Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site loral.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdccs6!loral!simard From: simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: submitted for comments Message-ID: <313@loral.UUCP> Date: Wed, 25-Jul-84 22:29:17 EDT Article-I.D.: loral.313 Posted: Wed Jul 25 22:29:17 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jul-84 07:50:27 EDT References: <363@hogpd.UUCP>, <216@fisher.UUCP> Organization: Loral Instrumentation, San Diego, CA Lines: 154 [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