Responding to being labeled a whining gloom and doomer
is not facilitated by more of the same. You only make your
own life miserable by continued futile efforts at pretending
you can make a difference by posting material that is else-
where available to all who are concerned about such things.

Put your own house in order. The house of the country and
world will stand or fall no matter what you do. You may
as well stop beating yourself about the head and shoulders
and go wilderness hiking if that is what you enjoy.

Accept the fact that the enlightened philosophy will not stand
as long as there so many unenlightened. The time is not right
for it. One must accept the cycles that occur in the natural
order of time. Resistance is futile. You live in the wrong time
for your endowments. They will not be appreciated in your
lifetime.

There is only one justification for what you do. Either you
enjoy your gloom and doom or you don't. If you enjoy it
then accept that you do and post your material with the
understanding that it gives you pleasure to do so. Make
this clear to the reader.

Whether it is by design or by omission your posts appear
to be the rantings of a very discontented man. For your own
sake, if indeed you are discontented, choose a more pleasant
path for yourself. Choose a path that gives you pleasure and
fulfillment. Preaching to a choir of the willingly dependent
will only serve to defeat you at every turn. Such as these
don't want your help nor do they deserve it.

Make no mistake, I only preach to the choir because the
ideas and the presentation of the ideas gives me pleasure.
I harbor no false hopes of ever changing the world. It
does not heed my advice. I endeavor to enjoy as much
as I am able those things the world provides that make
life worth living. I have no time to waste trying to convert
those who have no desire to be converted.

If it ever gets to the point where gloom and doom is my
constant state of mind then I will at least have the guts to
put a gun to my head and rid the world of another unneeded
impediment. There would be too much hypocrisy to otherwise
bear.


"Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net...
It's obvious which generation is the most important:


Government Budget Spending

Families have long been recognized as the basic foundation of every society.
Children have long been recognized our hope for the future. There is little
doubt that in today's society, families and our children are under extreme
pressure from many sources. Politicians coined the term "family values," but
most elected officials have ignored children's issues when they get to
Congress. Our federal government has failed miserably in promoting and
funding programs and ideals that strengthen the family. Just look at our
government's failed "War on Drugs, the Tax Code, our declining Educational
System, or the many liberal laws that have given us such things as abortion,
no-fault divorce, a ban on prayer in schools, widespread pornography,
violence on TV, state intrusion into family autonomy, etc. and the reasons
for this pressure becomes obvious.

For those GPs on that advocate GP "forced visitation" laws and use as their
argument their concern for the "best interests and welfare of the children",
here's your chance to help, your chance to put you money where your mouth
is.

A study of federal spending, using the U.S. Federal Budget reveals some
interesting facts. One glaring inequity that stands out is the fact that
while the government often gives lip service to their concern for our
children, they fail miserably when it comes to providing the funding and
programs necessary to help. As we all know, the Federal Government is quick
to tax and spend, but it is how the money is spent that is quite revealing.
The federal government currently spends more than five times more on
programs and entitlements for Americans over 65 than it spends on children,
even though there are twice as many children as elderly. If this isn't
shocking enough, how about this. The lion's share of this money spent on the
elderly is not even means tested. This means the money is just doled out
without verifying whether it is needed.

What's even more shocking is that organizations that purport to support our
children, are in fact partners in this injustice. Let's just look at one
such organization's (the NEA) legislative program agenda. In a study, John
Berthoud, Vice President of the Alexis de Toqueville Institution, revealed
that "If every item in the National Education Association's (NEA)
Legislative Program for the 104th Congress were enacted, federal spending
would increase by at least $702 billion annually." The study uses data on
legislative proposals compiled by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation in
their BillTally tracking system. The spending estimates for the different
proposals come from non-partisan sources such as the Congressional Budget
Office. One of the findings in this report is that the NEA's spending
priorities are heavily skewed towards elderly Americans, despite NEA's claim
that it is an educational organization with a primary focus on schools and
children. The study finds that "for each dollar in new spending on children
and education that the NEA proposes (over $24 billion annually), it
advocates $5.24 in new spending on Social Security". The report also claims
"that the taxes to fund the NEA agenda are probably politically impractical.
According to the report, the NEA would need over thirteen times as much in
taxes as was raised by the 1993 budget package". Berthoud points out, "no
organization that advocates this massive expansion of federal spending and
probably massive increase in deficits can claim to be helping children. This
agenda will break the financial back of America's future generations."

If that isn't shocking enough for you, let's examine the U.S. Budget and see
how the government actually spent its money on areas affecting children,
families, and the elderly. The source for this data is the U.S. Budget FY
1998, Historical Tables, OMB Feb. 1997, and The Economic and Budget Outlook
FY 1998-2007, CBO, Jan. 1997)

In the postwar era entitlements have grown rapidly. Nearly all of this
growth has been due to age-based retirement and health-care programs, not
programs targeted to children, youth, families, the unskilled, the
unemployed, or poor.

Entitlements are cash or in-kind payments to (or on behalf of) individuals
that are not contractually linked to payments or services received by the
government in return. The federal government distributes most entitlement
benefits directly, but some are disbursed through grants to state and local
authorities. The entitlements outlay category includes only benefit
payments; it excludes the cost of program administration.

Federal entitlement spending

$35.4 billion
1996 $914.4 billion

1996 FY Federal spending

Entitlements $914.4 billion 58.6%

Defense $265.7 billion 17.0%

Interest $241.1 billion 15.5%

All Other $139.1 billion 8.9%

------------------

1560.3 billion

Over the postwar era, entitlements have been the fastest-growing category of
federal spending, rising from under half to more than triple the size of
defense, and far outstripping the growth of the economy.

Actual Federal entitlement spending

FY 1965 $35.9 billion

FY 1996 $914.4 billion

Retirement and health-care programs that primarily benefit older Americans
account for virtually all the expansion, and today comprise four-fifths of
all federal entitlement spending.

FY 1996 Federal entitlement spending

Food and housing $62.3 billion 6.8%

Cash welfare $62.7 billion 6.9%

Other non-retirement $60.2 billion 6.6%

Health benefits $308.0 billion 33.7%

Federal pensions $74.4 billion 8.1%

Social security $346.8 billion 37.9%

-----------------

$914.4 billion





The lion's share of federal entitlement dollars is paid out without regard
to financial need.

FY 1996 Federal entitlement spending

Means tested $218.2 billion 23.9%

Partially means tested $36.1 billion 4.0%

Non-means tested $660.1 billion 72.2%

---------

$914.4 billion

Means-tested entitlements are those for which recipients must demonstrate
some degree of financial need. They include AFDC, SSI, the EITC, Food
Stamps, and Medicaid. Non-means-tested entitlements do not consider
financial need in determining eligibility; instead, eligibility is based on
categorical requirements, such as age, disability, or prior employment.
Non-means-tested entitlements include Social Security, Medicare, federal
civilian and military retirement, Unemployment Insurance, and farm price
supports. Partly means-tested entitlements (mainly veterans' health care and
student loans) sometimes consider financial need in determining eligibility,
but according to rules that do not apply to all benefits granted.

Of all government benefit dollars, less than one out of seven serves to
raise Americans out of poverty. Indeed, federal entitlements are as likely
to benefit the affluent as the needy.

Although only one in eight Americans is aged sixty-five or older, the
elderly receive three-fifths of all federal entitlements.

Federal entitlements by age group FY 1996

Ages under 18 $88.5 billion 9.7%

Ages 18-64 $234.1 billion 25.4%

Ages 65 and older $557.0 billion 60.9%

Ages unknown $34.9 billion 3.8%

-----------------

$914.4 billion

Federal benefits to the elderly have grown dramatically in recent decades
and, in per capita dollars, now dwarf benefits going to other age groups.

Per capita entitlements by age group FY 1996

Ages under 18 $1,282.00

Ages 18-64 $1,442.00

Ages 65 and older $16,451.00

Even including nonentitlement outlays, per capita federal spending on the
elderly towers 9 to 1 over per capita spending on children.

The United states has gained a troubling distinction among developed
nations: In no other country do government benefits so favor the old.

Now you're probably thinking, "But they need it right?" Sort of the same
myth as poor old grannie being denied visitation and the cookies getting
cold.

Let's look..

The myth about widespread senior poverty to the contrary, the elderly rank
about average in comparison to all households in per capita cash income.

Per capita before-tax cash income by household type in FY 1996.

All households $18,250

Elderly households $17,197

Households with children $13,692

Single mother households $ 7,385

Households w/o children $24,584

Please note the elderly is 25.6% greater than households with children.

1996 Federal tax liability for a working couple and an elderly couple with
$30,000 income

Working couple $6,938

Elderly couple $690

Beyond income, the elderly have advantages in financial assets, where they
do better than any younger age group.

Average household financial net worth by age group in 1993

Under age 35 $7,950

Ages 35-44 $35,081

Ages 45-54 $35,073

Ages 55-64 $56,727

Ages 65 & older $61,946

Average household total net worth by age group in 1993

Under age 35 $30,144

Ages 35-44 $93,598

Ages 45-54 $125,856

Ages 55-64 $169,491

Ages 65 & older $151,681


The elderly also enjoy high rates of homeownership, which are declining for
the young but still rising for seniors.

Homeownership rates by age group 1995

Under age 25 14.20%

Ages 25-34 44.80%

Ages 34-44 65.20%

Ages 45-64 77.25%

Ages 65 and older 77.80%

As for health care, the share of Americans without insurance declines
dramatically with age.

Percentage of persons without health insurance in 1995 as a percentage of
all persons in their age group.

Under age 18 14.8%

Ages 18-24 28.9%

Ages 25-34 22.3%

Ages 35-44 16.3%

Ages 45-54 13.7%

Ages 55-64 13.8%

Ages 65 and older 1.1%

This information is from a study done by NEIL HOWE AND RICHARD JACKSON for
the National Taxpayers Union.

These statistics clearly show that lobbying efforts by senior citizen
organizations have been quite successful in "providing" for entitlements for
the elderly, with the lion's share not being means tested. They also show
that many elderly people should be means tested for they not only receive
the lion's share of the entitlements by are also the best off financially.
The most alarming statistics show how much is allocated to seniors that
least need it, and how little is allocated to children, families, and the
poor, that most need it.

My challenge to all grandparents and parents that are "truly" concerned
about the best interests of children is to call your congressmen and demand
means testing for entitlements. Demand that the entitlements are taken away
from those that do not need them and reallocated to those that do, mainly
the children and the poor. This could be don without even raising taxes and
we could do something for our children.

Here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is. Our children are
counting on you.