Nathan Newman wrote:
> Less debt means less interest payments, which opens up more funds for other
> programs if we ever to get back a majority for serious social justice
> spending. But since we dont have that majority, paying off the debt looks
> better than a lot of other alternatives.
>
>
One reason there isn't a demand for social spending is because the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement makes it impossible to get any funding for social programs even when they are agreed necessary. The Return to Work legis for people with disabilities, for example, which has majority support in both houses still isn't funded because the funding must come from some existing program or tax. Phil Gramm stood up and said no money from the foreign tax credit, so Kennedy is trying to find money. Social programs are competing with other social programs and special interest pork for money.
Doesn't it seem that the BAA must be repealed in order to do anything else meaningful in the social spending department - like job creation - or am I missing something?
Marta