Uncategorized

After last Monday’s session ended, I suggested to Scott that we discuss the proper purposes of the federal government. An opinion piece in today’s New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/27/opinion/elon-musk-industrial-policy.html?unlocked_article_code=1.kk4.vx7n.2Ag_Jo35qjd5&smid=url-share) made me think we could address a.narrow slice of that question:

Does (and should) the federal government make “investments”?

I won’t be there on 30 December since I’ll be helping to make soup for the Simmering Pot that morning, so maybe we could discuss this topic on 6 January.

To answer these questions, I think we’d need to address other questions, including the following:

What is an “investment”? Is the definition the same for the federal government as it is for the private sector? If not, how do the definitions vary, and why?

Have some federal government expenditures in the past been “investments” ( e.g., the Louisiana Purchase; the purchase of Alaska; the Erie Canal; the Panama Canal; the space program, to the extent it generated spin-offs like communications, weather, GPS, and other satellite programs; funding for medical research or development of the internet; the national highway program; the air traffic control system; military spending on drones, radar, and other technologies; tax subsidies and credits to mitigate climate change; funding for social safety net programs like food stamps; etc.). If some of these have not been “investments, why not and what were they?

What recent federal government expenditures that were labeled as “investments” were actually not investments? If not, why not and what were they?

Should the federal government articulate an “investment” policy? If so, what should it be?

Should the federal government only make “investments” that the private sector would not make on its own? How should that determination (a “but for” test) be made?

How should the federal government determine whether its “investments” have been “successful”?

Having failed to select a topic for the upcoming Beyond Labels meeting, we’ll open the floor to follow-ups to some recent topics (the Trump transition, municipal role in protecting local dams, etc.) or new ones, like the fall of the Assad government in Syria.

Consider what you think would be good fodder for our discussion.

After several weeks of national politics (for understandable reasons), we’ll turn our attention on Monday to some local–i.e., Blue Hill Peninsula–issues. One subject getting press attention and affecting five nearby towns directly (and all of the Peninsula indirectly) is the petition by the owner of the Bucksport paper mill to abandon three dams. These dams created what we now recognize as Toddy Pond, Alamoosook Lake, and Silver Lake.

Here’s a recent Weekly Packet article summarizing where matters currently stand; the petition has been covered for months by the Packet, the Ellsworth American, the Bangor Daily News, the Maine Monitor, and local TV news channels. Pick your source.

I’m sure we’ll have time to discuss some other local issues, so give some thought as to what’s working well, what’s not, and what we can do about it.