Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 v7 ucbtopaz-1.8; site ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!mwm
From: mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Wage Rates: Unions, Minimum Wage Laws, and Employer Oligopoly
Message-ID: <737@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 17-Feb-85 01:34:45 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbtopaz.737
Posted: Sun Feb 17 01:34:45 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Feb-85 05:21:53 EST
References: <811@ratex.UUCP> <593@tty3b.UUCP> <1080@amdahl.UUCP> <595@tty3b.UUCP> <710@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA> <602@tty3b.UUCP>
Reply-To: mwm@ucbtopaz.UUCP (Praiser of Bob)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 40
Summary: 

In article <602@tty3b.UUCP> mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) writes:
>We should make a significant cut in defense spending, somewhere between 25% and
>50%.  The tax code should be reformed to tax all income, regardless of source,
>and impose a single high floor, somewhere around $15,000.   These two actions
>together would seriously address the deficit (which, despite his pious claims
>to the contrary, Ronald Reagan has been the single biggest contributor to
>with his outlandish defense budgets.)  A good portion (around $80 billion) of
>the remaining money should be dedicated to a massive public works program in
>the U.S.  Roads and bridges need to be rebuilt.  The train system needs new
>right-of-ways. Mass transit should be built in areas where it is needed.
>Approached properly, this is not only an opportunity to provide much needed
>repairs to America's infrastructure, but also a significant opportunity to
>train people in these jobs.

Sounds like a good idea (better than what we have now, anyway). Let me tell
you what I see as the problems, and maybe you can tell me the fix, or why
they aren't problems.

First, your tax plan is going to (in words I think are yours) transfer
money from the middle class to the rich. I suspect that there will be
*much* trouble pushing something that obvious through congress.

Second, you claim it would reduce the deficit. Good. Now, you're going to
spend money and make it bigger again. Bad.  Why not strip the welfare
system of it's middle-class parasites, and net yourself another couple of
hundred billion, thus giving you an excess?

Third, how are you planning on keeping that $80 billion from turning into
$20 billion or so after you pay a government bureaucracy to handle it?

Fourth, what are you planning on doing about the unions whos toes are going
to be stepped on by the non-union workers you would (presumably) be
hiring?

Those are just the problems I see. I'm sure other people will see other
problems.

BTW, mike, when did RR say he had reduced the deficit?

	<mike