From: mpye@netcom.com (Michael Pye)
Subject: Perot's Plan (2/4)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 15:09:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

                  AN AMERICA THAT PAYS ITS WAY (chapter 3)

For a decade the United States economy has been pulled and tugged from two
different directions. Republicans in the White House pushed for lower taxes on
the rich in the hope that their increased incomes would trickle down to the
rest of the nation. Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress pushed for tax and spend
policies that would take more money out of all our pockets and put it into big
government programs. The result is that nothing trickled down, we all got
taxed, and government spending skyrocketed. The Federal government's share of
our gross national product increased from 19 percent to 25 percent over the
past twenty years.

In the 1960s and 1970s we were led to believe government could solve our
problems. It couldn't, and it made some problems worse.

In the 1980s we were led to believe the private economy could solve our
problems. It couldn't, and it didn't. Some people became richer. A lot more
became poorer. Most families just got stuck. The average family purchasing
power in 1992 is about where it was in 1976 in real dollars.

Our two parties are locked into their ideologies. The Democratic Party's
platform this year admits tax and spend policies don't work. Then it goes
right ahead to offer a program of massive government spending called
"investment") which will have to be paid for by higher taxes or even more
debt. The Republicans, still clinging to the hope that our economy will right
itself on its own, offer no program at all.

We cannot afford to let either party's ideology continue to wreak havoc on our
economy.

Our first priority is to balance the budget. The United States government must
pay its way. There are only two ways to do it: reduce spending and generate
revenues. It's that simple. In your family, when you can't pay the bills, you
either get a raise or start cutting back to the necessities. In any business,
big or small, it's the same. Government tries to sneak around this principle,
either by borrowing money or by printing it. These end runs never work. They
always compound the problem because they don't address it.

As a nation, we have to make some hard choices that involve setting our
priorities. Elected officials back away from this like a dog backs away from
an angry cat. They're worried about getting scratched in the face by some
angry special interest. Yet, every American  has to make hard choices every
day. Do I need a new car? Not really. Can I afford a week at the beach? No. Do
the children need new clothes? Yes. Should I pay down my Visa account? I'd
better. Can we afford a house? Let's check the interest rates.

These are everyday questions, not life-shattering philosophical decisions.
They shouldn't be too hard. Yet, ask an elected official if he wants more
money for either Head Start or public television. He'll quickly calculate who
gives him what and how it will look on the evening news, then he will answer
he wants both. That's an answer we can't afford to receive anymore.

We need to lay out the choices and then give the officials no place to hide.
The choices may be painful, but they must be plain and clear. Government is
not a candy store in which every group can pick from any jar it wants. This is
not free money. It's your money, and more importantly, it's your children's
money. Under our present system, our elected representatives can retire to
Hawaii when the bad news comes. But where will your children be? What kind of
education will your grandchildren receive? Where will their jobs come from?

It is unconscionable not to act now. My own experience with General Motors is
a case in point. In the mid-eighties it had plenty of money and time to
recreate itself as a company dedicated to excellence. The corporate
bureaucracy, however, wouldn't budge. Neither top management nor the board of
directors would deal with the real problems. During the past year, GM lost
almost $400 million a month. It is now in the process of firing employees,
closing plants, permanently downsizing. It wouldn't have happened if its
owners, the shareholders, had demanded that the Board look into the future and
make the difficult decisions early on.

I started as a salesman for IBM, one of the most successful business
enterprises ever. I believed twenty years ago that IBM would grow forever.
Today it is a company playing defense, not offense.

Time is not our friend. We must start now to cut t he huge budget deficit.

What follows is my proposal of exactly how the budget should be balanced. As
the graph on deficits shows, this plan will get rid of the deficit by 1998.
Compare the results of this plan to what the deficits are estimated to be if
current policies are followed by Congress.

It is not a perfect plan, but it is fair and reasonable. I urge all of you,
including the two political parties, to improve upon it.


                          CUT DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

Require the federal departments to submit budgets that cut 15 percent from
their discretionary budgets in two steps. First, cut specific programs that
are unnecessary or outdated to save 5 percent. Then, make an across-the-board
cut of all remaining departments and programs of another 10 percent. This will
save $108 billion over five years. In my business experience the one
overriding lesson is that the longer an enterprise is in existence, the larger
the unnecessary overhead. It's human nature. Give some people a nice position,
and soon they want two assistants instead of one; they want their nameplate in
brass; and they think they deserve a private dining room. It is time to adjust
our spending to what we can afford.




