Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site loral.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard From: simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: economy Message-ID: <507@loral.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Sep-84 15:46:20 EDT Article-I.D.: loral.507 Posted: Mon Sep 24 15:46:20 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 27-Sep-84 03:31:35 EDT References: <855@ihuxe.UUCP>, <1067@shark.UUCP> Organization: Loral Instrumentation, San Diego, CA Lines: 54 [The IRS ate this line] > Reagan has NOT implemented the policies he promised. He has implemented >the inverse of the policies he promised. As I recall, his major indictment of >Carter was the incredible deficits Carter ran up. (A legacy from the Ford and >Nixon administrations which the gentleman from Georgia was unable to cope with >effectively.) > > Now, Reagan has run up a deficit larger than anything Carter would have >dared to run up. Of course, since Reagan is a better actor, and a better >leader because of it, he can convince a lot of people who ought to know better >that he has actually fulfilled his promises about the economy. Beg to differ! Reagan promised to reduce taxes; he did. He promised to reduce the rate of spending growth; he did as much as the Congress (the House in particular) let him. What he was unable to do was to impact enititlement spending as he would have liked. This is the area that generates most of the spending. These born-again deficit complaints are specious. The reason for them is that, instead of raising spending levels faster than the growth of tax reve- nues (as previous administrations did), taxes were cut, leaving more money in the pockets of the citizenry to use as they like, and the Congress has resisted cutting spending to compensate. Remember TEFRA? That was that wonderful deal cut between T.P. O'Neill and the president that was going to increase taxes with a three-to-one ratio of spending reductions to tax increases. The president signed the increases into law, and behold! Not three dollars in spending to each dollar of tax increase; not two, not one, not even zero! Spending levels increased! Uncle Tip reneged entirely on his committment. As economist Milton Friedman has pointed out, the cost of government to the people is not what it taxes, but what it spends. You can tax, you can borrow, or you can monetize. Each has its good and bad points. However, none of them can reduce the total burden on the taxpayer one nickel below the total spent. The only way that a permanent, fiscally sound prosperity will be created is to treat the spending of government the way we treat our own; based on available revenues, with the knowledge that dollars left in the pockets of citizens produce savings and consumption, both necessary for a prosperous economy. Spending nearly a quarter of the entire GNP on government is far and away too much, and the social damage of such levels exceeds the social benefit of many of the programs that generate that spending. -- [ I am not a stranger, but a friend you haven't met yet ] Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdcc6!loral!simard