Even Less Gloom?

Recently, Jose posted:

One of the primary reasons to have a government is to provide for the
common good. Libraries fall under that category, just as do other
items of our physical infrastructure. Hotels do not fall under that
category, nor do farm subsidies for crops not being grown or bridges
to nowhere. Let's not get confused, here.

I agree with the basic premise, but reasonable arguments can be made
that the other items =do= fall under that category. I may not
necessarily agree with them, but there isn't a sharp line between
direct and indirect providing for the common good (nor is there
agreement what the common "good" is).

I agree that the general public is confused about "the common good", and
that politicians have long played on this situation to abuse us with pork.
But, the line is visible if not sharp, should one choose to see it.

It can be argued that aiding
commerce is a "common good", and for that we give tax breaks to
encourage businesses to relocate here so that the added business they
bring, and the multplier effect, end up raising more revenue than we
give up directly.

In the proper application, there is no public tax money *spent* on such
aids. That is quite different from using public money to build things that
are then privately owned.

The argument (for or against) is equally valid
for airports as it is for trains and hotels.

Airports are general and available to the public, just as are roads and
publicly owned transportation systems serve the common good. Have you ever
seen a publicly owned hotel, and if so, how does that work?

And if one of the things that makes our nation great is abundant food,
then preventing the collapse of the =system= (by letting prices fall
too low) does arguably fall under that category too.

Farmers compete in the market just as any other business. If they can't
make money growing one crop, they should grow some other crop. Paying them
to not grow crops is an undeserved handout in a free market economy.

Tax deductions =do= constitute "sucking on the government teat", since
the line between use and abuse is so fuzzy.

A tax deduction is a reduction in liability; you get to keep your money
rather than receive a handout. If one is an advocate of a flat tax system
then it might seem as though there isn't much difference, but one of the
few ways a flat tax could work would be to reduce the tax liability
further than the amount of deductions one is entitled to under the current
system.

Neil