                                    DEFICITS

B  $350 |
I       |____________
L  $300 |\_____      \
L       |      \      \_______                                     ____ Current
I  $250 |       \____         \                              _____/
O       |            \         \__________          ________/
N  $200 |             \___                \________/
S       |                  \
   $150 |                    \___
O       |                         \
F  $100 |                          \____
        |                               \
D   $50 |                                \_____________
O       |                                              \___________
L    $0 |..........................................................\.............
L       |                                                           \___  Perot
A  -$50 |
R       |_____________________________________________________________________
S        1993       1994       1995       1996       1997       1998




Let me give you two examples of programs that we don't need:

First, we are spending money on programs that are nice but not necessary. One
example is the space station. I'm a supporter of scientific research. However,
this is a huge undertaking for a nation with an operating deficit of over $330
billion. We should defer the space station until we have the money to pay for
it.

We are spending on programs that have long since outlived their usefulness.
The Rural Electrification Administration was set up during the New Deal to
provide electrical power to our outlying rural areas where no power company
could afford to go. It did its job. The country is now electrified and the
program should be phased out.

There are many other candidates for elimination. Every program must be
evaluated objectively. We should save only those programs we need for our
future.


                            ENACT THE LINE ITEM VETO

The last five Presidents have requested it, and 43 governors have it. When
budget resolutions come back to the President's desk studded with little
rhinestones for special interest groups, he should have the authority to pluck
them off. Those rhinestones are stuck on by powerful members of Congress to
enhance their reputations back home or to repay the special interests that
gave them PAC money. The President is forced, under the present system, to
either accept the entire bundle, rhinestones and all, or veto the whole thing.
This is bad budget procedure.

Congress ought to have the last say. They would still have the right to
override a line item veto with a two-thirds majority.


                      ENACT A REAL DEFICIT REDUCTION LAW

Congress needs a mechanism to keep our fiscal house in order. When we talk
about the budget, we're talking about a mirage. Our government mostly operates
by a series of continuing resolutions, not by a budget. This system is clumsy,
inefficient, and open to abuse by special interests. Congress must manage its
own business before it can undertake the people's.

A strong, consistent deficit reduction law is necessary, and I believe it
would be welcome in Congress. I believe Congress rejected the proposed
balanced budget amendment because they knew it was phony. Why tamper with the
Constitution when what we need is for Congress to apply restraint over its own
procedures?


                           ELIMINATE SPECIAL FAVORS

Thousands of special favors for various groups are in the budget. Space
doesn't allow me to name every single one, but I will give some examples:

The inland waterways are costly to patrol and maintain. The private companies
that benefit from them ought to pay for their use. Similarly, people who cut
timber on public lands should pay full cost for the privilege. In general, we
should adopt user fees for many public services that benefit only a portion of
the population.

We should eliminate special tax favors, such as those for alcohol-fuel and
iron-ore shipping companies.

We should eliminate protective tariffs for such commodities as sugar. Because
of what lobbies have gained, we pay increased prices at the grocery store. If
lower tariffs hurt small farmers in the short run, we should have programs
that reward them for more productive activities.

We should eliminate our entire system of farm subsidies for giant agricultural
corporations.

We should cut deductions for business meals and entertainment to 50 percent of
the cost. Now 80 percent are deductible. I don't know many working people who
take them. I'm a businessman, and I know they are sometimes necessary
expenses. I also know I have to eat lunch whether I'm doing business or not.

By cutting various unnecessary subsidies and tax favors, we would save $50
billion over five years.


                 CUT THE DEFENSE BUDGET TO MEET ITS MISSION

Nothing is more important than the security of our country In the post-Cold
War world, however, our well-being depends less on military security than on
economic security. On the military side, we have the resources the strategic
doctrine, and the hardware in place to confront any serious threat to our
interests anywhere in the world. We don't need to be ready to fight World War
III tomorrow because World War III is not going to break out tomorrow.

Our military budget is stuffed with relics from the Cold War, such as the B-2
and the Seawolf submarine. We don't need them. What's more, we can't afford
them. I propose that they be eliminated.

I have great respect for the men and women who serve our country in the armed
forces. I suggest implementing a program to provide a smooth transition for
these talented and well-trained people to reenter the job force. They will
make a tremendous addition to the productivity of our nation. American
companies should avail themselves of this unparalleled opportunity to employ
these dedicated people.

Similarly, we need to convert many of our defense industries to new and
productive tasks so that the downsizing of our defense is not accompanied by a
downturn in jobs. The federal government can play an important role. Many of
these companies are among our finest in research and technology. They can be
instrumental in restoring our lead in new technologies.

First we need to implement a well-conceived and deliberate plan to restructure
the defense budget to match the post-Cold War reality. In doing so, we can
save at least an additional $40 billion during the five years over the cuts
proposed by President Bush.


                         STOP SUBSIDIZING THE RICH

Under current law the federal government allows homeowners to deduct from
their income taxes interest on mortgages up to one million dollars. Why should
we subsidize interest on huge, expensive homes? I know people who own two
houses: one as their principal residence and another on the beach. Because the
mortgages on both total under one million dollars they deduct every penny from
their taxes. Why should we subsidize interest on vacation homes?

The average mortgage in the United States is $104,000. I propose that we limit
deductions on interest to mortgages of $250,000 and that we eliminate the
special deduction for vacation homes.

Another subsidy for the rich is the exemption from taxes on expensive
employer-paid health insurance. These plans support the rich and encourage
excessive health costs. They should be taxed as additional income. I propose
that all such contributions over $335 for a family and $135 for an individual
each month which is more than most of us getbe taxed.

These two measures alone would save us $72.9 billion over five years.

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 of $89,250. Therefore, less
than 4 percent of the taxpayers in America will be affected, but we will 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.


                          CONTROL ENTITLEMENT COSTS

Our biggest problem is entitlement programs. These include Social Security,
government retirement, Medicare, and Medicaid. They now consume 50 percent of
the federal budget. The accompanying chart on entitlement outlays shows how
much we spend on them. They are the fastest growing part of our budget, and
they are growing at an alarming rate. The combined costs of Medicare and
Medicaid doubled in the last six years. If we don't take action now, we won't
have the money to support them.

These programs are the heart of our social services. Millions of people depend
on them every day, and they must be secure in the absolute knowledge these
programs will continue. The President must act as guardian at the gate to
protect these programs against any threat.

The threat I fear the most is that their runaway costs will outstrip the
nation's ability to pay for them.

The reason these are called entitlement programs is that they run on
automatic. Congress and the White House, influenced by politicians of both
parties, have set them up so they never have to confront the political problem
of dealing with them. That's why they've grown unchecked. The accompanying
graph shows how wildly entitlements have jumped from 1960 to 1991.

They've also grown out of whack. Families with high incomes actually received
more entitlement benefits than poor families in 1991, and much more than
middle class families.



                        1992 FEDERAL ENTITLEMENT OUTLAYS
                         (originally in pie-chart form)

B    $0_________
I      |.......|
L      |.......|<-- Other Nonretirement (Includes Farm Price Support and
L      |.......|    Student Loans) (27.7 Billion)  3.80%
I      |+++++++|
O   $50|+++++++|
N      |+++++++|<-- Food & Housing Benefits (51.78 Billion)  7.10%
S      |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
O      |\\\\\\\|
F  $100|\\\\\\\|
       |\\\\\\\|
D      |\\\\\\\|<-- Unemployment and Family Support ($71.3 Billion)  9.80%
O      |\\\\\\\|
L      |\\\\\\\|
L  $150|\\\\\\\|
A      |#######|
R      |#######|
S      |#######|
       |#######|<-- Other Pension & Veterans Benefits ($83.72 Billion)  11.50%
   $200|#######|
       |#######|
       |#######|
       |#######|
       |>>>!<<<|
   $250|>>>!<<<|
       |>>>!<<<|
       |>>>!<<<|
       |>>>!<<<|
       |>>>!<<<|
   $300|>>>!<<<|
       |>>>!<<<|
       |>>>!<<<|
       |>>>!<<<|<-- Health Care Benefits ($200.2 Billion)  27.50%
       |>>>!<<<|
   $350|>>>!<<<|
       |>>>!<<<|
       |>>>!<<<|
       |>>>!<<<|
       |>>>!<<<|
   $400|>>>!<<<|
       |>>>!<<<|
       |>>>!<<<|
       |>>>!<<<|
       |$$$$$$$|
   $450|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
   $500|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
   $550|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|<-- Social Security Payments ($293 Billion)  40.30%
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
   $600|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
   $650|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
   $700|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
   $730 -------




