From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:03:25 GMT

In article <BZS.92Nov5202519@ussr.std.com> bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>>To defend
>>your assertion, that the rich benifit more from government than the
>>poor, you need to identify well over $100 billion dollars (~8% of
>>the federal budget) in federal programs than benifit the rich.

>Well, where do you think the other 92% of the budget goes? AT&T, GM,
>Lockheed, Boeing, etc etc.

To interest on the national debt (~35% if memory serves), and to
programs that benifit all _both_ the rich and the poor, more-or-less
equally. (_Some_ of the rich benifit more from defence contractor
graft, but everyone benifits from national defence equally. Of the
20% of the budget that goes to defence, the bulk goes to food, fuel,
etc... and to paying servicemen. A large chunck is paid to contractors,
but they are required to waste most of this themselves: The $200 hammers
were tested to withstand sub-artic temperatures, heat, pressure and
radiation consistant with a nearby nuclear explosion, etc... All of
which is required of _everything_ the government buys. That's money
going to stupidity not contractor graft.) The point is, at least 
$100 billion goes to _directly_ benifit the poor (I haven't added in the
cost of AFDC and unemployment, since I don't have those numbers.)
There is, undoubtably, a large fraction of the budget that _in_directly
benifits the poor, just as a large fraction indirectly benifits the
rich. I don't know of any federal funds that directly and properly
benifit the rich.

>All you're really saying is that this dollar is ok, but that one
>ain't, based mostly on some sort of personal power-fetish. It went to
>rich white guys in suits, therefore it must be ok, how dare anyone
>compare it to welfare...

I've said nothing of the sort. I would just like to have people
specifically identify government spending going to the rich and
justify the assertion that "the rich benifit from government more
than the poor." Since this is used as an excuse to tax a political
minority (e.g. a group with less than 50% of the vote), I don't
think it is unreasonable to expect some proof of this assumption.

>If AT&T gets $10B in contracts from the govt, or the dept of silly
>research at moosehead U. gets $1M, or some pork-barrel like keeping an
>army base open for no military reasons or continuing to build some
>weapon we know we'll never deploy so we don't economically shock some
>area that's fine and dandy and none of it could possibly be
>unnecessary.

No, I don't think it is: I think such programs should be deleted, not
used as an excuse to tax the rich. By the way, AT&T, "moosehead U" 
and the pork-barrel businesses around army bases, all employ alot
of poor and lower middle class people. Doesn't this money indirectly
benifit the poor as well as the rich? If you close Wright-Patterson 
Air Force Base, you are (in effect) firing the people working at
the Pizza Hut across the street from it.

> But if J. Poor Loser gets $500 so she and her kid doesn't
>have to sleep in the gutter tonight and eat out of a garbage can then
>it's outlandish and intolerable and we must scream bloody murder.

I also didn't say that. But J. Poor Loser is clearly benifiting
from government programs (regardless of whether this is a good or
a bad thing.) 

>Notice how few people gripe and moan about the money that went into
>the Chrysler bail-out or the $500B currently being poured into the S&L
>crisis?

I've certainly been griping and moaning a fair amount about this.

>Cuz that's *our* welfare goddamit, it's *their* welfare (and we all
>know who *they* are) that's a problem!

That isn't the issue here: The question is, which costs the government
more, helping the rich or the poor? And can this balance of government
benifits be used as an excuse to over-tax the rich?

>My proposal: Let's start getting rid of government waste from the top
>down. I won't deny your favorite gripe. First let's cut programs we
>can do without that are >$1B each. Then >$100M each, on down.

That's a pretty nieve way to cut the deficit: All it would do is 
_increase_ spending: Everyone would quickly split their favorite,
$25 billion program into a dozen small programs (with overhead and
administrative costs going through the roof.)

By the way, Food Stamps, "Human Development Services", subsidized
housing projects and Medicare all cost over $5 billion each (Food
Stamps and Medicare over $20 billion each). They
would be a pretty high priority under your suggestion.

>I reckon in three or four hundred years when we get down to some
>single mother getting an extra $12/month cuz she had a kid or whatever
>it is that ticks you off we'll be about done, right?

Is there, just out of curiosity, _any_ reason to give money to 
a poor, single mother who continues to have _more_ children and
thereby makes her situation worse? That seems like someone who is
making absolutely no effort to help or take care of herself.

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton