Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!ihuxl!pvp From: pvp@ihuxl.UUCP (Philip Polli) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Using tax money to feed hungry people Message-ID: <936@ihuxl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 27-Feb-84 17:35:16 EST Article-I.D.: ihuxl.936 Posted: Mon Feb 27 17:35:16 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 28-Feb-84 13:37:32 EST Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 89 >Total cost of the plan, according to the Information Please Almanac 1983. >was $11 billion. Total cost of foreign assistance (page 79 of the >almanac) for the entire postwar period is $213 billion. Foreign >aid is far from over: in 1980, "net assistance" was $10 billion. >About 10% of that was military. >If you figure that prices tripled (from consumer price indexes >for "all items") between 1955 to 1980 you get $9billion/3 = $3 billion >in 1955 dollars of non-military foreign aid in ONE YEAR (1980) vs >$11 billion / 5 years = $2 billion in foreign aid per year under >the Marshall plan. Get it? We're spending MORE now in foreign aid >than we did under the Marshall Plan in '47-'52. The facts as presented above do not support the conclusion given. The conclusion I draw is that we are giving more foreign aid to the entire world today than we gave only to Western Europe after WWII. Somehow, that doesn't surprise me. There is nothing here or in the remainder of the argument that demonstrates that foreign aid causes nations to become dependent on us, which was my main point. The remainder of the paragraph simply repeats *opinions* about such dependencies. >I was not claiming that this disqualifies aid to such countries. The >point I made was that your assumption seemed to be that we could feed the >hungry with our surplus, but you were NEGLECTING the cost of paying off >corrupt officials. I don't recall discussing all the costs involved in my proposal. I was addressing the desireability and feasability of sharing our surplus, not the bottom line cost. I certainly realize that it could be expensive. The rest of the response continues to "rail against oppressive taxation and government". I am going to try to divide the issues into the separate categories that they belong in. 1) Does the federal government have the right to collect tax money and spend it on foreign aid? The answer is clearly yes. The rights of the government are spelled out in the Constitution and its amendments. The Constitution also clearly spells out the procedure for determining if the government has the right to do something. You challenge the action in the Supreme Court, and it decides the matter. I know that the Supreme Court has held that taxes are constitutional. I imagine somebody has challenged foreign aid also, and probably lost. The point here is that you cannot call taxes theft, because it is clearly not illegal. 2) Does the government collect too much tax money? Who knows? We can argue about that forever. You vote for your tax-cutter and I'll vote for mine. There is no right answer. 3) Should we spend tax money on foreign aid or other charity? We can and are arguing about that too. You have your opinion, and I have mine. If I win in congress, you have to pay up. Just like I have to pay to put all that plutonium into holes in the ground. I can call it unfair, stupid, and a waste of money, but I can't say it's illegal. 4) *Should* the government have the right to spend tax money on foreign aid, or whatever else you don't happen to like? A different question. Note the use of the word SHOULD instead of DOES. The Constitution does give it the right today (see question 1). If you want to change the Constitution, then you have to submit an amendment, and have it ratified by the states. After that you can tell me the government has no right to do so. Until then, you're simply *wrong*. 5) Is our government too oppressive? Again, a fun question to argue about. You have to follow the following procedure if you think the current state of affairs is too oppressive for your taste: 1) Elect people who think like you and change the laws, or 2) Get the Supreme Court to agree with you and strike down the laws, or 3) Shame the congress into changing the laws (See Voting Rights Act),or 4) Get an amendment passed banning the laws, or 4) Leave the country. You don't have to love it. You just have to follow the rules. If you don't like the rules, you can change them, but you have to follow the rules to do it. If you don't follow the rules, (like not paying your taxes) then you go to jail. Phil Polli {ihnp4!}ihuxl!pvp