                          FEDERAL ENTITLEMENT GROWTH

 |
 |***
 |*** $25.8: Total federal entitlements in FY 1960
 |***
 |
 |
 |***********
 |*********** $113.6: Total in FY 1991 needed if entitlements grew at the
 |***********         rate of inflation.
 |
 |
 |****************
 |**************** $158.8: Total in FY 1991 if entitlements grew at the rate of
 |****************         inflation and were adjusted for population growth
 |
 |*****************************
 |***************************** $286.0: Total in FY 1991 needed if entitlements
 |*****************************         grew at the rate of GNP growth
 |
 |
 |*****************************************************************
 |*****************************************************************
 |*****************************************************************
 | 
 | ^ $650.7 = The actual total federal entitlements in FY 1991 were much more 
 |            than needed for any of these adjustments.
 |
 ----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
$0       $100      $200      $300      $400      $500      $600      $700

                           Billions of Dollars



These programs can be saved, and our fiscal sanity restored, by taking some
fairly simple steps.

First, those who can afford it should pay more to support the program. 
Better-off Americans stop paying Medicare taxes on income over $130,000 a
year.  We should lift that cap.

Second, given the size of the problem, everyone except the poorest among us
should share in the changes.  Users of the Medicare supplemental medical
insurance program should pay premiums of 35 percent of program costs, up from
25 percent today.  The program was originally designed to be financed at 50
percent by users.

These two steps alone would raise $66 billion over five years.

Our federally funded pension plans will cost us $348 billion this year.  These
necessary programs can be protected if we manage them with care.  First, all
retirees who can afford it should pay taxes on their Social Security benefits
just as they do on private pension benefits.  Now those elderly who make over
$25,000 per year as individuals or $32,000 filing jointly pay taxes on 50
percent of their benefits.  Taxing an additional 35 percent of the benefits
for those who already pay taxes will affect only 18 percent of all retirees
but will raise $30 billion over five years.

In addition, retirees from federal government service, military and civilian,
would have their cost of living increases reduced by one-third over the next
five years under my proposal.  Nobody will receive a penny less than they
receive today.  In fact, they will continue to receive more every year. 
Decreasing by a small percentage the increases we make in these payments would
produce $13 billion in savings over five years.

The biggest savings we can achieve in our entitlement programs is through a
reform of our entire health care system. I discuss this at greater length in
Chapter 5, but my goal is to improve both the quality and delivery of medical
services through Medicare and Medicaid for a savings of over $141 billion over
five years.


                      INCREASE TOBACCO AND GASOLINE TAXES

We need to increase tobacco taxes. We can raise over $18 billion over five
years. Smoking kills more than 400,000 people every year. Some of this money
can be used to increase research for cures to related diseases. These diseases
are costing us over $20 billion a year in medical costs. At the same time,
because of the power of the tobacco lobby and its effect on some key senators
and members of the House, we subsidize the growing of tobacco with your money.
That doesn't make sense.

Also, I will propose a ten-cent increase in the gasoline tax for each of the
next five years. This will raise approximately $158 billion. The basic purpose
is to use these funds to create jobs by rebuilding our crumbling national
highway system, building high-tech, sensible transportation networks, and
building a telecommunications system for the 21st century. Our infrastructure
is a fundamental element in world economic competition. The Japanese, for
example, plan to invest over six times per capita more than we do in the
1990s. Even Taiwan, about the size of Pennsylvania, intends to spend three
times more per capita than we do on its infrastructure in the next decade.

There is another reason to increase the gasoline tax. The United States
depends on foreign sources for about 40 percent of its oil. Our long-term
national security requires that we reverse this trend. We cannot allow our
economy to be held hostage to oil sheiks and petty dictators in one of the
most unstable regions of the world. Finally, of course, reducing the
consumption of gasoline will curb pollution.

As the graph shows, Americans would pay far less than citizens of other
countries for each gallon of gasoline even with this increased tax.

