From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Study on Sustainable Energy Future and Jobs To Be Released Oct. 5
Date: 8 Oct 92 03:54:27 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Oct5.210454.6465@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
>Gary Coffman (gary@ke4zv.uucp) wrote:
>: In article <1992Oct2.135339.13025@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (Class Guest3) writes:
>: >
>: >	Raise the gasoline tax!  Even with a $0.50 increase per gallon,
>: >we'd still have the cheapest gas in the Western world.
>: 
>: Though $.50 a gallon less cheap than we have now. No advantage America.
>	Suggested as a way of decreasing the federal deficit.  Advantage
>America.  Can you say "hyperinflation"?

The only way to reduce the deficit is spend *less*, no tax increase has
to date been used to reduce the deficit. Give Congress X more dollars
and they spend 1.5X more dollars. Hurting the economy by artificially
raising transport costs is not a viable deficit reduction measure.

>: Perhaps we should extend this thought. 
>: 
>: We have the lowest income tax in the Western world, we could raise it
>: to 89% and still be less than Britian. No advantage America.
>
>	Experts evaluating the Reagan years indicated that use of
>prior administration (Ford and Carter) policies would have left us
>with about $40 billion deficits in 1990, not $400 billion.  Maybe the
>taxes shouldn't have been cut in the first place. 

Actual figures show that growth increased enough due to the tax cuts
that government revenues *increased* during the Reagan years. The
problem, of course, is that government *spending* increased even
faster. Experts can postulate that growth would have been spurred
*without* the tax cuts, but they'd be whistling past the graveyard
with no data to support the notion.

>: We have the highest worker salaries in the Western world. We could
>: lower them to $41 a month and still be higher than Russia. No advantage
>: America.
>	Can't argue this.  Lowering salaries wouldn't get us anywhere,
>including revenue losses (income tax), i.e. higher deficit.

Raising taxes has the same effect as lowering salaries. The money is
transferred from the worker's pocket to someone elses. The only difference
is that a business owner would likely make productive investments with
the saved capital while government would fritter it away.

> : We spend more on public universities than any other Western nation. We
>: could cut it tenfold and still spend more than Germany. No advantage
>: America.
>	And also have the strongest basic research in academia of 
>any country in the world.  Granted, technology transfer to industry needs 
>to be enhanced.
>
>	But I don't see a trend.  Enlighten me.

The trend is tax and spend as it has been for the last 50 years.
The trend is to penalize Americans by higher taxes and lower net
returns just because *other countries do it*. Your momma probably
asked the retorical question, "Would you jump off a cliff just because
all your friends did it?" The correct answer then, as now, is NO.
Artificially increasing the cost of energy, a cost that underlies
*all* other economic activity, is the most damaging thing you can
do to the economy. The thing that other countries have failed to
do, and the US government must do, is tax less and spend *much* less.
*Then* we have Advantage America.

Gary
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.activism