Sorry Mr Novick we dont need any more info on the budget to make a decision on the budget because the private sector is much smarter than your liberals think.You are the same guy that the Portland public Schools wasted 5,000.00 on a few yeras ago on a consulting contract to study how to be stimulated.

Unless you can find a way to combine budget data with American Idol, I doubt the populace would give a rats arse.

Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821) wrote in 1811: “Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle merite.” ("Every nation has the government it deserves.")

Steve, Michael makes a good point: we have to transform this effort from "informing" the public (yawn) into a story about the health of our nation's democracy. and it has to be a damn interesting story. we have the tools - Facebook, YouTube, etc - but we haven't come up with the format. if we could get Bill Nye to do something like this, maybe with Paula Poundstone -- something fun, something captivating, and yet something that gets the message across. and to somehow do that without it being partisan.... it's what we need, but how we accomplish that, not sure.

As usual, Steve, you've hit the nail on the head. The biggest budgetary challenge we face at the federal, state and local level is the gap between the government we want and the government we're willing to pay for.

On the spending side, voters want to believe that you can balance the budget by increased efficiency and eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. If that's not enough, just eliminate those unspecified low-priority programs that nobody really needs.

On the revenue side, as a last resort, people will reluctantly support taxes that someone else pays. That's assuming they haven't convinced themselves that cutting tax rates actually generates additional revenue.

Jack's right, again, as is Kari, though I do think the gap is not only between what we want and what we're wiling to pay for, but also a gap in people's understanding of, appreciation for and acknowledgment of the role of public structures in achieving the society they want.

I'm really glad to see you back commenting, Steve. No one dies it better.

Chuck has really hit the nail on the head here. So many people just have no understanding of the link between the society they want and the importance of public structures in getting to that society.

It is tough work to keep pushing against this collective ignorance, but we need to do it.

And you have a unique ability to at least catch the attention of everyone and focus it, even for just a millisecond, on the right questions.

Keep it up

One thing we need to get a handle on if we want to understand where our money goes is how a policy goal is achieved across agencies. It would be useful to have program budgets, not just agency budgets, so we can see more easily how several agencies are spending money on the same goals.

A case in point for that would be a unified economic development budget. Let's see, in one place, all the tax expenditures, grants, low-interest loans, etc that supposedly exist to create jobs. And let's see some criteria and actual data by which to judge whether they are actually working.

Do you think too many Americans are overweight because there isn't enough information out there on good nutrition?

The information necessary to make reasoned political choices is out there and most voters have been exposed to it. The problem is voters have also been exposed to, and gladly accepted, intentional misinformation because its so much more palatable to believe.

We can cut taxes and reduce the deficit. We can make education a priority and not effect other vital services. If we just cut government regulation and taxes the economy will grow and so will tax revenues. Public employee benefits aren't part of the problem with funding k-12.

The failure is in parts of our political leadership. Whether the motivation is careerism, individual monetary gain, or aliegance to a hidden long range political agenda to drown government I don't know.

Regardless, ultimately, its a failure of character and lack of honesty.

I predict that, come November, when the report from Obama's Deficit Commission is due, we will, once again, discover that neither party is the friend of the wage-earner. And the recommended cuts to Social Security benefits will fly in the face of public opinion, but the Dems (most of them) will stick to their guns and ride out the storm (to mix metaphors). Just like they did with NAFTA.

Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles are leading the commission. Both have made statements calling for SS benefits cuts. Even Andy Stern, lately of SEIU, recommends cuts to Social Security benefits. And, recently, Dem leadership (Steny Hoyer) made a similar proposal.

So, here's how it goes: wage-earners loan their hard-earned money to the federal government, but the federal government decides to welsh. Contrast that with the treatment given to investment banks.

Of course the Deficit Commission report will be issued after the midterm election. Why else would it be held off until (late) November?

“Anyway ... Until we do let people know where their tax dollars go, neither party will have the right to honestly claim that the public is with them on bigger government vs. smaller government.”

What we do know is that if you provide people w/ jobs and a better life they tend to appreciate it…a lot.

In 1935 a Gallop poll asked Americans if the govt was spending, too much, just the right amount, or not enough. 60% said too much.

FDR didn't pay much attention to the poll, greatly expanded government, drastically increasing spending and won in a landslide. Who cares what the polls say, we know what works for economic recovery and we know what makes people’s lives better.

Kari Chisholm,

If the higher retirement age is to be that far away in years, why are Hoyer and Boehner talking about the higher retirement age being an important part of balancing the budget in the near term?