Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    There is an increasing number of people that *are* working that
    are joining the ranks of the homeless. And of course this includes
    families with children.
    
    This and other social problems *will* get worse *when* the next
    recession comes.
    
    Les

    re:.1 
     "1000 points of light" is Gergies way of saying look in 999 other
    places before you look to the federal government for help. I heard
    2/3 rds of all the homeless are families. Can you imagine the physical
    and mental torture this is on a child. Not to mention a parent.
                                                    
    Even though most people in Mass. work at 2 times the minimum wage,
    try to house a family on $6.70 per hour. Can you imagine working
    8 hours every day and not being able to house your child. The working
    homeless are out there. By the way there is a place in Natick called
    A Place to Turn. Since shelters do not accept clothes (fire hazard)
    this place does. They distribute it to the homeless and others who
    need help.        
    
    I bring my clothes there. It's in the church on Hartford Street.
    
    I could cry about this. Really. But it doesn't look like the government
    is going to do a hel& of a lot about it in the next 4 years. I am
    going to have to get more involved. I feel so helpless.
    
    Kate

        Here are some statistics that I found in an article about the
    state of children in the United States and around the world.  The
    article was in the San Jose Mercury News near the end (October or
    later) of 1988.

    o 2 million  children  in  the United States are runaways (of whom
      200,000  are  on  the  street).  Ten years ago this figure was 1
      million. - National Runaway and Youth Network.

    o 13.5 million  children  - or one child in 5 - live in poverty in
      the  United  States. Under age 6 it's one child in four. About 9
      million lived in poverty 20 years ago. - U.S. Census Bureau

    o The United  States  has  the highest poverty rate of eight major
      industrialized countries. - Columbia University School of Social
      Work

    o 1,200 children died of abuse in the United States in 1986 - a 23
      percent  increase  over  1985. Some estimates put that figure at
      5,000. - National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse

    o 2.25 million  children  were reported abused or neglected in the
      United States in 1986. - Child Welfare League of America

    o From 1980  to  1985,  reports  of child abuse and neglect in the
      United  States increased by 55 percent. - House Select Committee
      on Children, Youth and Families

    o 2.1 million  children  ages  5  to  13  are  left  alone at home
      regularly  (latchkey  kids). - U.S. Census Bureau report: "Who's
      Minding the Kids?"

    o $3,000 is  the  average  annual  cost of child care in the major
      urban  areas  of  the  United  States. - Child Welfare League of
      America

    o 250,000 families  are  homeless  in  the  United  States. - U.S.
      Department of Housing and Urban Development.

    o For every  10  homeless  adults 8 children are affected. - Child
      Welfare League of America

    o 28.5 percent  of  the  40  million public school children in the
      United States dropped out in 1986. Washington D.C. has the worst
      dropout rate - 43.2 percent. - U.S. Department of Education.

    o In some  inner-city schools the dropout rate exceeds 80 percent.
      - Committee for Economic Development

    o 57 percent of high school seniors have tried an illicit drug; 36
      percent  have  tried  an illicit drug other than marijuana; 15.2
      percent  have  tried cocaine; and 5.6 percent have tried "crack"
      cocaine.  - 1987 survey for the Institute for Social Research of
      the University of Michigan.

    o One out  of  three  American  families  are plagued with alcohol
      problems. - Centers for Disease Control

    o 28 million   children   have  an  alcoholic  parent,  and  these
      youngsters  are  3  1/2  times more likely than others to become
      alcoholics  themselves.  -  U.S.  Department of Health and Human
      Services task force on alcoholism

    o 26 percent  of  the nations eighth-graders and 38 percent of the
      10th-graders  said  they had five or more drinks on one occasion
      during  the  two  weeks  preceding  a  national  survey.  - U.S.
      Department of Health and Human Services

    o 1071 children under 13 in the United States have contracted AIDS
      as  of  June  1988, and 10,000 to 20,000 have been infected with
      the  virus  and  will  have  AIDS  by 1991. - U.S. Public Health
      Department

    o 496,600 children  under 18 in the United States were arrested in
      1986  for  serious  crimes,  including  murder, rape, aggravates
      assault,  arson, robbery, burglary and motor vehicle theft. They
      accounted  for  20  percent  of  all  arrests.  - National Crime
      Prevention Council and FBI statistics of 1986

    o On Feb   1,  1985  85,322  children  were  in  3,040  detention,
      correctional  and  shelter facilities, a 1 percent increase over
      1983. - U.S. Bureau of Justice

    o 1 percent  of  children  needing  mental health treatment in the
      United  States  actually  receive  it. Seven to fourteen million
      children in the United States need such treatment. - "Children's
      Mental Health - A Report by the Office of Technology Assessment"
      1987, Leonard M. Saxe, principal editor.

    o 6,000 children  under  18 committed suicide in the United States
      in  1987,  up 300 percent in 20 years. 200,000 attempted suicide
      and  failed.  - Social legislation bulletin of the Child Welfare
      League of America.

    o The United  States  ranks  18th  among  142  countries in infant
      mortality  -  a  fall  from  12th  in recent years. - "The World
      Military  & Social Expenditures, 1987-1988" by Ruth Leger Sivard

    o The United  States  is  19th  among 20 industrialized nations in
      infant  mortality;  Japan,  with  the  fewest  infant deaths per
      capita,  is  No.  1.  (After World War II, the United States was
      fifth,  and  Japan  was  20th.)  Washington,  D.C. has the worst
      infant mortality rate (20.8 percent) of any city or state in the
      United States.

    o Spending for  children's  programs  in  the  United  States  was
      reduced  $10  billion  a year since 1981. - Congressional Budget
      Office and Paul Smith of the Children's Defense Fund.

    o 100 million  children  worldwide  live  on  the  street,  with a
      probable rise of 20 million since 1983. - Childhope

    o 50,000 to 100,000 children have died as front-line troops in the
      Iran-Iraq   war.   -   Non-governmental   organizations'   (NGO)
      submissions  to  the  drafting  group  of  the Convention on the
      Rights of the Child, United Nations

    o 70,000 children  have  been  orphaned  as a result of the war in
      Nicaragua. - NGO submissions

    o 140,000 children  under  5 died in Mozambique and Angola in 1986
      as  a  result  of  South Africa's war against these countries. -
      "Children   on   the   Front  Line:  The  Impact  of  Apartheid,
      Destabilization  and  Warfare  on Children in Southern and South
      Africa," a report for UNICEF, 1988

    o 10,000 children  were  detained  without trial; 173,000 children
      were  held  awaiting  trial  (and  subjected to such tortures as
      flesh  burning, electric shock, being submerged in sewage water,
      whippings,  beatings  with rifle butts) between 1984 and 1987 in
      South Africa. - NGO Submissions

    o Child-abuse reports increased by 70 percent in England and Wales
      between 1979 and 1984. But a child is 50 times more likely to be
      abused  in  the United States than there. - Defense for Children
      International - USA

    o 14 percent  of  children  under  4  in Zaire tested positive for
      AIDS;  Zambia's  Ministry  of  Health reported that 6,000 babies
      infected  with  the  AIDS  virus  were  born  in  1987.  - Panos
      Institute (London and Washington, D.C.

    o Up to  25  percent of the women in some capital cities of Africa
      are estimated to be infected, and about 50 percent of these will
      pass AIDS on to their unborn infants. - UNICEF

    o 280,000 unmarried teens had babies in 1985, with an undetermined
      number  of the 200,000 married teenagers getting pregnant before
      marriage. - Children's Defense Fund

    o 18 children  a minute, or 26,000 per day, die in this world of a
      hunger related ailment. - San Francisco Hunger Project

    o In Bangladesh,   84   percent   of   the  children  suffer  from
      malnutrition.  In  Haiti,  the  figure  is  70  percent;  in  El
      Salvador,  it's  58 percent; and in Panama and Columbia, it's 51
      percent. - State of the World's Children 1988, UNICEF

    o 86 million   children  ages  10  to  14  work  under  conditions
      detrimental  to  their health and welfare. - International Labor
      Organization  and  reports  from various national governments to
      the U.N.

    o In Southeast  Asia  alone  an  estimated  100 million people are
      child  laborers.  All  indicators  show increases. - Defense for
      Children International - USA

    Murder is the leading cause of death of children in the USA.
    17% of all children who die here are murdered.
    
    Can you imagine?
    