At the same time, I am sensitive to the hardship that this tax proposal may
impose on some people such as small farmers and independent truckers. We
should allow tax deductions and other adjustments to relieve such hardship.


                             INCREASE COLLECTIONS

We charge the IRS with the mission of collecting $1 trillion a year, yet we
have been slow to give them the tools to do the job. The IRS is now in the
process of upgrading its computer systems. We must recruit the finest
engineers and best software people in private industry to review their plans,
suggest improvements, and aid them in speeding up the process. Some have
estimated that $50 to $100 billion could be saved each year Surely we can find
$10 billion of that over the five years of the plan.

In addition, our lax tax treatment of foreign companies operating in the U.S.
costs us at least $21 billion over five years. That must be corrected.



                       GASOLINE PRICES IN SELECTED COUNTRIES
                                      1992

   $6.00 +.....................................................................
         |
         |
         |                                                            $5.00
D  $5.00 +.........................................................**********..
O        |                                                         **********
L        |                                                         **********
L        |                                                         **********
A  $4.00 +.................$3.75.........$3.69.........$3.85.......**********..
R        |               **********    **********    **********    **********
S        |               **********    **********    **********    **********
         |               **********    **********    **********    **********
P  $3.00 +...............**********....**********....**********....**********..
E        |               **********    **********    **********    **********
R        |               **********    **********    **********    **********
         |               **********    **********    **********    **********
G  $2.00 +...............**********....**********....**********....**********..
A        |               **********    **********    **********    **********
L        |   $1.19       **********    **********    **********    **********
L        | **********    **********    **********    **********    **********
O  $1.00 + **********....**********....**********....**********....**********..
N        | **********    **********    **********    **********    **********
         | **********    **********    **********    **********    **********
         | **********    **********    **********    **********    **********
   $0.00 |---------------------------------------------------------------------
              U.S.         Japan        Britain       Germany        Italy



We need to equalize and simplify the tax code. Our current system is like an
old inner tube covered with patches. Most of the patches were put there to
protect some special interest. We need a new, simpler system. One, it must be
fair for everyone. Two, it should be paperless for most people. Although the
new system will not cause tax rates to rise, it will cause overall revenues to
rise because it would eliminate many of the gimmicks that lawyers and
accountants employ to gain advantages for their clients.


                      GET OUR ALLIES TO SHARE THE BURDEN

For forty-five years we have defended Japan and Germany. It has been a
necessary investment in our own security. Two things have plainly changed:
one, the threat of a hostile superpower poised to attack us has vanished. Two,
we can't afford it anymore.

Collective security is still a common goal we should continue to pursue. Let's
make it truly common. Asia and Europe should pay $100 billion toward their own
defense. I fully realize this might, for example, double Germany's and Japan's
defense budgets. But look at the graph on military spending. They now pay much
less for defense than we do. This is a burden they must accept.

All of us have an interest in maintaining an American presence in Europe and
in Asia. All of us are aware of the threat terrorist states pose to our
people's safety. All of us are aware that the breakup of the Soviet Union
could lead to dangerous situations on both its western and eastern borders. As
we face an uncertain future in an uncertain world, all I ask is that the Asian
and European countries bear their share of the defense burden with us.



                              1991 MILITARY SPENDING

   $300 +...... $295.10 .......................................................
        |   ***************
        |   ***************
        |   ***************
        |   ***************
B  $250 +...***************....................................................
I       |   ***************
L       |   ***************
L       |   ***************
I       |   ***************
O  $200 +...***************....................................................
N       |   ***************
S       |   ***************
        |   ***************
O       |   ***************
F  $150 +...***************....................................................
        |   ***************
D       |   ***************
O       |   ***************
L       |   ***************
L  $100 +...***************....................................................
A       |   ***************
R       |   ***************
S       |   ***************
        |   ***************
    $50 +...***************....................................................
        |   ***************             $34.36                  $32.89
        |   ***************         ***************         ***************
        |   ***************         ***************         ***************
        |   ***************         ***************         ***************
     $0 |----------------------------------------------------------------------
             United States              Germany                  Japan





                                   FEDERAL DEFICIT

   $350 +.................................................................
        |                                                            ****
B       |                                                            ****
I  $300 +............................................................****
L       |                                                            ****
L       |                                                            ****
I  $250 +.......................................................****.****
O       |                                                       **** ****
N       |                                                       **** ****
S  $200 +..................................................****.****.****
        |                                                  **** **** ****
O       |               ****      **** ****                **** **** ****
F  $150 +...............****......****.****................****.****.****
        |               **** **** **** ****                **** **** ****
D       |               **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
O  $100 +..........****.****.****.****.****.****.****.****.****.****.****
L       |          **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
L       |          **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
A   $50 +****.****.****.****.****.****.****.****.****.****.****.****.****
R       |**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
S       |**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
     $0 |-----------------------------------------------------------------
         1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
                                                                    (est.)





