keduh@hogpd.UUCP (D.HUDEK) (07/19/84)
<<||>> Let's see... how do I get around those nasty ol' copyright laws... :-) Oh yeah... I'd like to display some excerpts from an editorial in the Wall Street Journal for the purposes of [review, was it? maybe discussion will be good enough]... To set the mood.... the editorial started off with a discussion of Gov. Cuomo's speech at the Democratic Nat'l Convention... ===================================================================== ... It was instructive to listen to the counterpoint in the governor's keynote address. Do not be deceived because President Reagan has a genial personality. Do not be deceived because inflation has been brought under control. Do not be deceived because a vigorous economic recovery is under way. We kept expecting him to say, do not be deceived because you are better off then you were four years ago. What the cheering Democrats would like to forget is that there have been lessons to learn since 1936... One, for example, has been the discovery in economics of the wedge model, that taking from workers and giving to nonworkers destroys the incentives of both and thwarts technical innovation and economic growth. This simple reality puts limits on the compassion of the welfare state. Further, it is known: That today's young most likely will pay more to support their elders than future generations will pay to support them. That the federal deficits so much deplored by Gov. Cuomo were built while Tip O'Neil and his redistributionist House Democrats remained in control of the nation's purse strings. That deficits didn't become an issue with Democrats until Ronald Reagan and a rebellious public began to deny the government further tax increases. ... Beyond the practical problems, there is a moral one. The tax-and-give- to-the-poor ethic requires an assertion of *moral authority* [asterisks mine :-)], a justification of taking from one to give to another. Most Americans will accept this so long as the taxes are within reason and *the programs visibly help the poor* [again, I put in the stars], but to many of us this no longer seems the case. And as political resistance develops, liberal Democrats respond with ever more strident claims of a *higher morality* [ditto]. Hence, the assaults not only on Ronald Reagan's policies but on his character, the assertion that those who disagree lack any feelings for others, the nuclear-freeze assertion that those who have a different view of how to prevent war admire weapons of mass destruction. ======================================================================== All in all, I found the editorial to be rather interesting. How about it y'all... do you agree or disagree with the statements made in the editorial ?? and why ?? Let's try to discuss things civilly without stooping to name-calling, at least for a while. :-) net.politics was getting kind of boring, so I thought I'd do my part to get it moving again. :-) ihnp4!hogpd!keduh
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (07/19/84)
Do not write on this line - Official Use Only It seems that Ms Ferraro has opened the door for character assasination by saying that RR was not Christian. In the same breath, she said she did not want anyone to mention that her being Catholic was anything to talk about during the campaign. Looks like she has set up a double standard already. In her eyes, it is ok to question RR's religeous preference or lack thereof, but don't question hers. In my opinion, the Democrats missed the boat with Ferraro. They should have had Barbara Jordan as a Veep Candidate. Now there is a brilliant woman, but, since she is able to see through the likes of Tip Oniell, et al, she could never get the nod. If I were RR, I would quietly drop Bush and invite Jordan to join up. T. C. Wheeler
gtaylor@cornell.UUCP (Greg Taylor) (07/19/84)
It seems simple to comment on the possible editorial motivations for the pro-Raygun WSJ editorial, but I'd venture to say that there *are* some alternate analyses for the appeal to *higher Morality*. I am doing a bit of paraphrasing of Mark Hatfield here, and I apologize if I under or over-state him: To put it bluntly, there is (by the Republican formulation) very little difference seen between the need for *taking care of the poor* and a sort of *appease them so they don't burn our houses and take our durable goods* which is darkly hinted at in the notion of *higher responsibility*. Our foreign aid and domestic aid is a sort of "tribute" that we pay out of the incredible goodness of our Reaganomic hearts. Of course, the shiftless no-goodnicks will expect more from us, not less.... But there is another way to look at things, and there is some echo of it in the recent Democratic rhetoric (though we may see less of it when push comes to shove): There is a kind of good sense in balancing the long-term aims os social development programs (which at their best strive to *both* restructure society and to provide succor to those caught in the middle of the changes) with the short term gain of lower taxes. Likewise, there is a strong sense that our military dollars could provide us with a much greater long term return if they were put to the task of eradicating the chief sources of unrest in the enormous "third-world"...hunger and disease, to name two. CUomo's speech was, I think, misquoted in the WSJ. His point was that we may well even *be* better off, but... for how much longer, and at what cost? It should be bedtime for Bonzo. ________________________________________________________________________________ If you ask me, I may tell you gtaylor@cornell it's been this way for years Gregory Taylor I play my red guitar.... Theorynet (Theoryknot) ________________________________________________________________________________
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (07/20/84)
The editorial was sufficiently sanctimonious to raise my blood pressure a bit, so pardon my steam. I never cease to be amazed how the same viewpoint can be represented with good sense and in good spirit (e.g., a George Will) or as an appeal to the crudest prejudices of the expected reader (e.g. the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal). Here, then, is my polite outrage: >It was instructive to listen to the counterpoint in the governor's >keynote address. Do not be deceived because President Reagan has >a genial personality. Do not be deceived because inflation has been >brought under control. Do not be deceived because a vigorous economic >recovery is under way. We kept expecting him to say, do not be >deceived because you are better off then you were four years ago. First, the Wall Street Journal notes its limits of concern implicitly: the poisoning of the environment by toxic wastes is of no concern, nor is the fire sale of federal lands; the nuclear arms race is of no concern, nor is the continued sacrifice of defense readiness (fuel, ammunition, maintainance) for more glamorous weapons (MX, B1); human rights abroad is of no concern, nor is civil rights at home. Second, even the one thing with which the Journal is concerned, there are only some things we will talk about. Inflation, yes; interest rates, no; the present recovery, yes; how we got it, no; how long it will last, no; deficits, no; competitiveness with foreign manufacturers, no; retraining of displaced workers, no...this "rebuttal" to Cuomo's speech focuses very narrowly. >What the cheering Democrats would like to forget is that there have been >lessons to learn since 1936... >One, for example, has been the discovery in economics of the wedge >model, that taking from workers and giving to nonworkers destroys >the incentives of both and thwarts technical innovation and economic >growth. This simple reality puts limits on the compassion of the >welfare state. Here we state the obvious, that there are limits to what we can or ought to do. Is it so obvious that we have reached those limits that the Journal's editors feel no need to elaborate? >Further, it is known: That today's young most likely will pay more to >support their elders than future generations will pay to support them. >That the federal deficits so much deplored by Gov. Cuomo were built >while Tip O'Neil and his redistributionist House Democrats remained >in control of the nation's purse strings. That deficits didn't >become an issue with Democrats until Ronald Reagan and a rebellious >public began to deny the government further tax increases. No doubt that this generation is about to be screwed with regard to Social Security, as the pyramid game is about to run out of young bodies. But I don't see the Republicans moving on this any more than the Democrats. As far as purse strings, it is the President who is responsible for the budget, and every Republican President has had the votes to enforce vetoes. Republican Presidents ran the largest deficits, and, except for them being halved during the Carter years (from 65 to 30 billion dollars), deficits have been rising gradually for generations, and explosively with Reagan and the Republican Senate. To blame the Democratic party is distortion. It has been, at minimum, a bipartisan effort. >Beyond the practical problems, there is a moral one. The tax-and-give- >to-the-poor ethic requires an assertion of *moral authority* >[asterisks mine :-)], a justification of taking from one to give >to another. Most Americans will accept this so long as the taxes are >within reason and *the programs visibly help the poor* [again, I >put in the stars], but to many of us this no longer seems the case. >And as political resistance develops, liberal Democrats respond >with ever more strident claims of a *higher morality* [ditto]. >Hence, the assaults not only on Ronald Reagan's policies but on >his character, the assertion that those who disagree lack any >feelings for others, the nuclear-freeze assertion that those who >have a different view of how to prevent war admire weapons of >mass destruction. Certainly, some attacks on Reagan have been strident. But does a man who wraps himself in the flag, questions the patriotism of his opponents, and declares views inconsistent with his own to be in some way less American than his own have grounds for complaint? This editorial seems to be a good example of what it purports to complain about: the "tax-and-give-to-the-poor" ethic and all liberal policy has been damned by the esteemed moralists at the Journal. >All in all, I found the editorial to be rather interesting. How >about it y'all... do you agree or disagree with the statements >made in the editorial ?? and why ?? Let's try to discuss things >civilly without stooping to name-calling, at least for a while. :-) >net.politics was getting kind of boring, so I thought I'd do >my part to get it moving again. :-) >ihnp4!hogpd!keduh I guess I disagreed. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (07/20/84)
>It seems that Ms Ferraro has opened the door for character >assasination by saying that RR was not Christian. In the >same breath, she said she did not want anyone to mention >that her being Catholic was anything to talk about during >the campaign. Wrong. She said that his policies were inconsistent with his professed Christian values. In my opinion, religion isn't a real issue, but if it comes up, Reagan probably loses on hypocrisy alone. Mike Kelly
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/21/84)
****************
That the federal deficits so much deplored by Gov. Cuomo were built
while Tip O'Neil and his redistributionist House Democrats remained
in control of the nation's purse strings. That deficits didn't
become an issue with Democrats until Ronald Reagan and a rebellious
public began to deny the government further tax increases.
****************
Interesting views of the deficits, that. According to a chart published
a few months ago in TIME, every one of Reagan's budgets has had a deficit
more than three times the previous record deficit, whereas every one of
Carter's deficits was less than the preceding year's deficit (including
the deficit bequeathed by his predecessor).
It's really amazing how Reagan apologists keep trying to accuse the
Democrats of causing the deficits, when the deficits were being reduced
during the period the Dems had the White House and both Houses of Congress
but leaped upward as soon as Reagan had control.
Maybe you think Canadians have no business commenting on such matters
of "internal" US politics -- but although we can't vote, your misgovernment
hurts us probably more than it hurts you.
"No taxation without representation!" But how do we secede?
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmtjon@isrnix.UUCP (Jon Bayh) (07/22/84)
> Maybe you think Canadians have no business commenting on such matters > of "internal" US politics -- but although we can't vote, your misgovernment > hurts us probably more than it hurts you. > > "No taxation without representation!" But how do we secede? > Martin Taylor > {allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt On the contrary, I sometimes wish that you Canadians would comment on U.S. policies much more vigorously. I am outraged and incensed at the blase attitude of most U.S. citizens on the effects we have on the rest of the world. One of the most blatantly irresponsible attitudes we have is with respect to the acid rain problem. If we were simply polluting our own water and airspace, that would be our business. But instead we pass laws concerning the air quality immediately surrounding our coal-fired plants and permit the plants to build higher smokestacks, which spread pollution into Canadian air. It is exactly as if two people lived side-by-side, and each day one of them carried his garbage outside and dumped it onto his neighbor's lawn. Quite frankly, if Canada declared war on the United States because of issue, I would fight on Canada's side. I think that a major part of the problem is that most "Americans" (as if Canada and Mexico and all of South America were not a part of the American continents) are so indoctrinated with the attitude that we have the best country and the best government on earth, that we forget that others have equally valid governments and equally sovereign states. The United States educational system does not teach how people in other countries live; the American culture doesn't give a damn. And yet we do whatever we please, automatically assuming that it is for the good of the people we do not understand. "If it's good for America, it's good for the World." Please continue commenting. If nothing else, it will remind us that there are other people in the world. Jon Bayh ihnp4!inuxc!isrnix!jon
gtaylor@cornell.UUCP (Greg Taylor) (07/22/84)
READ THE QUOTE, GUY! What Ms. Ferraro *did* say was that his *policies* would stand little in the way of serious CHristian scrutiny: That is that any man who pays such lip service to "Traditional Family Values" would not be doing the tinghs to the poor and the aged that RayGun's policies are doing.The quote has its origins in the tried and true harangue we'll hear again and again..."how can Ms. F. be a good Catholic and take the legislative stand on abortion she has???" The Reagan quote is by way of answer to this: How can Reagan claim such a committment to human life as his easy co-opting of the Religious Right would suggest and still advocate the whole sale escalation of Nuclear Poker? Perhaps he only has a committment to *American* life... When it comes time to vote, remember that this is the guy that tried to get the covert aid against Nicaragua bill through by attaching it as a rider to the African famine relief bill, and nearly killed off the famine relief in the process. ________________________________________________________________________________ If you ask me, I may tell you gtaylor@cornell it's been this way for years Gregory Taylor I play my red guitar.... Theorynet (Theoryknot) ________________________________________________________________________________
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (07/25/84)
Ms. Ferraro's independent thinking on the abortion question strikes me as the mark of thoughtful Christian, not a hypocrite. Contrary to official rumor, (a) the RC Church does not have all the answers, and (b) blind obedience to the church does not make one a good Christian. As far as Reagan is concerned, if he really wanted to go to church and security was that much of a problem, he could hire a chaplain. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (07/26/84)
[] > Maybe you think Canadians have no business commenting on such matters > of "internal" US politics -- but although we can't vote, your misgovernment > hurts us probably more than it hurts you. > > "No taxation without representation!" But how do we secede? I fear that if we (US) go down the whole world goes down with us. In my book that gives the whole world a say in such matters. It is becoming more and more true that we are on "Lifeboat Earth". -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!sa!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (07/26/84)
[Do not write in this space] >First, the Wall Street Journal notes its limits of concern implicitly: >the poisoning of the environment by toxic wastes is of no concern, nor >is the fire sale of federal lands; Where were these topics raised in the WSJ editorial? But since you bring them up... apparently you are not happy with toxic waste cleanup unless some corporation or another is crucified daily, (gory details at eleven). The enforcement of waste containment and reduction is very much alive, albeit a bit less flambuoyanly than in the Naderite Carter years. Currenly the federal government owns about a third of the American land mass; that is way too much. Let's sell off some, and make better use of the rest. >the nuclear arms race is of no >concern, nor is the continued sacrifice of defense readiness (fuel, >ammunition, maintainance) for more glamorous weapons (MX, B1); human >rights abroad is of no concern, nor is civil rights at home. Who walked out of the arms negotiations? Why is nuclear arms reduction a matter of permitting those aimed at us and our allies to remain unchallenged while we docilely withhold ours (e.g. European cruise missiles just being deployed against the Soviet SS-20's which have been in place for years. Only seven percent of the defense budget goes for nukes; the rest goes for...well you know, you listed it in your statement above. Human rights? What human rights are practiced by a government which invades a peaceful country, shoots its legitimate head of government, installs its puppet in his place, decimates the population with conventional warfare and mycotoxins while telling the world it was INVITED? Which shoots a civilian aircraft from the sky, then invents a cock-and-bull story of espionage which, even if it WERE true, would not begin to justify the act? Which respects the treaties it signs only to the extent of demanding compliance from other signatories (Helsinki accords???) While we're at it; just what did the years of Carter moralizing in the world accomplish? We antagonized allies, encouraged enemies, withheld support from a middle eastern leader causing his overthrow at the hands of a theocratic maniac? Think of someone you know personally whose social or personal morality doesn't meet your idea of perfection. Have you been lecturing him/her lately on his/her failings, or arranging events to pressure him/her into compliance? That's about how much business we have preaching to the world. We are not the world's parents or clergy; we can suggest, and that's it. >Inflation, yes; interest >rates, no; the present recovery, yes; how we got it, no; how long it >will last, no; deficits, no; competitiveness with foreign >manufacturers, no; retraining of displaced workers, no...this >"rebuttal" to Cuomo's speech focuses very narrowly. The editorial column is only so big. If you read the WSJ regularly, as I do (I subscribe to it), you will know that they regularly address these issues (and not infrequently criticize the Reagan admininstration and persons in it) with real comments on how to improve the situation. The editorial didn't address the causes and longevity of the recovery, neither did Cuomo. >>What the cheering Democrats would like to forget is that there have been >>lessons to learn since 1936... >>One, for example, has been the discovery in economics of the wedge >>model, that taking from workers and giving to nonworkers destroys >>the incentives of both and thwarts technical innovation and economic >>growth. This simple reality puts limits on the compassion of the >>welfare state. >Here we state the obvious, that there are limits to what we can or >ought to do. Is it so obvious that we have reached those limits that >the Journal's editors feel no need to elaborate? My paragraph above applies here too. The Journal, and other voices, have frequently displayed narrative and graphic data to show how much the point of diminishing returns from the fix-everything Big Government policies of much of the past 50 years have caused more damage than they have alleviated. A few years ago, when the defense budget was PROPOSED by the Reagan administration to be $215 Billion (and was whittled down from that), social programs were $350 billion. What sort of lopsided militarism is that? I don't have the current budget figures handy, but I doubt much that the ratio is much different now. >>Further, it is known: That today's young most likely will pay more to >>support their elders than future generations will pay to support them. >>That the federal deficits so much deplored by Gov. Cuomo were built >>while Tip O'Neil and his redistributionist House Democrats remained >>in control of the nation's purse strings. That deficits didn't >>become an issue with Democrats until Ronald Reagan and a rebellious >>public began to deny the government further tax increases. >No doubt that this generation is about to be screwed with regard to >Social Security, as the pyramid game is about to run out of young >bodies. But I don't see the Republicans moving on this any more than >the Democrats. Look harder. The Republicans have driven the effort to liberalize individual retirement plans (IRA's, Keoghs, tax-deferred deferred-income employee plans, etc.) Also, the tax cut (there was only one that really amounted to a cut) have left more cash in the hands of low and middle income earners which they, if they have the foresight and discipline, can place in these plans and pay no tax on. >As far as purse strings, it is the President who is >responsible for the budget, and every Republican President has had the >votes to enforce vetoes. Republican Presidents ran the largest >deficits, and, except for them being halved during the Carter years >(from 65 to 30 billion dollars), deficits have been rising gradually >for generations, and explosively with Reagan and the Republican >Senate. To blame the Democratic party is distortion. It has been, at >minimum, a bipartisan effort. All spending resolutions originate in the House of Representatives, controlled for too long by the Dems. Sure the president can veto, but only on entire bills, not line items. Spending bills are generally crafted with this in mind, forcing the president to risk jeopardizing needed expenditures by vetoing entire bills. As for deficits, let me remind you of the definition of the deficit: revenue - spending. Note the dual element here. Somehow Washington has made spending sacred, and suggests that only more revenue will reduce deficits. Nonsense! Deficits were low in the Carter years because of confiscatory, prosperity-strangling tax levels, and the hidden tax of inflation (through monetizing debt). If you run up a deficit, and pay for it with accelerated money creation, you can have any deficit you want! If you account for the loss of wealth among the American people from the dilution of the currency, the deficits under Carter were not unlike todays; except that the revenue (tax) reductions have improved our individual wealth (that's the idea, right?) When Reagan was elected and announced economic policy, I was inclined to believe that a period of withdrawal from the inflation-based Keynsian policies preceding would be unfortunately necessary. Now we are emerging from the tunnel and seeing the empirical evidence of the wisdom of those policies. Reagan/Bush '84! -- Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simard
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (07/27/84)
Permit me to clarify, protest, rebut, and generally make a nuisance of myself. >> indicates my initial response to the original WSJ editorial (mercifully, there are few >>>'s for the editorial), > Ray's response to my response, and the new material is of course my response to his, etc. >>First, the Wall Street Journal notes its limits of concern implicitly: >>the poisoning of the environment by toxic wastes is of no concern, nor >>is the fire sale of federal lands; >Where were these topics raised in the WSJ editorial? But since you bring >them up... Precisely my point. Cuomo's speech mentioned all these, while the WSJ does not. Thus, implicitly (as opposed to explicitly) these things are of no great concern to the editor(s). >apparently you are not happy with toxic waste cleanup unless some >corporation or another is crucified daily, (gory details at eleven). >The enforcement of waste containment and reduction is very much alive, >albeit a bit less flambuoyanly than in the Naderite Carter years. I am not happy with toxic waste cleanup unless someone is cleaning up. This Adminstration has been almost (and I do say ALMOST) criminal in its refusal to carry out the provisions of the Superfund Act. Call the Carter administration what you want, but if he were still President, I dare say a few more of the dumps would have been cleaned up. There is a difference between working quietly and doing nothing. Reagan has been doing nothing. >Currenly the federal government owns about a third of the American >land mass; that is way too much. Let's sell off some, and make better >use of the rest. Even if we must sell some, we ought to do it wisely. Example: the Interior Department decided to dump huge amounts of coal-rich lands at precisely the moment that coal was in oversupply and the land's value depressed. Whatever happened to buy low, sell high? My government ought to be seeking the best deal for me and other taxpayers, not rushing to virtually give away land. >>the nuclear arms race is of no >>concern, nor is the continued sacrifice of defense readiness (fuel, >>ammunition, maintainance) for more glamorous weapons (MX, B1); human >>rights abroad is of no concern, nor is civil rights at home. >Who walked out of the arms negotiations? Why is nuclear arms >reduction a matter of permitting those aimed at us and our allies >to remain unchallenged while we docilely withhold ours (e.g. European >cruise missiles just being deployed against the Soviet SS-20's which >have been in place for years. There are good (stabilizing) nuclear weapons and bad (destablizing or wasteful) nuclear weapons. This may boggle Ray, but some of us Democrats would pick and choose among nuclear programs. Taking myself as an example (I am typical of all of me), I support Cruise Missiles (especially in Europe), Trident, Midgetman, and Stealth. I oppose B1, MX, and Pershing. >Only seven percent of the defense budget goes for nukes; the rest goes >for...well you know, you listed it in your statement above. >Human rights? What human rights are practiced by a government which >invades a peaceful country, shoots its legitimate head of government, >installs its puppet in his place, decimates the population with >conventional warfare and mycotoxins while telling the world it was INVITED? >Which shoots a civilian aircraft from the sky, then invents a cock-and-bull >story of espionage which, even if it WERE true, would not begin to justify >the act? Which respects the treaties it signs only to the extent of >demanding compliance from other signatories (Helsinki accords???) Human rights does not mean apologizing for Soviet dictators; it means not abetting, through action or inaction, oppressors in the Phillipines as well as in North Korea; in Guatemala as well as in Nicaragua; in South Africa as well as in Libya; in Chile as well as in Cuba. >While we're at it; just what did the years of Carter moralizing in the >world accomplish? We antagonized allies, encouraged enemies, withheld >support from a middle eastern leader causing his overthrow at the hands >of a theocratic maniac? Think of someone you know personally whose social >or personal morality doesn't meet your idea of perfection. Have you been >lecturing him/her lately on his/her failings, or arranging events to >pressure him/her into compliance? That's about how much business we have >preaching to the world. We are not the world's parents or clergy; we can >suggest, and that's it. Tell that to Raul Alfonsin, the new President of Argentina, who has stated that the Carter administration hastened the return of democracy to Argentina and that its public support of human rights gave needed courage to democrats in Argentina. Tell it to Ferdinand Marcos, who, relieved of the pressure for the US, is now free to rule the Phillipines in a more ruthless fashion than he ever has been free to do before. Tell it to Konstantin Chernenko, who nearly succeeded in preventing deployment of NATO intermediate range nuclear weapons because the abandonment of human rights by the US left many Europeans unable to distinguish between Soviet methods and American methods. Oppressors who ignore human rights are not our friends; they are only playing us for saps. Say the right thing, scream that the Communists are responsible for your opposition (rather than your own brutal policies), and some naive American will consider you a friend, although you are against everything America stands (or should stand) for. >>Inflation, yes; interest >>rates, no; the present recovery, yes; how we got it, no; how long it >>will last, no; deficits, no; competitiveness with foreign >>manufacturers, no; retraining of displaced workers, no...this >>"rebuttal" to Cuomo's speech focuses very narrowly. >The editorial column is only so big. If you read the WSJ regularly, as >I do (I subscribe to it), you will know that they regularly >address these issues >(and not infrequently criticize the Reagan admininstration and persons >in it) with real comments on how to improve the situation. The editorial >didn't address the causes and longevity of the recovery, neither did >Cuomo. I only wished to underscore that the WSJ's focus was very narrow, preumably choosing the subject matter which best supported the point they had decided a few generations to make. >>>What the cheering Democrats would like to forget is that there have been >>>lessons to learn since 1936... >>>One, for example, has been the discovery in economics of the wedge >>>model, that taking from workers and giving to nonworkers destroys >>>the incentives of both and thwarts technical innovation and economic >>>growth. This simple reality puts limits on the compassion of the >>>welfare state. >>Here we state the obvious, that there are limits to what we can or >>ought to do. Is it so obvious that we have reached those limits that >>the Journal's editors feel no need to elaborate? >My paragraph above applies here too. The Journal, and other voices, >have frequently displayed narrative and graphic data to show how >much the point of diminishing returns from the fix-everything Big >Government policies of much of the past 50 years have caused more >damage than they have alleviated. Perhaps. But my point is that the WSJ would have us believe that the issue is decided, that every thinking person "knows" that we have done too much... >A few years ago, when the defense budget was PROPOSED by the Reagan >administration to be $215 Billion (and was whittled down from that), >social programs were $350 billion. What sort of lopsided militarism >is that? I don't have the current budget figures handy, but I doubt >much that the ratio is much different now. The defense budget is being discussed elsewhere in this group; I refer you there. >>>Further, it is known: That today's young most likely will pay more to >>>support their elders than future generations will pay to support them. >>>That the federal deficits so much deplored by Gov. Cuomo were built >>>while Tip O'Neil and his redistributionist House Democrats remained >>>in control of the nation's purse strings. That deficits didn't >>>become an issue with Democrats until Ronald Reagan and a rebellious >>>public began to deny the government further tax increases. >>No doubt that this generation is about to be screwed with regard to >>Social Security, as the pyramid game is about to run out of young >>bodies. But I don't see the Republicans moving on this any more than >>the Democrats. >Look harder. The Republicans have driven the effort to liberalize >individual retirement plans (IRA's, Keoghs, tax-deferred deferred-income >employee plans, etc.) Also, the tax cut (there was only one that >really amounted to a cut) have left more cash in the hands of low and >middle income earners which they, if they have the foresight and >discipline, can place in these plans and pay no tax on. Look at what I wrote. The Republicans are still doing nothing on SOCIAL SECURITY, and even with IRA's, etc., I am still losing money down the SS sinkhole. Moreover, those nice high interest rates we now can get, and much of the new flexibility in IRA's, are a result of the Carter administration's deregulation of the banking industry in 1978-9. >>As far as purse strings, it is the President who is >>responsible for the budget, and every Republican President has had the >>votes to enforce vetoes. Republican Presidents ran the largest >>deficits, and, except for them being halved during the Carter years >>(from 65 to 30 billion dollars), deficits have been rising gradually >>for generations, and explosively with Reagan and the Republican >>Senate. To blame the Democratic party is distortion. It has been, at >>minimum, a bipartisan effort. >All spending resolutions originate in the House of Representatives, >controlled for too long by the Dems. Sure the president can veto, but >only on entire bills, not line items. Spending bills are generally >crafted with this in mind, forcing the president to risk jeopardizing >needed expenditures by vetoing entire bills. Incorrect. All taxing resolutions originate in the House; spending resolution can originate anywhere. Also, Reagan has not withheld vetoes for the reason you cited, but because he approved of almost all of his expenditures. Besides, everyone who votes for expenditures, and especially the man who signed it, are as responsible as the guys who proposed it. >As for deficits, let me remind you of the definition of the deficit: >revenue - spending. Note the dual element here. Somehow Washington >has made spending sacred, and suggests that only more revenue will >reduce deficits. Nonsense! Deficits were low in the Carter years >because of confiscatory, prosperity-strangling tax levels, and the >hidden tax of inflation (through monetizing debt). If you run up >a deficit, and pay for it with accelerated money creation, you can >have any deficit you want! If you account for the loss of wealth among >the American people from the dilution of the currency, the deficits >under Carter were not unlike todays; except that the revenue (tax) >reductions have improved our individual wealth (that's the idea, right?) Sure, Reagan has cut taxes. That by itself is not what I'm complaining about. But why cut taxes and raise spending at the same time? Deficits were lower under Carter because of higher (confiscatory? such lurid prose!) taxes AND lower spending. >When Reagan was elected and announced economic policy, I was inclined >to believe that a period of withdrawal from the inflation-based >Keynsian policies preceding would be unfortunately necessary. Now >we are emerging from the tunnel and seeing the empirical evidence >of the wisdom of those policies. Are you KIDDING me? Reagan is the biggest Keynsian around! He didn't "prime" the pump' he flooded it! David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david