Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: submitted for comments
Message-ID: <216@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Jul-84 21:12:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: fisher.216
Posted: Thu Jul 19 21:12:18 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Jul-84 05:19:25 EDT
References: <363@hogpd.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics
Lines: 95

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