I have news for you Justin, the conservatives will destroy all the social programs they can get their hands on with or wothout the BBA. Especially since the BBA will have not effect those who are in office now. And the idea that they find destroying such programs unpalatable is ludicrous in the light of recent rhetoric. However it is true that the point of the BBA is not to reduce the deficit, it is a public relations posture which caters to the "government should run like a business" crap. On Sun, 29 Jan 1995, Justin Schwartz wrote: > > As absolutely everyone on all sides of the debate knows, the balanced > budget admendment is not meant to reduce the federal debt or even the > decifit, nor will it do so any more than Gramm-Rudman (remember that?) > reduced them. Even if passed the BBA will be circumvented by fancy > accounting to allow the government to spend what it likes. It will be dead > letter on arrival. Except for one thing: > > As everyone also knows the real point of the BBA is to shut down the > welfare state in a way that conservatives imagine will be more politically > palatable than doing it directly. They want to be able to say: Gee, we;d > like to help, but look, it's unconstitutional. We can't raise the dough. > > So we shouldn't be arguing, except by the way, that the analogy to family > is stupid, although it is, or that debt isn't necessarily harmful, although > that's true. We should be argiung that the welfare state is a great > social good and that the BBA is a stealth attack on it. Tax and spend! > > --Justin Schwartz (no liberal) > >
