Dear Phil Berger:

I am doing great. I love this job, and I am doing what might end up being the most important thing I will do in my life, in terms of impact, scale and reason. Things are exhausting right now, because we are not yet through a very busy week, but after Sunday things should be back to normal 70 hour weeks with a lot less time on the phones, so I should have a chance to relax.

"Keep the Faith"

. . . in this case, spending on global warfare . . . was the precise cause of America's economic revival. You, your very self, have just provided all the evidence you need to make BlueSouth's point.

My point, however, is slightly different. My point is that GDP increases, per se, are not an appropriate measure of the overall quality of life, nor are they a measure of the common good. GDP increases succumb to the pesky flaw of averages. Such broad brushes should have little place in public policy.

GDP increase does not mean prosperity. For instance, having roads and the TVA (as examples) in much of the south were big helps in ensuring prosperous lives. Did they have an exact correlation with GDP? I have no idea, and frankly its tangential.

Prosperity is measured by society as a whole being lifted up and given a better life. Sometimes this correlates to an increase in the GDP. However, this is not always true. For instance, right now we are seeing GDP growth, while we are also seeing an increase in the amount of poor, a decrease in economic mobility and an increase in the gap between the income of the richest and the income of the poorest.

"Keep the Faith"

...you consider the effect of the gi bill...or rural electrification...or the construction of hydroelectric and levee projects...or the interstate highway system as examples of spending that create economic results.

for that matter, consider the less obvious services that make growth possible: food inspection, the cdc, the epa, the faa and its certification and air traffic control services, the coast guard, customs and immigration, and on and on.

imagine the us economy without any of these things-and tell me if the prosperity of the 20th century would have existed without them. or if we would be more "prosperous" today-and going forward-with a "screw you" form of government.

in these cases, i might suggest that direct "causation" evidence will be hard to find...but the effect is there nonetheless.

and lastly: consider this a consumer issue.
as a consumer of government services, i want quality, and i'm willing to pay for it.

i don't buy shoes at the dollar store, and i don't want to buy my government there either-and who would?

Foreign aid usually props up the government in power in the countries where it is directed, especially when it is in the form of lump-sum transfers by our federal government.

However, private philanthropic actions such as building a well in an rural country, putting books in classrooms, and similar types of foreign assistants is almost impossible to be corrupted by dictatorships in power (say through buying land on the Riviera).

As such I almost unilaterally oppose foreign aid monetary transfers made by the federal government. But, back to the topic of NC government (and domestic, by the feds) spending and its justification as the most effective and efficient means of increasing the standard of living of the American people, I am unconvinced for the time being.

It's letters to the editors as well.

I'm noticing a pattern in the LTEs in my local paper. They follow the same slime trail as the blogs, with many of the same phrases and ideas. They've got a plan out there, with points, etc. They're organized.