From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: United We Stand And Deliver
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 16:48:20 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep25.211953.628@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
]In article <Bv5FKM.ELt@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
]>  You know that 33% tax hike?   Well Mr. Perot explains that if
]>  that doesn't do the trick (and have you EVER heard of a tax
]>  increase that reduced the deficit?) he'll raise it to 35%!
]>  Not only that but he refers (on page 43) to couples making
]>  $89,250 as "wealthy"!!   This is an entirely new use of the
]>  term "wealthy" with which I was previously unfamiliar.  
]
]From page 43:
]"In addition, we should raise the marginal tax rate on the wealthy
] from 31 to 33 percent. In 1993, this change would affect 
] individuals who make over $55,550 and joint filers who make over
] a total $89,250. Therefore, less than 4 percent of the taxpayers
] in America will be affected, but we wil raise $33 billion in
] five years. If other reductions proposed here do not provide
] sufficient revenue, we should be prepared to raise the marginal
] rate to 35 percent."
]
]Comment: There is other text that Ross refers to that I did not
] include. In addition, I am willing to take a 4% hit on income
] taxes if the feds will do their part:
] 1-Implement a Balanced Budget every year
] 2-Cut Congress' budget by 1/3
] ...etc... (read the book for the rest).

Cutting Congress' budget is meaningless. Implementing a balanced budget
is trivial if one raises taxes enough. Why not be for policies that
will reduce the size of the overbloated government, rather than
balancing that government's debts on our backs? I, for one, am unwilling
to pay one more penny to balance the budget. As a working engineer,
I am already taxed at near the highest rate, and I have been watching
my taxes go up too much. 

]
]>  Silly me, *I* thought it referred to people who lived in big houses,
]>  had servants, drove expensive cars, and traveled 1st class.
]>  Nope, if you and your spouse both work in white collar jobs
]>  Perot and his supporters think you're wealthy and want more
]>  of your money.   No problem -- I'll just dismiss the upstairs
]>  maid -- she's been stealing my caviar anyway. 
]Average income in this country is about $39000 or so. Perhaps many
]Americans would feel you are wealthy. I don't think so but we all
]and I mean all, share the pain somehow.

Why don't we reduce the pain by reducing the size of government?
I see not reason to suffer any more pain in order to pay non-productive
people to reduce my freedoms.

]>  Smaller government anyone?   Mr. Perot explains that he wants
]>  "targeted government investment".  After all, everybody knows
]>  that government bureaucrats are much better at allocating 
]>  investment resources than actual investors who have something
]>  to gain or lose are.  Perhaps the intellectual detachment 
]>  that comes from spending someone else's money frees the mind
]>  from stress and allows more clarity of thought.
]
]Then how come Congress is held in such poor esteem by Americans.
]After all they FREELY spend our money all the time. It certainly
]doesn't give them 'clarity of thought'.

Sarcasm missed. Targeted government investment means exactly the
same as government knows best, and is willing to steal to implement
what it knows. I have no reason to believe that the current decision
making system in government is going to outperform that in private
industry, where people are spending THEIR OWN money, rather than
money extorted at gunpoint from someone else.
]
]>  And to further enhance thinking skills Mr. Perot has planned
]>  some education reforms.  On page 77 he says "Washington would
]>  show local districts how to reallocate tax money away from
]>  things that don't work to things that do."   Well, I'll agree
]>  with part of that: Washington certainly has experts on things
]>  that don't work. 
]
]He does advocate giving the power back to parents (on schools)
Then what do they need washington for?

]He does advocate school choice

Vouchers to private schools students?

]He does say more money poured into the same system will simply
] give back the same results, i.e. more money won't solve it.

Good for him.

]>  Perot is vague on health care and foreign trade.  He doesn't want
]>  a trade agreement with Mexico "that trades a away jobs".  He wants
]>  a national health care "policy" but he's pretty unclear about
]>  details.  Does he favor national health insurance?  How about
]>  NAFTA?  Who knows?  Revealing this might divide his supporters.    
]>
]>  As I said before reading this book: Perot doesn't want smaller
]>  government, he wants cheaper, more efficient government.  
]
]So do I and most Americans.

Many of us want smaller government because we believe that the federal
government has reduced our freedoms too much.

]
]>  Under Perot, government will play a bigger role than it does now in 
]>  many aspects of our lives: education, health, taxation, business
]>  and investment policy.   Perot thinks I'm "wealthy", and he also
]>  thinks I'm too stupid to make educational or investment decisions
]>  without guidance from Washington!
]
]I think that is simplistic....I am sure he knows there are many bright
]people out there...What he seems to want to do is:
]1-Cut the debt - fine with me

By raising taxes. Several problems with this:
  -raising taxes does not necessarily increase revenue, and never increases
   it as much as static analysis would indicate.
  -raising taxes reduces the amount of money available for private investment,
   reducing the size of the economy.
  -historically, tax increases have been followed by even larger spending
   increases - by a ratio of 1.8 to 1.

]2-get rid of Lobbyists - fine with me

How, shoot them? Remove 1st amendment protections from them? Tell me more?

]3-term limits - fine with me

I agree, fine with me. Bush, of course, also supports this.

]4-Line item veto for the president - fine with me

I agree, fine with me. Bush, of course, also supports this.
]
]The big issue with me is to get the debt down and get the budget
]balanced. After that, scale back the scope and range of Government
]in every way. I do ascribe to what Thomas Jefferson said:
]     "That government is best which governs least"
]But we can't do it yet....

But, why not scale down the government FIRST.... if we do that, the debt
will take care of itself!
]
]I predict he will announce Monday night
]
]> But if he does enter it he must be stopped.  

Why, he has only a very small chance of winning.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"Modern liberals are the termites in the structure of our society."
  John Moore
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton