From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Subject: Re: How bad is the deficit/debt? (was Re: The essence of Clinton)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:49:26 GMT


First I want to say that I blame not only Reagan and Bush for the present 
economic state of the nation, but also the elected representatives and
senators that we put in office.  That said, on with the story...

In article <BALDWIN.92Oct8151211@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil> baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin) writes:
>Howard Berkey (howard@netcom.com) writes, in response to me:
>
>>Inflation (in general) has not totalled 400% since 1980.
>
>No, but neither has it totaled 0%.  Your $4T : $1T debt figure made it
>look like the debt had increased fourfold, which it has, in nominal
>terms.  The substance of my objection aside from the debt/deficit
>confusion was that this isn't really fair or particularly useful (and
>you seem to admit this).  

I agree that it is not good as a pure quantitative measurement.  I also
believe (as you seemed to agree with) that the ongoing budget deficits
of the 80's and so far the 90's, coupled with the huge amount of service
on the national debt, is something more alarming.

[Quote omitted from an article I'd like to read in it's entirety]

>
>Howard continues, quoting me:
>>>I consider the deficit/debt problem to be a major national issue and 
>>>regard a balanced budget as a highly desirable goal, but I am also 
>>>capable of putting things into perspective.  
>>
>>FYI: The last balanced budget was under Pres. Johnson.  The next 
>>closest was Pres. Carter.  
>
>Oh, I know.  But "the next closest" could mean anything.  This was
>also before Carter inflicted 14% [??] inflation on us.  It would be
>ironic if the disastrous economic policies that resulted in such
>massive inflation and interest rates actually made him look good in
>retrospect because his deficit numbers look artificially low in
>comparison to succeeding years.  Again, I don't have the figures.  I
>*do* know that deficits balooned seriously under Jimmy "a balanced
>budget by 1980--and you can count on it!" Carter and were a fairly
>major issue in the 1980 election (yes, yes, the irony is harsh,
>considering who won that election and his deficit record).  This was
>mostly a result of his huge federal programs, which didn't kick in to
>the deficit figures until the later years of his term.  Examples:
>Dep't of Education ("Is there one person out there who thinks
>education has improved in this country since it was founded?" --Bruce
>Herschensohn), Dep't of Energy (how much oil has it produced?),
>Synfuels Corporation (mercifully cancelled, but not before wasting
>$<n>G), etc.

My main point was that it's been ~25 years since the last balanced budget.

>
>And how come you never see things like comparisons of today's nominal
>"peacetime" defense budget to the nominal "wartime" defense budgets
>from WW II?  Why is the one form of flim-flammery so much more obvious
>than the other when they are two forms of the same thing?  Just a
>rhetorical question (I don't know the answer).

This is a good point as well.  You are in the Navy (well, apparently).  Is it
your opinion (as it is mine) that the defense budget is being grossly mis-
managed?  If you are a student at Annapolis, it may not have reached you yet,
but good officers (and NCO's) are being RIF'fed all over the place, training
is going to shit, and there is a general lack of funding for important 
personnel development while funding continues for useless and nonproductive
efforts (SDI) and weapon systems which have no mission (B-2).

>
>>>Now, the *service* on the national debt as % of GDP is a genuinely 
>>>alarming number.  
>> 
>>Definantly.  Every dime of the fed. taxes collected in 1990 from the 
>>period representing January to April 19 went to paying the INTEREST on 
>>the debt.  That's 30% of our tax money.  
>
>This is not a flame (I promise), but you really must try to speak more
>clearly on this subject.  What does "30% of our tax money" mean?  Is
>it 30% of federal revenues?  (I think *not*!  That would be about
>$300G right there.)  Is it 30% of federal non-FICA tax revenues?
>(Nope.  Still way big.)  

Well, in 1990 the interest paid on the debt was $184 billion.  Way Big.

>			  Seeing as personal income tax accounts for
>only 37% of federal revenues (even, unfairly, excluding Social
>Security stuff), 

Actually the Govt. has used the surplusses from the S.S. trusts to mask 
other parts of the deficit.  This has accounted for the deficit appearing
about 45 billion dollars a year smaller than it really is.
	This practice is illegal, unless you are the government. An individual
or corporation caught using a trust's funds for reasons other than it was 
created for would be punished (fined, imprisioned).

>
>>Another way to look at it: 
>>1990 TOTAL SPENDING on public education: $199 billion 
>>1990 TOTAL INTEREST on the national debt: $184 billion
>
>Mmmph.  Repeat sentence #1 of my previous paragraph.  Is this spending
>at all levels?  Then it's apples and oranges.  

It was already apples and oranges.  The number was provided for comparison.
It all came out of our pockets in any first place.

>And then there are those of us just recalcitrant enough to believe
>that maybe, just maybe, a dollar spent on servicing the debt that gets
>*taken away* from the federal Department of Education is a *help* to
>education in the U.S. and not a hindrance.

I was going to post something here about how it's too bad that the repubs 
are more interested in people's private lives than decentralizing government
in this election.  (I guess I just did!)


-Howard 

-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey						howard@netcom.com
Do what keeps thou from wilting shall be the loophole in the law.


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