From: hhuang@m4-035-13.MIT.EDU (Han-Young Huang)
Subject: PACs
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 11:24:24 GMT


If I remember correctly, Bush and Republicans asked for a bill which completely
eliminated PACs, to which the Democrats only came up with limits of PACs as
percentages of campaigns.  Bush asked for 12-year limits, and, once again, your
Democrats balked.  Also, Bush has said that a if a worker doesn't support his
union's political money-giving, he can ask for it back.  It's sort of a
meaningless gesture, because there's no teeth in it, but at least it was done.

On the flip side, Bush is the one who's going to veto a bill which put a cap on
total campaign spending.  Actually, I can't see light on this issue.  It takes
a lot of money to oust an incumbent who can count on special interest votes
(tends to be your Democrats).  On the other hand, an incumbent can always raise
cash easier.  Of course, Bush does this because the GOP is richer, and can
funnel money into challengers.

Too partisan, our Congress and Administration.

Once again, if Brown claims that health PACs put $30 million into Congress
every 2 years, then that can explain why we don't have health reform.  (I don't
think health gives to the GOP.)  I ask again, why does law and health give to
Clinton?  I frankly expect the Bush Administration, of all lame
sit-on-its-hands Administrations, to control health and law more than Clinton.
Problem is that Bush isn't a good enough of a Republican.  Bush needs a
non-tyrannical and non-unreasonable Sununu.  The problem is that I'm afraid
Bush will just sit around if left to his own.  He'll only pass bills which make
it through.  He'd rather not duke it out one on one with Senators and
Congressmen.  This is the same problem with Clinton.  Clinton, vetoing bills
from his own party?  What kind of bill, may I ask?

I find it's strange how public perception is skewed over the budget.  Defense
was 15.6% of the budget in 1980, when Ronnie got on.  It is 20.3% now.  C'mon!
Everybody knows defense is going to get cut.  Clinton says we can cut 30% by
1997.  Bush is slower about it, but it looks like he'd cut 20% himself by 1997.
Is there that much of a difference between the two?  Notice Clinton doesn't
make an issue of it.  Why not?  He's the one keeping the Seawolf sub.

We have to do something about Entitlements.  Medicare is the worst of it,
growing at 12-15% every year.  Bush, the spineless one, is doing nothing but
allotting increases in funding (read: INCREASES IN FUNDING.  Under Reagan and
Bush, Entitlements has GROWN as percentage of budget.)  Of all people, Bush has
the staff to put together a real budget.  Instead, he waffles all the time.  He
pretends to be anti-abortion and tells the Court so.  But then he signs in
civil rights laws (read: he signed a civil rights law!) and the Persons With
Disabilities Act which is another lawyer-loving law like many of your Democrat
bills.

Anybody read the "essay" in this week's Time?  Horrible.  And full of lies.
She had a point on one thing, though.  Are we going to throw the 20% spent on
defense to fill up the 30% hole of interest payments?  Our problems are deeper.

I actually believe in soaking the rich.  I don't see any real solutions, like
Brown's flat tax, being passed any time soon.  I'd up it to 15%, though,
because the deficit has to get paid off.  People like to tell me how it hurts
the poor.  You know, all you have to do is raise the taxable income to higher
levels.  Let's say, only income above $25000 is taxable.  Is that enough?  The
blunt truth is that the poor just don't pay too much taxes anyway, because,
GEE, they're poor.  We can well afford not to ask them to pay so much.  And
then, hey, it'll also help cut down on entitlements.

Real reform puts many rich people out of a job.  The problem is not the wealth,
but that a majority of your rich didn't deserve it and weren't all that
scrupulous about getting it.  When people are paid enormous amounts to be
leeches, then a high-quality leeching America will get.  It's a simple affair
to clean out much of our corruption.  A few stringent rules on the stock
market, eliminate lobbyists, weighted reductions in capital gains, caps on
litigation, forcing losers to pay entire legal fees, taking malpractice away
from the private sector, embarassment of businessmen who pay themselves too
much.  I'd wager 50% of the hated rich would lose their jobs and go down to 5
digit salaries very quickly.  It's one thing to tax the rich another 8%, like
Clinton and Tsongas suggests.  It's another thing to put them out of jobs, and
get another job for at least 50% less than they used to.  If even 1 out of 7
has this coming to them (and real reform will put a lot more than 1 out of 7
out of jobs), then it redistributes wealth much more effectively and cleanly
than another soak the rich tax.

However, I don't see overhauls happening because both parties are corrupt, so
the only way to reduce the deficit is to raise taxes, and the rich, who are
often by far the worst welfare constituents, should pay back government for
giving them their jobs in the first place.  A reduction in capital gains allows
those who are rich to recover their losses by investing.  Basically, a
Tsongas-type plan rewards those who invest, punishes those who consume.  How
can this be bad?

We have too much waste.  The IRS, for example, has 125000 employees.  That's
easily 100000 too many.  I will not comment on Entitlements, nor defense for
that matter.  Government is the biggest welfare state for bureaucrats and the
infinite lawyers (spell, leechers).

It's such a simple affair to rid ourselves of 80% of our lawyers.  Who's going
to do it?  I thought it was most humorous when Quayle went to a national lawyer
convention and may as well have said straight out that lawyers just got paid
too much.  Unfortunately, I see neither party caring or even seeing it as that
much of a problem.  Why not?  So many politicians are law graduates anyway.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc