John,

If you've visited parts of Texas, the need for Health spending becomes apparent. I do agree that statistics are as Disraeli once said equivalent to damn lies upon occasion. But in matters of Health Care, Education, child insurance, these are measurable and not "fuzzy math". Of course, it does matter who is doing the measuring. I refer to the political use of statistics as "skewtistics". But the case is this, Texas don't look all that great. The Republican claim against Micheal Dukakis is that Boston didn't look so great. I can assure you that under Reagan, (having lived in California at the time) Lost Angeles wasn't so great either.

So if we throw away the stats, what do we have?

Two different views of how government should be conducted.

The assumption that one's wealth does not affect another, I must take issue with. Wealth buys the type of political power through lobbies that directly affect the wealth and health of others. As affecting this in a good way, perhaps so, but also in a negative way. Hoarding, itself, is not the issue. Buying off the politicians is one way in which it can be harmful. Tax breaks for the wealthy is one way of supporting the political clout for the rich. Wealth is an abstraction that can be used for affecting very real conditions. There are philanthopists who have chosen to use their money for the "common good" but in doing so may have done so at the expense of others in this way, they have commanded a larger share of the political pie. They have also made their money at the expense of many through ruthless (Darwinian Capitalist) means without contributing much to society at all. A Donald Trump may be a case in point. I see no reason why they shouldn't be taxed in a fair way based on the percentage of income they generate which can be used for the "common good" as well.

The problem with Welfare Capitalism is that it discriminates.

Respectfully also,

Frank