gp, I tend to agree with your previous post although I tend toward more local government solutions and would involve government less when there are other solutions. You mentioned four examples of government subsidies; homes, schools, roads, and food. The first three can better be provided by local and state governments to the extent necessary.

There are sometimes alternative solutions to such services as municipal street plowing or public schools that could be better done privately. School vouchers come to mind. In some places, sparsely populated rural areas for instance, public schools are just more efficient. However, if poor parents in Milwaukee are thrilled with the results a voucher option offered them, such a voucher option could be expanded and taxpayers could be partly relieved of the more expensive public school option.

The fourth subsidized item you mentioned was food [[corn). The federal government should get entirely out of that. On the illegal alien thread, cheap exported US corn was a reason cited for why illegals come here. Also, the federal government has no good reason to subsidize the likes of Monsanto and ADM. Such policy distorts the economy. If, on the other hand, Detroit or Michigan chose to help set up Eastern market or hundreds of smaller farmers' markets, the effect would be the opposite in many ways.

rb adds, "well, again, considering that MOST people paid less fed tax this year, that is a moot point. Tax cuts to the wealthy don't work because they are not necessarily consuming more. tax cuts to middle/lower income folks does result in more consumption. problem is, taxes have been cut to the wealthy at the same time companies were heavily incentivized to move production off-shore and cut wages for the workers [[even as their productivity skyrocketed), resulting in a smaller tax base, relative to inflation "
Most people paid less fed tax this year only because a significant portion of their taxes were temporarily deferred with government borrowing. Their taxes were actually higher to pay for more government but haven't yet been billed. Some of that government expansion, as you mentioned , includes regressive benefits for the wealthy including moving jobs offshore. Even half the cash for clunkers subsidies left the country to buy foreign product. I agree that the rich have benefited from both the Bush tax cuts and ongoing government subsidies that benefit them disporoportionally.