Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site hocsf.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!hogpc!pegasus!hocsf!docs
From: docs@hocsf.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: economy
Message-ID: <156@hocsf.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Oct-84 16:56:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: hocsf.156
Posted: Wed Oct  3 16:56:25 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Oct-84 03:46:37 EDT
References: <855@ihuxe.UUCP>, <847@opus.UUCP>, <1014@pyuxa.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 24

REFERENCE:  <855@ihuxe.UUCP>, <847@opus.UUCP>, <1014@pyuxa.UUCP>

	I saw a very interesting editorial in the NY Times last
Wednesday. It was by a guy who served on the Grace Commission.
The Grace Commission was set up to study the problem of spending,
and how spending could be cut without dramatically hurting the
programs that were cut. The commission came up with a long list
of places to cut and presented it to Congress. Do you think
they cared? No, of course not. 
	But this individual had a different reason for why Congress
refused to look at the commission's report. And it's not that
Democrats spend and Republicans don't. All Congresspeople want to be
re-elected. That is their one motivating force. How much money
they can weasel out of Congress for their district directly
effects how well they will do in the next election. So every
Congressperson wants to spend more money, at least at home. How
the hell are you going to cut programs when all those damn people
in Congress are intent on spending to stay in office. Puts us
in a tough spot. The author of the article figured that the voting
public would finally speak out against all the spending, but
his report wasn't going to do any good.
	What do you all think of this logic?

Sharon Badian