That's an awesome summary of the situation.

Let's not forget that the people who build the roads for the government need clothes .. and food .. and entertainment. Where's my government brothel?

"We're in a recession at the moment"

Actually, we're not. Technically, the US recession ended in 2009, when the GDP started growing again.

"The ultimate idea is to keep employment up - the more people working, the fewer that need welfare support."

Except for those who are working are doing so by virtue of work-for-welfare.

Tax breaks are still of a qualitatively lesser evil - they just allow the earner to keep more of his money.

... and why stop there. You've got a good plan going, just need a good bolshevik revolution to get a country to try it.

... and food grown. Nationalize farming too, why not, it belongs to "the people", as opposed to the ones who husband the land, or the ones actually extracting said minerals.

"In other words a strong government."

So you're a libertarian, who believes government could constraint itself to judicial matters? Welcome, brother.

"Libertarian Paradise of the Congo"

Cute. But give them a good judicial system, and a bunch of time, and they may impress even you.

Are you not aware of what fraction of that consists of canadian / provincial taxes?

" I do believe that ultimately a nations resources belong to [its] people"

Why stop with oil. Your underwear is your nation's resource too - hand it over.

"We need about 30% more revenue to balance the budget right now"

I think it's closer to 50%, and that's just for the current year's deficit, with no repayment of the accumulated debt principal. At least that's not mathematically impossible for now; twenty years of entitlement growths later though, who knows.

"Anything wrong with [work-for-welfare]?"

Dunno; the left generally hates it, which is a good sign :-). It'd have to pay below-minimum-wage to meet your criteria of not competing with the private sector.

"Well, the general idea is that you keep the tax rates the same..."

You might want to toy with the numbers available to see if anything like this scheme could accomplish the Keynesian (?) goal of budgetary surplus during non-recession times (to pay down/back the debts accured during past recessions), to see what kind of actual tax rates this would require. I would not be shocked if it resulted in mathematically impossible, let alone economically intolerable ones.

"The basic idea is that you set pay scales for the 'federal job program'(FJP) at sufficiently below market that they want private work"

That sounds like work-for-welfare.

Thank you for your answers.

"the 'spending cuts' I'd make during a boom time is that federal type ... infrastructure would slow down. I'd also slow down military ..."

Would only that, plus tolerable tax increases, conceivably be sufficient to put the feds into a budget surplus -- without choking a presumed economic boom into a recession? Are you aware of any CBO or whatnot war-gaming of this?

"I think that the government should shift between deficit spending and a surplus in counterpoint to the private economy"

For how many years during the last century, did such a "counterpoint" policy actually result in a surplus? What government spending cuts would you agitate for over the next 10-20 years, to get a surplus budget, in non-recession times? Do you believe we are currently in a recession? (Are you a Keynesian only during recessions?)

"If my taxes jump to 40%, but in exchange health care an all education was free I would be fine with that becasue it has value to myself, and more importantly, society as a whole."

How do you figure such math could possibly work? An extra 20% of your income that you can't spend on your own education/health care, but the government would spend on you *and society as a whole*? How can you come out materially ahead?