From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot
Subject: Issues: the deficit
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:17:16 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

Ah, I have been attacked for not taking the Perot candidacy (is he still in?)
seriously.  Sorry, it just smacks of comedy relief.  Some people even said
"I thought this was for intellectual discussion. Cut the humor."
Hmmm.  The only posts I have EVER read in this newsgroup concern whether
or not Ross will run, how the press treats him, why people hate Bush and
Clinton, and so on.  I just realized that _you people_ are actually
serious.  So let me start with some issues based on fact and not emotion.


"Official government statistics show that there was a budget deficit in 1980
of $74 billion ($517 billion in revenue, $591 billion in spending). Every
year of the Reagan administration, the Federal govt took in more money than was
 either received or spent during the Carter years.  "Tax cuts for the rich"
did not reduce govt revenue - in fact it rose by billions of dollars over
what was taken in during any previous year in the USA's history.  The top 5%
of the income earners paid a higher proportion than ever before.

Tax rates were indeed reduced under Reagan, but tax REVENUES increased.
Incidentally, those tax rate reductions were across the board - not just for
the rich.  The revenues reached unrivalled highs due to rising income and
employment.  As the tax rates came down, more people invested their $$$ in
things more productive than tax shelters.  By 1991, federal receipts were
twice what they were during the Carter years.

Why then the growing deficit?  Congress increased spending by additional
billions of dollars.  The fatal economic fallacy in all attempts to
reduce the budget deficit through tax increases is that
 IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TAKE IN MORE MONEY THAN CONGRESS CAN SPEND.
All that happens is that an ever increasing share of the nation's
resources are funnelled into Washington, to be dispensed by politicians
for political purposes."
                               Harvard Economist, Thomas Sowell
                               _Commentary_, September, 1992

Perot has rightfully identified that the country bneeds a change.
He has attacked the press and govt which has resonated in the hearts of
many Americans.  But in their zeal to follow the words of Perot, his
followers seem to have concluded that since he was right about the
press and govt, his solution must be right.  The notion that "we must
all share in the suffering" fits right into this pitch.

Beyond Perot's disingenuousness about "bottom-up" input (i.e., how many
of you have had any say in anything Perot has advocated, particularly
his economic solution?), his plans for solving the budget deficit amount
to little more than increasing taxes.  The lessons outlined above ought
to arouse some concern, if you cnsider the issues rather than the
emotions that Perot has generated.
So it boils down to preventing Congress from spending OUR money.
Perot has no ability to deal with other powerful people.  I fear that
Congress would eat him alive.  You can't vote a Congressman from
Baltimore out of office unless you live in Baltimore, and if he
gives his constituents pork barrel goodies, they'll put him back
in office every chance they get.  During the last election 97% of
incumbents were re-elected, despite the national disgust with Congress.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot