From: bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin)
Subject: Re: Charity vs. gov't handouts. (was Re: Abandoning the Sinking Ship)
Organization: (none)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:15:20 GMT

In article <YAMAUCHI.92Sep6110944@sartre.ces.cwru.edu> yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>In article <1992Sep4.235139.16857@bnlux1.bnl.gov> bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>>In article <BtzDsv.Bt6@csn.org> rks@teal.csn.org (Reykja K. Sigurdsson) writes:
>>>Look at what is happening
>>>to the folks in Florida. Bush wants to take up donations to house and
>>>feed those *tax-paying* people -- who now must depend on charity! 
>
>>There are several assumptions implied by the view expressed here
>>(and elsewhere):
>
>>	- that the payment of taxes somehow entitles one to compensation for
>>	  damages caused by natural disasters (such as the Florida hurricane).
>
>>I would like to see some discussion of these notions, on the net.
>>Any comments????
>
>I agree with your other points, but...
>
>Given that the government confiscates 30-50% of the wealth of these
>people through direct federal, state, and local taxes (and yet more
>through indirect costs of corporate taxes, tariffs, etc.), I don't
>think it's unreasonable for them to expect some of their money back
>when faced with a natural disaster.

How can you describe Bush's 7.5 Billion handout (announced this morning,
and immediately criticized as too small by Democrat Lawton Chiles) as
"getting some of their money back"????

The money that you say was confiscated from them has already been SPENT!
It is too late to get it back.  That's no excuse for confiscating more
money from everybody else.

New money is being spent in Florida, while all of the other spending
continues unabated.  This new money will be funded by further confiscations
from everyone else (and Floridians, too), at some unspecified time in the 
future (when the 4 Trillion debt gets rolled over again).
In no sense is it a matter of returning their money -- that would be great:
IRS has the records to do it.  Just refund some or all of the income taxes
paid by south Floridians (and Louisianans) last year.

Another approach would be to grant a 100% (or maybe 50%) TAX CREDIT
for donations sent by individuals.  That would be a perfect way for
Bush to stimulate the "points of light" mechanism that he moves his
lips about but does nothing to help.  Instead of the government
boneheads stumbling and squandering the "free" money for which
they don't have to account (except to Congress which doesn't 
care how it was spent), let taxpayers divert their money into
charities that work.

>
>...government boneheadedness ...
>...
>
>>	The Demoblicans say:  Give us your money; we'll solve your problems.
>>	The Replicrats say:  Give us your money; we'll ignore your problems.
>>	The Libertarians say:  Keep you money; solve your own problems.
>
>I think this sums it up pretty well.  Imagine how much hurricane
>insurance you could buy with even a small fraction of the money you
>pay in federal income taxes alone.

My point, exactly.  I don't think we disagree at all.  
(This is also clear from some of your earlier posting.)

I'd still like to see some more discussion of the all-too-common notion
that the government role should include deciding which disasters are worthy
and which are not.  Again, the damage to individual homes in some parts of
my island was every bit as bad as the worst Florida cases -- but there was no 
Federal bailout (other than extensions for filing your 1040 form).

Was Florida underinsured?  Probably.  But the really significant difference
is that 1992 is an election year -- which means that the politicians are bidding
for votes, i.e. bribing the voters with their own money.

If Bush was serious about what he said to the Replicrat convention, then the
appropriate action would be to impound or embargo funds in less-important 
budget categories -- and divert THAT MONEY to Florida.  Do it by SHIFTING
funds according to the shifted priorities!  There is no excuse for doing it
with additional deficit money and leaving the pork-barrel projects untouched
and the massive programs unscathed.  (For starters, how about shifting the
War on Drugs money into more-productive Florida and Louisiana activities?)

Of course, Clinton and his Demoblicans would do exactly the same thing as
Bush and his Replicrats.  The rhetoric is a bit different, but they are both
worshippers of the almighty state.  This shared religion prevents them from
even considering the idea that people can do things more efficiently and more
compassionately than omniscent and omnipresent government.

>_______________________________________________________________________________
>
>Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
>yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
>_______________________________________________________________________________


bam@bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin)         BAM    [My opinions belong to me only,
Master of the Tripods of Hephaestus.  ~~~    and they represent no one else.]
# include discaimers.h+copyright.h    ~o~  Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment now!
# delete BUSHLIPS&&SlickWillie        /|\  Marrou/Lord in '92.  (800) 682-1776
Newsgroups: alt.individualism