                        1992 U.S. GOVERNMENT INCOME: 1.1 TRILLION
                              (originally in pie-chart form)

B    $0_________
I      |.......|
L      |.......|
L      |.......|<-- Excise Taxes ($47 Billion)  3.90%
I      |.......|
O   $50|.......|
N      |#######|
S      |#######|
       |#######|<-- Other ($52 Billion)  5.19%
O      |#######|
F  $100|#######|
       |\\\\\\\|
D      |\\\\\\\|
O      |\\\\\\\|
L      |\\\\\\\|
L  $150|\\\\\\\|<-- Corporate Income Tax ($98 Billion)  9.09%
A      |\\\\\\\|
R      |\\\\\\\|
S      |\\\\\\\|
       |\\\\\\\|
   $200|\\\\\\\|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
   $250|+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
   $300|+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
   $350|+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
   $400|+++++++|<-- Social Insurance Receipts ($415 Billion)  37.66%
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
   $450|+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
   $500|+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
   $550|+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
   $600|+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
   $650|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
   $700|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
   $750|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
   $800|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|<-- Individual Income Taxes ($476 Billion)  44.16%
   $850|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
   $900|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
   $950|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
  $1000|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
  $1050|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
  $1100|$$$$$$$|
        ------- <-- TOTAL $1.1 TRILLION DOLLARS





                      1992 U.S. GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES: 1.5 TRILLION
                              (originally in pie-chart form)

B    $0_________
I      |.......|<-- International ($20 Billion)  1.3%
L      |.......|
L      |#######|
I      |#######|
O   $50|#######|
N      |#######|
S      |#######|
       |#######|
O      |#######|
F  $100|#######|
       |#######|
D      |#######|<-- Net Interest ($199 Billion) 13.3%
O      |#######|
L      |#######|
L  $150|#######|
A      |#######|
R      |#######|
S      |#######|
       |#######|
   $200|#######|
       |#######|
       |#######|
       |///////|
       |///////|
   $250|///////|
       |///////|
       |///////|
       |///////|
       |///////|
   $300|///////|
       |///////|
       |///////|
       |///////|<-- General Government ($216 Billion) 14.4%
       |///////|
   $350|///////|
       |///////|
       |///////|
       |///////|
       |///////|
   $400|///////|
       |///////|
       |///////|
       |///////|
       |///////|
   $450|+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
   $500|+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
   $550|+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|<-- National Defense ($313 Billion) 20.9%
   $600|+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
   $650|+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
   $700|+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
       |+++++++|
   $750|+++++++|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
   $800|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
   $850|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
   $900|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
   $950|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
  $1000|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
  $1050|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
  $1100|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|<-- Entitlements ($728 Billion)  48.5%
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
  $1150|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
  $1200|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
  $1250|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
  $1300|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
  $1350|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
  $1400|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
  $1450|$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
       |$$$$$$$|
  $1500|$$$$$$$|
        ------- <-- TOTAL $1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS




                               IS IT POSSIBLE?

Can we repair the damage to our economy, permanently cut the size of
government, protect the programs so necessary to our people, and rid our
children of this massive load of debt?

Yes.

By taking these steps, we can save $754 billion over five years. In the fifth
year we will have a budget surplus of $10 billion.

This $754 billion will not be allowed to fall into the black hole of
government. It will not go to special interests. It will not be squandered
away on new programs or favorite causes of members of Congress. We will
permanently reduce the cost of government. Except for the tax revenues
committed to special purposes, it will go to the American people to invest and
to save.

Many Americans have lost confidence in our government. You must not walk away.
You have the vote. You are the owner. You can study the facts. You can demand
that they be changed.

You are the owner. Only you can rebuild America.

Individually you have no voice. Together, we can change the world.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections