From: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Newsgroups: ne.politics
Subject: Re: Education, deficits, morals: you can't have it all
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 13:34:48 EDT
Reply-To: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Organization: The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, MA - Data: 508-682-5329

Terri Buchman - I dunno, we seem to have more to agree on than disagree on
except that you don't seem to want to follow through with your indignation.

Look at what you're telling us:

> > Republicans, try as they might, simply cannot get anything
> done with the special interest-influenced congress.
> >
> Neither can the democrats.  (And the lines of distinction
> between the two groups are nearly microscopic anyway.)  The
> present system of campaign financing is choking politics. 
> Nothing matters but getting more money so that you can get
> re-elected.

Absolutely - I fault them both.  Neither party is exempt from the charge that
their own special interest comes first: themselves.  You are correct in your
statement that pols know they are better off when the voters do not know where
they stand.  But then, you go on to quote Pogo about us being our own enemies
and that term limits are a bad idea.

> >Not enough?  How about not passing term limitations?
> 
>  I think term limitations are a lousy idea.  What if I really like the
>  person who is in office and think that they are doing a terrific job.  Why
>  should they automatically be thrown out just because they have served for
>  x number of years.?  A system that recycles reps just for the sake of
>  recycling them seems to favor the special interests to me.  They will be
>  the only constants in government who know the ropes and how to railroad
>  favorable legislation through.

I used to think like you; term limits limiting my freedom to select who I want
to represent me.  I always thought that I made a great choice and I should be
entitled to it.  Then, the argument came up towards the end of Reagan's last
term that we should be able to select him for a third term if we wanted.
Nothing ever came of it.  Why is it OK to recycle presidents but not likewise
for congress?

I think your last sentence and the following paragraph speak VOLUMES of why
auto-recyling is the only answer in following through in our anger at the
status quo; "know the ropes and railroad legislation."

> Cynic that I have become, I truly doubt that Americans really
> want anything to change.  (At least right now.)  Sure we should
> cut all that pork barrel legislation.  But don't you dare close
> my army base.  Look how those folks over in Congressional
> district X waste the taxpayers money on needless project Y. 
> But don't you dare cut my project Y.  Those other congressmen
> are wasting money on stupid pet projects, our congressman is
> bringing home the bacon and protecting jobs in his/her
> district.  Like Pogo said -
> We have met the enemy and he is us.

See that?  Compromise is the business of government.  While I might be making
a great choice with my vote, the other guy over there isn't.  But, since my
congressman wants his bacon, the other guy's cuts the compromise to get his.
Both congressmen get their bacon but only have to answer to their own
constituents.  We like our bacon but never realize that in getting it, we also
endorse the other guy's bacon.  Everyone has breakfast!

Since we like this bacon so much, we grant careers to these spending fools
without thinking of the damage it's doing.  Yes, we ARE stupid for electing
them time and again but as you point out in your Gramm-Rudman argument, nobody
has the courage to simply stand up and say, hey, that was a stupid vote you
cast for that other guy's bacon.  Don't do it, even if it means we won't get
our own.  NOBODY gets bacon today.

> >> 2. Deficits.  Maybe you haven't noticed, but the conservatives
> >> have been in the White House for 12 years.
> >
> >Does having the Democrats control congress for three times that time count
> >for anything?  Do they have any burden of responsibility to bear here?
> >Does failing to adhere to the Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction package point
> >to gutlessness?  Does failing to pass an amendment to the _Constitution,_
> >no less, to require balanced budgets tell you anything?
> 
> David Brooks has already responded to this quite adequately.

(Will someone kindly send me Mr. Brooks' article?  I read it last night but it
was too late to respond to his thoughtful message and my system offered it up
to the Expiration Gods overnight.)

> Let me just add that Gramm-Rudman is itself a gutless piece of
> legislation.  It was enacted so that the congresscritters would
> not have to think or (heaven forbid) take the consequences for
> having cut out somebodies entitlement or pork barrel.

And here's that Gramm-Rudman argument I mentioned.  You are correct that this
legislation purports to shut down the government if the targets aren't met.
This does take the sting of making tough choices out of the argument.  We both
agree that congressmen don't have courage any more than their constituents.
WE CAN'T LIVE WITH THIS GUTLESSNESS.  Both term limits and Gramm-Rudman force
the decisions on those who won't make them.  Until a better answer comes
along, I'm for both.

But, now we touch on deficits and you rightly complain about the S&L bailout.
I'm as outraged but whose bright idea was it that the _government_ should
insure people's deposits?  Something wrong with private insurance or no
insurance?  Yes, this bailout is a scandal and a very costly one but the
deregulation didn't go far enough.  When people start making shakey
investments, they should have to bear the risk.  The FDIC should have been
sold to private operators along with the rest of the deregulation.

On to sex education, deficits, and pork.  You don't like deficits but don't
want to stop spending.  You like sex education but don't look at it as pork
that someone else doesn't like (me!).  You don't see how the money and time
teaching sex in school could better be spent teaching reading and writing.
You hide sex education in the science curriculum.

You can't complain about deficit spending and borrowing while advocating
extraneous fluff spending like sex education in school.  If it was part of
biology courses as in cutting up a frog to see what makes it tick, why is it
called sex education?

Because it's more than just that.  It involves explaining how to encourage a
women's natural lubrication, a man's erection.  How the two human organs
interact.  What an orgasm is.  What the organs look like, an orgasm feels
like.  Throw in how to prevent a pregnancy and the Liberals think they're
performing a great public service while Conservatives will think that they
can do this themselves, thank you, and interject a bit of morality and smaller
government in the meantime.

That's not evil - that's pragmatic.  Who knows better when to introduce their
children to sex than that child's parents?

I suggest you keep a conservative government and you protest:

> I doubt it.  Much of my money has already gone to bail out the
> "conservatives" who brought you the S&L scandal.  Now I hear
> that Citibank is nearly insolvent, as well as a host of other
> "big" banks.  Guess whose going to be stuck bailing them out. 
> Guess who got stuck paying benefits to all the folks put out of
> work  because of all the leveraged buyouts of the
> conservatives.  Guess who has to pay more to cover the folks
> whose jobs have moved to Mexico .  Anymore conservatives and
> we'll all be in the poor house.

Again, of course, I suggest we deregulate to the point of not even insuring
people's deposits.  We wouldn't have to bail anyone out in that case.  You
then go on to point out a vicious upward spiral in taxes, wages, spending,
and benefits but fail to see how government might just be contributing to that
with all these "entitlements."  Step one: They cost money.  Taxes go up to pay
for it.  These taxes cost businesses.  Those costs are passed onto the
customers.  Wages have to go up to afford these higher prices.  Costs go up
some more.  Finally, wages reach the breaking point where companies go to
Mexico to make a profit (NOT an evil thing).  Jobless people.  More benefits.
Back to step one: the benefits cost money.  Taxes go up to pay for it.  These
taxes cost businesses...

KNOCK OFF THE BLOODY ENTITLEMENTS!  We _must_ stop all this spending so as to
bring some sense and order to what we're doing.  As a first and painless step,
can we agree that sex education in school is pork?  Do we think we can handle
this much in our own homes to save the government some money?  Do we think
that the time and money spent on orgasms can better be spent on more history
books?

I bet you say "no" because you are just like you say everyone else is:
"Look how those folks over in Congressional district X waste the taxpayers
money on needless project Y.  But don't you dare cut my project Y.  Those
other congressmen are wasting money on stupid pet projects, our congressman is
bringing home the bacon and protecting jobs in his/her district.  Like Pogo
said - We have met the enemy and he is us."

You won't make the tough choices as you protect the status quo.  You have no
standing to complain until you offer a better alternative.  Good luck.

                                      - - - Murph


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, Massachusetts - Data: (508) 682-5329
   SysAdmin:  murph@buscard.fidonet.org / ...!ulowell!wizvax!buscard!murph