Re: Terrorism and Layoffs

[stephen block <stephenb@xxxxxxxx>]

Well Sean, you sent this to me, so I guess I'll respond.

When Reagan's proposed get-well package in the early months of his
administration accidentally added $80 billion a year to the defense budget,
did that then constitute "a legitimate role in stimulating the economy"?
(See Stockman, David. 1986. "Shortcuts to the Reagan Revolution". in
    _The Triumph of Politics: The Inside Story of the Reagan Revolution_.
New York: Avon. pp. 100-109).

 And if the US government can overspend by some $750 billion on the military
in the 1980's, is it "legitimate" to then declare that the resulting $750
billion "deficit" ought to be taken out of social programs to make sure that
the budget is "balanced"? Are you controlled less by $750 billion on the
military than you are, let's say, $1.2 billion to help PBS?

Are you happy with Airline regulations? Do you like the deregulation of
safety in the automobile industry? Many (Republican) members of your
government, who happen to drive SUV's, decided they were not, after, of
course, pealing back the regulations and leaving them "to the market".

Are you happy with the privatization of airport security? Should we leave it
as it was on September 11, or should the government look into it and destroy
our freedom?

All this spending on our "collective" security, and calls from the
government that we make sacrifices and all band together, doesn't that kind
of socialist talk make you cringe, or is it different because it is being
suggested by a branch of government you happen to favour?

And if there is an election, and the majority of Americans decide that they
prefer something you don't agree with, are you free to opt out or should you
be? If on the other hand they vote for something you prefer, should someone
else have the right to opt out if they do not agree with it?

You admitted that you had not considered what I wrote to you about the
long-term viability of social security. Yet you go on to discuss the issue
as if I had never responded to you with sincerity and concern that you
really didn't understand the issues at hand.

Are you also one of those "Republicans" who believes that radical ignorance
does and ought to make the world go 'round? If so, may I suggest that
radical ignorance does not work very well on the public policy level, even
if it may work in other areas of life.

Stephen Block


>
> I am a Republican and like many of my fellows I do not think that the
> Government has a legitimate role in stimulating the economy.  The autonomous
> "G" spending should be kept to a minimum.  The government should spend on
> roads/infrastructure, schools, and national defense.  That is it.  Nothing
> more and nothing less.   I am also for zero regulation.  The market
> regulates best-not the government.
>
> I have come to terms with the fact that this list is nothing more than a
> vehicle for people to express the socialist agenda.  The only solutions that
> I ever hear come out of this group is more government spending, which in
> turn yields more government control into our lives.
>
> Sean
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "stephen block" <stephenb@xxxxxxxx>
> To: "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 3:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Terrorism and Layoffs
>
>
>> Henry,
>>
>> You would also have noticed that he cautioned against a real stimulus
>> package and suggested that aid ought to go to the supply side. (What else
> is
>> new?) Funny how it is only Republicans who even remember what the term
>> 'stimulus package' means. And unfortunately, they only use it when they
> are
>> expressing skepticism toward its necessity.
>>
>> Henry Liu wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil called for the "socialization" of the
>>> cost of safety on the Lehrer News Hour tonight.  He added that safety
>>> should not be compromised merely because it costs too much.  It is an
>>> official admission of the failure of the privatization of safety and a
>>> rejection of the theroy of marginal utlility as applied to fundamental
>>> needs.  Would this logic now be extended to full employment, education,
>>> health.  The difference in the destruction lives by terrorist attacks
>>> and by unemployment, or lack money to education children or treating
>>> curable diseases is merely death by other means.
>>>
>>> Amid of the noble outpouring of patriotism and spirit of pulling
>>> together, one cannot help but notice that corporate mangement is
>>> announcing layoffs in the tens of thousands while demanding government
>>> bailout, when banks are flushed with easy credit and interest rate is at
>>> an all time low.  Could not corporate American live up to its share of
>>> patriotism and delay layoff for 18 months?  Its not enough that innocent
>>> people get killed, the survivers have to lose their
>>> jobs also so that mangement can use the terrorist attack as a pretext to
>>> improve earnings at the expense of employees?
>>>
>>> On a related issue, lets hope that the war, campaign or assault on
>>> terrorism does not degenerate into an assault on civil liberty.
>>> The wrost scenario would be for the US to apply the errors of its
>>> foreign policy domestically.
>>>
>>> Henry C.K. Liu
>>>
>>>
>>> zz
>>
>