Jessica wrote:
> No, on second thought I still think it has no place in that consideration whatsoever - at least in
> countries like the U.S. and Canada. There isplenty of wealth in these countries.
>
> Jess
As we all know cost efficiency does get used against social welfare programs for political reasons. Currently, every expenditure proposed in congress must come up with its method of payment - from somewhere else in the budget, this is referred to as PAY-GO. Cost-benefit analysis is used to pass or reject legislation, EXCEPT congress does not seem to use the cost benefit anaylsis when it comes to MILITARY or CORPORATE SUBSIDIES. The military has steadily gotten more than it asked for from congress under Clinton- for at least two years, maybe three. The defense industry corporations have been very effective with getting more for star wars and other war toys.
It is a false argument that we cannot afford universal health care, etc. public welfare programs. The austerity forces (global corporations that control government) have been edging the people into a corner - using the debt as a means of cutting those dirty entitlements all over the world. Someone remind me - how many billions was Clinton going to take from the general fund to give to the IMF? It really is a matter of priority - the political priority of those in power with the neo liberals continuing the game Reagan began.
It seems that if we accept the premises that are being dished out, that we will end up debating questions which have been defined by the capitalists. Isn't the real question how does social wealth get distributed? for whose benefit? What is the priority, to perpetuate the military industrial complex and corporate welfare ( I like Bernie Sanders response to Gingrich/Congress giving these defense contractors merger bonus money from the taxpayer coffers - he asked, can't these corporations make it on their own?) or to provide decent housing, full employment at living wages, accessible qualilty education, etc.
Marta Russell