<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19258"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial>Yes,</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial>But Germany is in the European Union which has a
population 1.5 times the U.S..</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial>More decentralized and more autonomous than the
U.S., but still common laws and regulations.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial>Government is not in and itself evil IF the
citizens control it via real democracy. If not, as is the case currently in
the U.S. where corporations control the governmenet, then evil will be done, and
is.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial>Unfortunately the U.S. corporate model has spread
into Europe.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial>David J.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=Arial></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=ewj@pigsqq.org href="mailto:ewj@pigsqq.org">E. Wayne Johnson</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=dlj725@hughes.net
href="mailto:dlj725@hughes.net">David Johnson</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=peace-discuss@anti-war.net
href="mailto:peace-discuss@anti-war.net">'Peace-discuss'</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, August 15, 2012 8:13
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Peace-discuss] (no
subject)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Germany is about the size of California and has twice as many
people.<BR>More than 90% of the people in Germany are German. They
can decide and agree what to do.<BR><BR>Let a country be small and its people
few. The United States is plainly too big as a federal monster.<BR>The
name says "United States". The good folks in New England have no
business at all trying<BR>to tell the good folks in Arizona or Montana how
they ought to live. Let every state mind its own<BR>business. A
weak federal government will end warmongering.<BR><BR>The balkanization of the
USA can hardly come soon enough to suit me.<BR><BR><BR><BR>On 8/16/2012 8:07
AM, David Johnson wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:5EAE16A1CC25449EBB690EA0BFDCEDE9@owneryr3fp4mcb
type="cite">
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19258">
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial><BR>
<DIV class="master-row topSection" data-timer-key="1"
data-zone="topSection">
<DIV class="fullstory fullstoryHeader" data-timer-key="5"
data-comp-index="3" data-comp-name="fullstory"
data-comp-view="fullstory_title">
<H1>America has lost the battle over government</H1>
<DIV class="byline "><SPAN>By <A
href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/21d103cc-e6c3-11e1-af33-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fcomment_columnists_clivecrook%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz23dvqGMVy"
moz-do-not-send="true">Jeffrey Sachs</A></SPAN></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV id=storyContent><SPAN><BR>W</SPAN>ith Congressman Paul Ryan as the
Republican vice-presidential candidate, the US election is shaping up to be
a full-throated ideological brawl. President Barack Obama champions public
investment and social support for the poor, while Mitt Romney and Mr Ryan
call for a smaller state with lower taxes and spending. Yet for all the
rhetoric, the small-government agenda has already prevailed. No matter who
is elected on November 6, dangerous cuts in public goods and services are
already in train. There is considerable controversy about Mr Ryan’s budget
plan, which exemplifies an aggressive Republican pitch to cut government
spending, tax rates and social protection. Mr Ryan would reduce the top rate
of personal income tax from 35 per cent to 25 per cent and slash transfer
programmes for the poor, such as Medicaid and food stamps. His plan would
also eliminate Mr Obama’s healthcare legislation. Radical
stuff.<BR><BR>There are also deep doubts about Mr Ryan’s claim that top tax
rates can be reduced in a “revenue neutral” way by plugging loopholes. Mr
Ryan invites these doubts by offering few details on how such
loophole-plugging would work. It is more likely than not we would repeat the
history of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts: revenues would
plummet and the supposed offsets would never materialise. Today’s enormous
deficits would become even larger.<BR>Still, American liberals (those to the
left of the political centre), who are now vehemently blasting Mr Ryan’s
budget should take note. Their candidate has also already accepted a brutal
shrinkage of government programmes in coming years. The similarities of the
Obama budget and Mr Ryan’s are striking.<BR><BR>Mr Ryan’s plan calls for
federal revenues of 18.4 per cent of gross domestic product in 2016 and 18.5
per cent in 2020 (though his lower tax rates would probably put those
targets out of reach). His budget outlays come in at 19.7 per cent and 19.5
per cent in 2016 and 2020, respectively. Of the total outlays in 2016, Mr
Ryan targets “discretionary” programmes at 5.9 per cent of GDP; social
security, 5 per cent; Medicare, 3.2 per cent; other mandatory spending, 3.7
per cent; and interest payments, 1.9 per cent.<BR><BR>Now consider Mr
Obama’s budget unveiled in February. Federal revenues are targeted at 19.1
per cent of GDP in 2016 and 19.7 per cent of GDP in 2020, only about 1
percentage point above Mr Ryan’s revenue targets. In Mr Obama’s 2016 budget
targets, discretionary spending is set at 5.9 per cent of GDP; social
security, 5 per cent; Medicare, 3.2 per cent; other mandatory spending, 5.8
per cent; and interest payments, 2.5 per cent.<BR><BR>In fact, Mr Obama’s
overall discretionary spending targets are essentially the same as Mr
Ryan’s. Whether Mr Obama or Mr Romney wins, the “non-security” discretionary
budget – for education, job skills, infrastructure, science and technology,
space, environmental protection, alternative energy and climate change
adaptation – is on the chopping block. Mr Obama’s budget would shrink
non-security discretionary programmes from an already insufficient 3.1 per
cent of GDP in 2011 to 1.8 per cent in 2020. That is the “liberal”
alternative.<BR><BR>In bemoaning Mr Obama’s budget, I do not mean to equate
it with Mr Ryan’s. Mr Ryan’s budget is nothing short of heartless in the
face of the dire crisis facing America’s poor. It is also reckless,
guaranteed to leave millions of children without the quality of education
and skills they will need as adults. Yet the sad truth is that the Democrats
offer no progressive alternative. Both parties are accomplices to the
premeditated asphyxiation of the state. Viewed from an international
perspective, the constricted range of the US fiscal debate is striking.
Total US government revenues (combining federal, state and local
governments) in 2011 came in at about 32 per cent of GDP. This compares with
an average of 44 per cent in the EU and 50 per cent in northern
Europe.<BR><BR>Many Americans will say that they are dodging the European
curse by keeping taxation so low but they should look again. Northern Europe
(Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) gets great
value for its tax revenues: lower budget deficits, lower unemployment rates,
lower public debt-to-GDP ratios, lower poverty rates, greater social
mobility, better job training, longer life expectancy, lower greenhouse gas
emissions, higher reported life satisfaction and greater macroeconomic
stability.<BR><BR>America’s two political parties depend on wealthy
contributors to finance their presidential campaigns. These donors want and
expect their taxes to stay low. As a result, social divisions, broken
infrastructure, laggard educational attainments, high carbon emissions and
chronic budget deficits are likely to continue no matter who is elected,
even though the public supports higher taxes on corporations and the
rich.<BR><BR>Only a big political realignment, perhaps spurred by a third
party bold enough to campaign on free social media rather than expensive
television advertising, is likely to break the status quo. Until then, the
demise of public goods and services will continue apace.<EM><BR><BR>The
writer is the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and
author of ‘The Price of Civilization’</EM> </DIV></FONT></DIV><PRE wrap=""><HR SIZE=4 width="90%">
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A>
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>