X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 02:59:55 CST
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.SDSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Other People's Money (was Inaugural costs...)
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Again, I hit SEND when I meant CENTER. I'll not replicate my points.

> >It seems to me that people who hold these views (admittedly, not everyone
> >does -- I'm not sure if I do myself) are starting to view both
> >"public" and "private" money as "our" money.  All of it.  There seems to
> >be a feeling that "private" money ought to be used for the public good
> >just as "public" money should.

> I have no problem with people "thinking" of or suggesting
> responsible ways to spend both public and private money. What
> troubles me is when people use the coercive power of government
> to control (steal) other people's (private) money when
> they can't obtain such control voluntarily. Example: the
> landowner's plea bargain in a recent environmental "crime" case
> (Tudor Farms) included a one-mllion dollar fine paid to the
> National Wildlife Federation and an equal fine paid to the govt.
> I don't think this is an isolated case.

I am not familiar with this case, but considering how slow the EPA
can get on this stuff (Superfund is backed up at least 10 years,
last I heard), and how Justice handles environmental crimes like
Chevy Chase used to handle staircases, I would guess the NWF spent
a lot of time and a lot of money investigating this case. I would
also guess that, since it was a plea-bargain case and not a true
trial, NWF was willing to take Tudor to the wall in suits over this
but had to be bought off in order to let the plea-bargain stick. A
plea-bargain is not a strong precedent for future study, and many of
the environmental law precedents run counter to the work of envirocrats.
(I will obstain for now from saying the precedents are antienvironment)

> Another example is ILOTAs: Interest on Lawyer's Own (?) Trust Accounts.
> These are accounts containing pooled money held in trust by an attorney
> on amounts too small (relatively) to justify the expense of setting up
> and accounting for the interest. The Bar Associations in 49 states require
> the interest go to approved "public interest" groups, and not to the
> owner of the money (the accounting shouldn't be difficult, assuming
> you don't do it manually :-).

First look at this leaves this reaction: "Whatthefuck?" I can understand
laws keeping lawyers from grabbing the money. I don't see why the money
can't go to the owner, besides things like half-pennies and other
accounting wierdness. Someone seems to keep "wierdoes" out of this kitty
and most "public interest" groups run on near-shoestring budgets, from
my experience.

> I suggest that any scheme, promoted by anyone (including the govt.), for
> the "public good" be looked at twice (at least) for a preponderance of the
> benefits going to just a few individuals.

I agree, but it would take more than a precursary glance for that to
work.

> - David

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Ask not what your government can do for you,
ask what it is doing to you.
              --Jerome Kingsbury

Disclaimer: The opinions contained in this post are insightful
and brilliant. Obviously, these are not those of the Computer
Department, Administration, Faculty or Student Body of South
Dakota State University.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU