orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/13/85)
feeling forced to concede that including the Social Security Trust Fund in the category of "social welfare" is like mixing apples and oranges, Dave Olson is now trying to retreat behind another mixup of apples and oranges: namely combining all state government spending with federal spending in his category of "social welfare" minus Social Security. > I'll subtract the SS money from the total federal "social > welfare" stated if you will allow me to include the "social welfare" > spent at the state and local levels. Fair enough? > > I could not find the figure in the almanac listed above, but in the > _World_Almanac_ of 1985 it lists the total expenditure by the Social > Security Administration in 1982 at $176.2 billion. That leaves about > $416 billion of social welfare money without SS. That still means that > for every poor person (man, woman, and child), over $13,000 of *social > welfare money* was spent on something in just that year. I'm afraid this won't really work either, Dave. If you wish to include states spending on social welfare then you should also include their spending on state militias, the National Guard, and so forth. Moreover, I believe (I am not sure of this) that the largest expenses for most states is transportation- namely the highway system. Interestingly enough the initial impetus for the Interstate Highway System proposed by Eisenhower was for *National Defense* : it was felt that an Interstate Highway System would allow swift mobilization in the event of an attack. Moreover Interstate Highways are one of the primary means of shipping nuclear and other defense materials. It just so happens that this is one of those rare cases where spending justified by an appeal to National Defense, also provided very real civilian benefits. Not only that, but supposed "social spending" by states is as deceptive as "social spending" by the federal government which falsely includes Social Security- one of the major categories of such spending is unemployment insurance. Just like Social Security unemployment insurance is only available after *working*. It is paid by both employee taxes and employer contributions, and it makes no distinctions in terms of income. A $90,000 a year stockbroker who is unemployed gets 80% of his previous job's salary the same as the $7000 a year janitor. I know this from personal experience when a stockbroker I knew was laid off and collected 80% of his previous salary while his benefits lasted. One of the clerks thought there was mistake- that his unemployment check must be for the month ratherthan the week because of its size. But that is the way unemployment insurance works. It is definitely *not* just a welfare handout for the poor - it provides exactly what it claims, unemployment *insurance* for those individuals who get laid off due to circumstances, be they larger economic forces or personal reasons, beyond their control. I do not want to delve into the myriad finances of all 50 states and it is totally inappropriate to do so when the subject is *federal spending*. tim sevener whuxn!orb