Max Sawicky wrote:
> > Dear Doug and the LBOers,
> >
> > I'm curious to know what the LBOers would spend the budget surplus on,
> > if they had a chance to direct national economic policy. If you were
> > dealing the cards what would you suggest be done with the surplus and
> > why?
> >
>
> The first $100 billion:
>
> add $10 billion for Head Start, to get all three- and
> four-year olds not currently enrolled.
>
> add $20 billion for elementary & secondary school aid
>
> add $20 billion for regional, urban-centered
> transportation networks
>
> add $30 billion to TANF, refederalize it with national
> minimum benefits and uniform eligibility
>
> add $20 billion for welfare-to-work support services
>
> This would mean spending the surplus and borrowing
> another $30 billion, in the current economic environment
> as easy as pie.
>
> Medicaid spending has gone up appreciably, and going
> the whole way to national health care would cost more
> than $100 billion, hence my omission of health care
> in the list above.
One more item from my corner:
A couple of billion (don't know because there are no studies on it) for government to reimburse buisness for reasonable accommodations for disabled people to get or keep a job. Employers complain that it costs them too much to provide an accommodation, they often fight having to do so which drags out unemployment for disabled people and there is no efficient legal way to make them fork out for it. The ADA did not level the playing field on this one (there is economic discrimination built in business accounting) and the EEOC has a pitiful record on enforcement. The obvious benefit to government is that a person works rather than goes on disability benefits.