We should means-test wars instead. Not only must the war be justified (as "just" or "necessary" or whatever) but if the people who propose the war (Bush, Halliburton, etc.) can afford to organize a war without tax dollars, they don't get any of the latter. Of course, there should be strict definition of costs. In calculating costs, the cost of a single soldier-year should be capped at the maximum yearly amount that a recipient of TANF receives. These costs includes overhead (bombers, drones, etc.) Like TANF, any benefits given to the war-monger should be time-limited and subject to a lifetime maximum. The recipient should also show an active willingness to engage in peaceful activities. (Part of the proposed cost of war when asking for benefits would include the cost of death, US$1 billion for each soldier, enemy, or non-combatant projected to be killed.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine
________________________________ From: PEN-L list on behalf of Seth Sandronsky Sent: Sun 4/10/2005 7:51 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [PEN-L] Subject: Re: bush & SS Step 1: Fund SS from the general tax fund ("old" Europe) v. the payroll tax (U.S.). Step 2: Put the Pentagon on a payroll tax like SS. Step 3. Convert the war tax to private accounts. Step 4: Antiwar, disabled and senior activists hold town hall meetings explaining this tax proposal to the population. Step 5. I switch to decaf. Seth Sandronsky Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 14:37:52 -0700 From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: bush & SS I wrote: >>Insurance programs are transfer programs. If I have a fire, = the fire insurance company pays me by transferring money from all the = folks who pay premia who don't have fires.<< =20 David Shemano wrote:> If SS is insurance against poverty in old age, how = come people who are not in poverty in old age receive SS?< =20 Michael Perelman writes:>If you use a means testing, SS becomes a = welfare program, an entitlment. What happens to entitlements?< =20 right. In addition, the SS method of payment of benefits is extremely = simple, making its administration costs extremely low, especially = compared to the private investment accounts costs that the Bushpeople = push. That is, it's an extremely efficient way for society to pool = resources. =20 =20 It's true that a lot of non-poor receive SS benefits. But a lot of = people who are non-poor get hit by the forces that could easily push = them into poverty, such as catastrophic illness and soaring medication = costs. SS provides a "safety net" which helps prevent these from causing = a serious and permanent descent into the vicious circle of poverty.=20 =20 Further, for many of the richer folks, SS benefits are mere "pin money." = But it's simpler and more efficient to pay these benefits to them. It = also encourages majority support for the program as Michael P. and Joel = B. stress.=20 =20 Doug writes: >Not in the same way - insurance is about financial = provision against quantifiable but limited risk. Everyone who hits 65...66...67 will draw = SS. How many people draw on their fire insurance.< =20 SS isn't insurance against being old. Rather, it's insurance against = being forced to eat dog food while old. It also represents a bolster = that makes defined-benefit pensions, IRAs, 401ks, etc. bearable. =20 Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine=20
