funds, and that with those ending we were in for a return to recession without a calculated investment in infrastructure. Everyone who has half a brain also knows that we can't support da current Social Security, Medicare, Defence, and Veterans programs with a tax rate that predates most of da current forms of those programs. So yah, sure, we can sustain da current tax rate, but only if we return things to where they were when this tax level was last in place: no federal highway system, limited vet benefits, an isolationist and small military, no Medicare, a retirement age much closer to the current life expectancy, etc. That's why every Republican or Democrat who has ever sat on a deficit reduction commission has realized it's necessary to both contain costs in a substantial way and to raise revenues somehow. It would have been nice to see some presidential leadership, eh? But it would have been nicer to see some statesmanship, or at least some adult behavior from da Congress. Instead we got spoiled brat childishness threatening to default and costing us our credit rating. It won't matter in the short run, because there aren't any alternatives to Treasuries and the dollar.... yet. It's hurt us in the long run, though, because everyone in da world now realizes that our political class is completely irresponsible and mostly just stupid, and they're lookin' for alternatives. Credibility is an easy thing to lose, and a hard thing to regain. What does all this have to do with Scouting? I'm not sure. I think, though, since da schools don't teach this stuff and yeh don't pick it up from da partisan media, we scouters have to make some efforts to teach our future citizens how things really work, and how to think, and above all how to put statesmanship and duty ahead of partisanship, no-tax pledges made to special interest lobbyists in exchange for contributions, and (gasp) even personal re-election. B

This is because Scouts and Scouters have an obligation to help other people at all times. They do not put this responsibility onto anyone else but themselves, and so commit to personal actions which provide aid to others whenever that Scout or Scouter is reasonably able. Yah, hmmm... I think that's right, if yeh limit it to responsibility, eh? We have a personal responsibility to help others. Now, da mechanism for helpin' others is often to pay people who have expertise that we don't have to do the helping. So we give money to Red Cross or our church or other charities as part of our duty to help other people at all times. And we vote ourselves taxes to pay for da National Guard and fire, police, EMS, and all da rest as part of that same duty. So part of helpin' others at all times is providing financial support so ARC can provide shelters, so that da Feds can fight forest fires that endanger others homes and stuff like that. I'm too old and don't have da expertise to be a smoke jumper, and I don't live in an area that is likely to ever be threatened by wildfire, but I'm happy to support that service as part of my responsibility to help others in need. So of course we help others help people, in addition to our own personal contributions of time. We give to FOS in addition to volunteering ourselves, so that pros and camp staff are available to help others. Citizenship doesn't mean we go it alone, eh? It means that we work problems together. Charity begins at home, sure, but it doesn't end there. It would be irresponsible and contrary to our Oath not to support (appropriate) programs that provided for da "indirect" general welfare. B(This message has been edited by Beavah)