Most bang for the buck

What exactly does that mean anyway?  It often means value, but there are those who wonder otherwise.  If you get past the sexual and military overtones, you can discuss it in more general terms, such as value for the dollar.

With respect to the government, which is running trillion dollar deficits, are we getting the most bang for the buck?  After examining the space program over the last several months, if that program is any indication, it would definitely appear to be NO.

When it comes to energy, you would also have to say no.  If a gallon of gas costs over 4 bucks, how could it be otherwise?  Energy should be cheaper.  But saying is one thing, doing is another.

The cheapest government program is the one that doesn't cost anything.  In the case of energy, the cheapest thing the government could go is to get out of the way.  Let the private sector create the new energy sources.  This is the best of both worlds.  More and cheaper energy and more revenues for the government from the growth in the economy.  Why is this so hard?

As I wrote before, Washington is in a bubble.  They believe everything revolves around themselves.  It is really hard for them to see themselves as the problem, especially when they see themselves as the solution.  But there are things that Washington can do.  Running the economy isn't one of them though.  It has been demonstrated over and over again that this does not work.  Burdensome regulations do not work either.  But what does work?  That would be incentives.  If the government can incentivize conditions, the rest will take care of itself.  If it doesn't, it is because the incentives are improperly set.

In particular, the government wants to fund a high speed rail program.  But why not consider alternatives?  Why not consider a 900 foot airship that can deliver cargo and passengers for half the operating cost of a 747?  Why build an expensive rail system, when a air system would need far less infrastructure, could be built in a lot less time and still deliver the benefits of an "green" transportation system?  The government canceled the Walrus system, but wants to build trains?  If cost is the problem, high speed trains are not the answer.

This is where we are.  Trillion dollar deficits and an advocacy of programs that uneconomical and ineffective.  Another example is fusion research.  Why spend billions on ITER, when there are other programs that have just as good a shot at achieving net power, and cost much, much less.

Surely we can do better than this.  But it is considered "extreme" to do anything but the status quo.  So what's so normal about trillion dollar deficits?  Have we defined deviancy down?  Has trillion dollar deficits, which were shocking in an earlier time, now considered the norm?