This is the key point (or should be) in this discussion. The foolish spending that Delong accuses Henderson of supporting would never have been approved if the average taxpayer had to pay even $10 out of pocket for it.
The general public can only be convinced to vote for grandiose schemes when there is zero perceived cost. Since most US citizens pay nearly nothing in taxes, it's easy to get them to vote for such schemes. The tax system is designed to facilitate consent for such schemes, or at least to minimize the natural skepticism that any reasonable person would have about the ROI of most government endeavors.
Of course, you can't have negative ROI if your investment was $0, so why not cheer on the blow dried politicians and hope it works, after all someone else is paying for it.
The general public can only be convinced to vote for grandiose schemes when there is zero perceived cost. Since most US citizens pay nearly nothing in taxes, it's easy to get them to vote for such schemes. The tax system is designed to facilitate consent for such schemes, or at least to minimize the natural skepticism that any reasonable person would have about the ROI of most government endeavors.
Of course, you can't have negative ROI if your investment was $0, so why not cheer on the blow dried politicians and hope it works, after all someone else is paying for it.