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