From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 01:53:39 GMT

In article <BZS.92Nov11050702@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>>Congress is certainly more involved in the
>>budget process than the President (if you are unclear on this,
>>check the US Constitution...) I don't think it is unfair to 
>>hold them accountable for the defecit...

>The Congress must pass a budget which the president will sign.

No, actually, they don't: They have to produce a budget that the
President will sign _or_ that two-thirds of Congress will vote for
(budgets can pass overriding a veto...)

>It's just not as simple and one-sided as you state.

I said Congress was _also_ responsible, not that they are _exclusively_
responsible. I don't understand why people direct all the blame for
the deficit on the President. He certainly shares _some_ of it, but
Congress is at least as responsible.

>>>How many corporations received single contracts over $1B each? Over
>>>$5B each? More than a few.

>>The real question should be, "How many corporations _profited_
>>by over $5B each?"

>Why should *that* be the real question? You mean to say that unless a
>corp profits in the billions then it's not worth mentioning?

I didn't suggest the number. Someone else suggest we focus on those
parties reaping the greatest benifits in dollar terms. I just 
pointed out that the _profit_ on a contract measures the benifit,
not the total contract value. (E.g. net not gross profits are
the benifit.)

>>More to the
>>point, did the government get its money worth? If the government
>>got something in return (which they did) worth the money they
>>paid (debateable), the government wasn't giving money to those corporations
>>in any sense of the word. On the other hand, there are government 
>>programs that give money or services away to the poor.

>You have an interesting metaphor here of "government as consumer".

I'm not following that: When the government issues a contract, 
to buy a product, they _are_ a consumer (or at least a customer).

>And therefore there is no value to providing for the poor?

There is probably _some_ value (so that not all of the money
being spent on the poor goes exclusively fro their benifit.) 
Can you suggest a way to objectively measure this value? If you
want to support the assertion that the rich benifit more than
the poor from government spending, you have to: You can't
compare the benifits if you can't measure them.

>The point is the corporations did well. If the govt launches a
>$100B/year Star Wars program and goes out and buys lord knows what in
>support of that and perhaps gets their money's worth (whatever that
>means) then therefore the corporations didn't profit?

That would, by the way, mean a 33% increase in the defense budget,
and nearly doubling the spending on defense contracts. In any case,
if the government "gets their money's worth." Then (by definition)
the government didn't give away any money. _Both_ the government
and the corporations profited, but the corporation didn't
profit at the expense of the government and the budget: It gave
an equal value to the government in return.

>Actually, I do. You draw this moral line, these profits are ok, these
>aren't, and that's that.

I believe I made a distinction between fair profits and graft. I
don't want to get into a debate over how much profit is "fair"
and when it becomes "unreasonable." Are you saying there is
no such distinction (where ever you draw the line), and no such
thing as a fair profit?

>>>I don't have to. All I have to do is point out that the deficit is
>>>there. That's a fact.

>>No, you are asserting that taking care of the deficit is (or should
>>be) the responsibility of the rich.

>I am stating a fact: If the poor are only getting $100B, as you
>yourself have stated, and the deficit alone is $400B then it has to
>come out of someone's hide other than the poor.

The poor don't _only_ get $100 billion, that's $100 billion that 
goes _exclusively_ to the poor. If all the remainder of the 
budget benifited rich and poor equally, that would still leave
the poor ahead of the rich.

>>If (and only if) they benifited
>>more than most from this spending should they be responsible.

>Only if we accept your moralistic criteria.

I didn't suggest that justification: It was asserted (at the begining
of this whole discussion) that the rich benifit more from government
than the poor, and therefore deserve to pay a greater share of
the costs of government. If the assumption isn't true, then this
justification fails; and there is no reason for inequitable
treatment.

>If on the other hand we need to pay the money we borrowed back then it
>may have to come from people with some money. You're not going to
>raise a lot of money from the poor.

Do you consider, "we need the money and you can afford it", a valid
justification for unfair (e.g. unequal) treatment or for taking
someone's money? If so, is it, in your opinion, moral for a poor
man to steal from a rich man? The same justification applies equally
well.

>>The
>>fact of the debt simply proves _someone_ must take responsibility
>>not who should.

>How about the citizens of the United States of America?

Certianly. And all citizens have a right to equal treatment by 
the government (unless they have committed some crime or offense
to set them apart.)

>>Actually I specifically stated that $100 billion was a _minimum_
>>spent on the poor: It does not include social security, AFDC or
>>unemployment, since I don't have figures for these.

>You think Social Security (the biggest item in your list) goes mostly
>to the poor?

They certainly benifit more from it. However, I've been trying to 
keep away from intangible benifits and stick to actual measurable
benifits; so I guess we should leave Social Security out.

>>(Also, most
>>of government spending benifits everyone more-or-less equally, so
>>numbers around 10% of the budget are quite significant.)

>More or less equally? Tell me how the few hundred billion spent on
>Star Wars benefits me?

A few hundred billion isn't spent on Star Wars each year. I don't
have the figures handy, but as I recall _total_ spending, since
the start of the program (8 years ago?) is under $200 billion, 
possibly under $100 billion. The "over $100 billion" I cited for
spending on the poor is _per_year._

In any case, your elected representatives seem to think this level 
of spending is necessary for national defense. Are you saying that
avoiding nuclear war is something that helps the rich but not the
poor? We can argue about how necessary SDI is for national defense,
but that's a seperate issue: If it is, we all benifit; if it isn't
the program shouldn't be funded.

>>Of course,
>>I'm left with the question why people who "can't possibly pay
>>it back" voted to borrow the money in the first place, and why this
>>is a good excuse to dump the bill on someone else?

>It's not an "excuse", it may be the only choice however.

We have alot of choices. However, taxing the rich is the most 
popular, since it effects the fewest people (That is, it hurts
a minority for the sake of the majority. That's, in a nutshell,
the fundamental problem of democracy: Repression by the majority.)

>But since you believe govt spending benefits everyone more or less
>equally what's the problem? The poor are only around 10-15% of the
>population, the other 85% will have to pay it back.

Really? The suggestion seems for the richest 5% (or 2% or 10%, 
depending on who you talk to) to pay it back.

>>Further, we aren't
>>so far in debt that we couldn't handle the matter by cutting government
>>spending _without_ raising taxes

>Since something like $500B per year is going to just pay the interest
>on the debt you may well be wrong. Unless you just suggest we default
>on the debt.

So, cutting federal spending by ~33% (e.g. to early 1980s spending
levels, even after adjusting for inflation) would have us in the
black. I find cuts to (say) 1982+inflation governemnt spending
quite possible.

>>I'm not suggesting heavier taxes on the 
>>poor, I'm opposing (unfairly) heavier taxes on the rich.

>Yes, you are suggesting that perhaps if we do nothing in taxation and
>try to cut spending then perhaps things will work themselves out.

Why do you see taxing the rich as the only possibility?

>It's not a matter of "blame".
>WWII was not your average 18 year old's fault, why did they "blame" it
>on him (i.e. made him fight the war)?

>You draft the 18 year old because he has the capability to fight (tho
>I could argue that this has been the case historically), so who has
>the capability to pitch in to help in times of financial adversity?

So: Unequal taxation of the rich is just as fair and moral 
as the draft. What, exactly, is your point? Given how fair and
moral the draft is, this says almost nothing.

>>>Indeed, please give me your thumbnail figures for your "equal
>>>validity" argument. I gave you mine.

>>Sorry, I must have missed that post. Could repeat exactly which 
>>funds directly benifit the rich, without any equatibly-valued
>>goods or services being given in return?

>What are you talking about? I own a business, if the govt comes to me
>and says here's a $1M for your widgets, including a reasonable profit,
>you don't think I benefit?

If your widgets are worth $1 million, it sounds like an equal trade
without anyone being given anything. Both you and the government
equally benifited and the government didn't loose anything in the
transaction. (I don't come home with a bag full of groceries thinking
I've "benifited" Safeway...)

>>Clearly _some_ profit is fair and deserves, and not a government
>>hand out.) this is still only $15 billion/year. You have $85
>>billion to go to account for as much money as flows yearly into
>>the pockets of the poor.

>You're talking clear profit. You don't understand business.

I'm assuming gross profit doesn't measure benifits, but that net
profit does. (I guess that assumes the company would be in 
business, regardless of the sale. While that isn't always true
of government contractors, it is true of the investors: They 
wouldn't be bankrupt if government contracts didn't exist, they'd
just have invested in some different industry.)

>>And it is entirely fair and equatible for them to do so (to some
>>extent) in exchange for the services and goods they provide 
>>customers. Profit is not automatically charity. (Or it this news
>>to you?)

>I didn't say it was "charity", you did, another straw man.

I see: You think money given to the poor, without anything
of equal value given in return (charity) is exactly the same
sort of benifit as the equal and mutual benifit of doing 
business with someone. In my opinion, there is a very clear
difference, and it is misleading to relate the one to the other.

>>>They didn't want to be left alone when they were sucking down those
>>>billion dollar contracts.

>>Do they give the government anything in return? Is it, therefore,
>>a government hand out? Also, most of the "rich" (say people earning
>>over $100 billion) don't get their money from government contracts.

>People earning over $100B?

Sorry, a typo: I meant to say, over $100 _thousand_. 

>No one on the planet earth earns $100B, at least according to the
>popular media.

Although I'd think a reasonable person would have realized that it
was a mistake...

                                                     Frank Crary
                                                     CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc