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: <238@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Jul-84 12:06:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: fisher.238
Posted: Fri Jul 27 12:06:42 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jul-84 10:38:43 EDT
References: <363@hogpd.UUCP>, <216@fisher.UUCP> <313@loral.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics
Lines: 233

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