From: dxxb@hardy.u.washington.edu (David Barts)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Inflation (of fears, not prices)
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:46:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov10.014643.29413
Distribution: pnw
Organization: University of Washington

monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan ) writes:

>In article <1992Nov10.002542.23406@u.washington.edu> dxxb@hardy.u.washington.edu (David Barts) writes:
>>monaghan@cac.washington.edu (Tracy Monaghan ) writes:
>>>Perhaps with a line-item veto (which Clinton wants), some form of
>>Oh *goody*.  Concentrate more power in the hands of a single individual.
>>Just what we need:  a more authoritarian government.  Fortunately, I
>>don't place much chance in this happening.

>Perhaps we have different meaning for the phrase "concentration of power"

Apparently so.

> [edited]
>>Why not move away from single member districting and amend the
>>Constitution to have Congress elected on a mixed-member proportional
>>basis?  This way, we'll have a bunch of representatives elected to
>>represent the nation as a whole, not just a tiny part of the nation.
>>Such members will therefore have little incentive to plunder the
>>public coffers for something that benefits only a few people in
>>their district.
>They would still propose 'pork' for their home states ('pork' being defined
>as any govt spending in someone else's states :)

Who says they have to be elected on a state-by-state basis?  Why not
at large nationally?

>Also, amending the Constitution would proprably take 7-10 years, at which
>time it would be too late (the last amendment took over 200 years :)

All too true.  But that means that now's the best time to start.

>>>capital-gains tax rate reduction (which Clinton wants) and an overhaul of
>>Are you referring to investment tax credits (a step in the right
>>direction IMO) or has Clinton started pandering to the ideological
>>Right in this area as well?
>I believe both are under consideration.

Blecch.  I'm beginning to feel nauseous.

>>>the welfare systems (which clinton wants), some "pork" can be cut, some
>>Too bad that this "overhaul" seems based more on urban legends of
>>the welfare system than the actual reality about it.
>Which 'urban legends' are these?  As I understand the proposal, welfare
>recipients would be limited to two years on the dole, with emphasis during
>those two years to job training.  

The myth that we can save money in the short term by emphasizing
jub training ("workfare").  Actually, it costs far MORE to do this
than to just mail out checks every month.  Thus, the immediate
short term effect of workfare programs is to INCREASE welfare
spending, not decrease it.  (Which is not to say that job training
is a bad idea; I support it.)

The myth that AFDC encourages welfare mothers to have more children.
Statistics have been kept on this ever since AFDC was established,
and there is NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between the
birth rate of AFDC recipients and the birth rate of the population
at large.  Thus, cutting benefits for dependents (1) addresses a
problem that doesn't exist, and (2) makes an innocent person (the
child) suffer consequences for something s/he has no control over
whatsoever (the family s/he happened to be born into).

The myth that people stay on welfare because rather than working.
Most cases of long-term welfare recipients fall into one of two
categories:  (1) mothers with children who can't afford child care
costs, and (2) those whose injuries or illnesses render them
ineligible for health insurance should they find a job and become
ineligible for Medicare.  Fixing problem (1) requires spending
money on subsidizing child care; problem (2) requires making health
care available to all.  Both require spending more money, not less.

Generally, what happens when politicians propose welfare reform is
that they start to implement it and -- Whoops! Why are per-recipient
costs increasing so much? -- then a movement to cut welfare costs
starts.  Since the cheapest way to handle welfare (short term,
anyway) is to print checks and mail them, out go all the other
programs.  Then a few years later the cycle starts anew.

-- 
David Barts  N5JRN                      UW Civil Engineering, FX-10
davidb@ce.washington.edu                Seattle, WA  98195
Newsgroups: pnw.general