Preface

Welcome all readers.

There are many things that I think could be improved with the way we do things in America. That said, I don't think I can rightfully complain unless I first try to offer solutions.

Having tried the "Letter to the Editor" route with my thoughts on institutional fiscal reform in America with little satisfaction, the concept of a weblog came up over dinner with family on my birthday.

We discussed the potential reasons why there were no feedback letters to my letters. It made no sense considering that my letters addressed controversial subjects like public education, healthcare reform, public pensions, deficit spending and the national debt.

After becoming sufficiently lubricated with a few bottles of Franciscan Merlot, we came to the conclusion that in a decidedly 'blue' state like Connecticut, my fiscally conservative views were being summarily dismissed as a solitary voice in the storm of unapologetic liberal journalism.

Hence the title of this weblog.

I am in favor of social liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism) except where it interferes with fiscal conservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism).

The fiscal idea behind the US Constitution was that a single national government would be more cost-effective than a fistful of state governments (13 at the time). In fact, I was certain that I had read in the Federalist Papers (a series of articles in favor of the US constitution) that the founders thought the federal government should cost no more than any of the state governments alone. I contacted a Federalist scholar and he assured me that I was mistaken.

Nevertheless, the cost of the national government is certainly higher than any single state and is also higher than all 50 states combined: this year we'll spend $3.8 trillion on the federal government and $1.5 trillion on all 50 state governments (plus another $1.6 trillion on local governments). This adds up to 43% of GDP.

I think that if a survey were taken of the founding fathers regarding this possibility, the poll would reflect nothing short of incredulity. If they were further polled regarding a federal government debt larger than seven years of total government revenues (not GDP) they'd petition George III to come back and brand the grand experiment an abject failure.

Not even with so-called "entitlement" spending removed, can the framer's expectations be met. Entitlement spending was about $2.3 trillion in 2012 if you include medicare, social security, food stamps, veterans benefits and federal government employee pensions.

I have nothing against any of these concepts except for the ineffective way they are delivered and the fact that some of them need exist at all.

The object of this discussion will be the examination of government institutions from "outside the box" in order to show how they can be delivered for a price that taxpayers are both willing and able to pay.

I use the cliche "outside the box" not because I love business cliches but because I am not affiliated with government at any level: I am merely one of the governed. I am also a taxpayer and I say 43% is way too much.

I will start with an outsider's view of public education. Education is probably the most important thing government does. It is also one of the most costly in dollars and the one on which the rest depend: an educated electorate is necessary for a popular government that wishes to eschew dumb laws.

You may correctly ask why a retired engineer's ideas have any bearing on the economics of government institutions. I can only request your patience and objectivity for a guy who has spent a lifetime solving problems.

So, if you can lend me an ear, please stay tuned to this voice in the storm.