    I read an article in Time last month. I don't remember it word for
    word but it went something like this:
    
    Biggest Concerns of Schools
    
    1940's                  Today
    ----------------        ----------------
    Talking in class        Guns
    Note Passing            Alcohol
    Tardiness               Drug Overdoses
    
    Kate
                             
    

    From the Boston Globe
    
    Health care for children in the United States has declined to its
    lowest point in 10 years, a trend that threatens to create a generation
    of citizens plagued by afflictions that were treated inadequately
    during childhood, according to a national study.
    
    "It says that we're sliding back, it says this country is doing a
    reprehensible job of taking care of its young," said Robert H. Sweeney,
    president of the Washington based National Association of Children's
    Hospitals and Related Institutions, the organization that conducted the
    study.
    
    "Its going to haunt us all in the future," Sweeney added.  "Instead of
    preparing our young to be contributors to society, we're preparing a
    generation that will be lifelong dependents.  Its a national disgrace.
    
    Researchers used 13 economic, educational and social indicators to
    gauge how well children, defined as those under 18 years old, are in
    the United States.  
    
    

    hung note, rescued by moderator
    
               <<< RAINBO::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 497.9                     Children in Poverty                        9 of 9
MUMMY::SMITH "Passionate commitment to reasoned fait" 0 lines  16-MAR-1989 16:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    re: .7
    Do you remember the age of murdered children?  I've been trying
    to recall  and think that murder is the leading cause of death of
    children under the age of (1? 2?) and most are killed by family.
    
    What will happen to that murder rate if abortion is oulawed and
    more unwanted children are born?

    re .9
    
    Regarding the age of murdered children, I have a copy of the original
    article that answers that question.  Its short so I'll enter it in
    it's entirety.
    From the Boston Globe:
    
    Murder held to lead in deaths of infants
    
    Washington - More infants die from murder than from any other category
    of death caused by injury, according to a new study by researchers at
    Johns Hopkins University.  The study, released yesterday, says that
    from the years 1980 to 1985, a total of 1,250 children under 1-year-
    old died of homicide, said Anna E. Waller of the Injury Prevention 
    Center at Johns Hopkins.  Murder accounted for 17 percent of all of
    the injury deaths among children in the age group, she said.  The
    homicide death rate for the infants was 5.68 per 100,000 per year.(AP)

    re:.9
    That's my point. What the country doesn't need is more unwanted
    children. The fact that 17% of all babies that die are murdered
    is enough to warrant safe abortions. This is a discusting fact of
    life. I know it's hard to read but these are the facts most people
    fail to mention when they speak of pro-life. I believe in safe
    abortions and I consider myself very much "pro-life".
    
    Kate

    I agree with you Kate.  "Responsibility" for the life of another doesn't 
    stop at birth, it begins at birth and continues for 21 years.  
    
    Mary 

Re: .11

    Sorry to  pick nits, but this one has been repeated too often. The
    paper said that 17% of the *injury related* deaths occured because
    of  murder. This doesn't count the deaths caused by disease, which
    used to be a real killer of young children.

--David

  What is really depressing about these statistics is how the Reagan/Bush
adminstrations are going about tackling the problem.  For example, Bush
is doing is level best to keep the minimum wage so low that it supplies an
income that would be considered below poverty for a family of 3 (under $7000
per annum).  Put this into further perspective when you consider that many 
minimum wage jobs don't have health benefits, either.  No wonder people are
forced to put off going to the doctor until it gets much more expensive to
treat.  I remember vividly one woman who said when her daughter got sick, "If
the fever is 103 degrees or less, I just try to treat it myself.  We can't
afford to go to the doctor."  In the middle-class world, 103 degrees is usually
a case for going to the E.R.

    I heard on TV the other day that Springfield may have to lay off
    700 teachers. That's 1/3 of its work forced. In one of the most
    economically unstable cities in the Commonwealth, this could be
    disasterous. How are these kids ever improve their lot with this
    bad luck thrust upon them? Where is the state, the federal government?
    I have a vested interest in this. I live in the next city, Worcester.
    
    Kate
     
    
    

    re .15 (Kate)
    
    I have heard that Worcester is already in deep education trouble.
    Budgets are being cut all over the state.
    
    I also heard from Springfield this weekend. Some of the hospitals
    are in trouble and threatening layoffs and/or closings.
    
    >  Where is the state, the federal government?
    
    They are using the money to hire mor cops and build more prisons.
    Makes sense: With more people on the streets with no jobs, education,
    housing, medical care, there will be a lot of angry peolple that
    will have to be repressed.
    
    Les

    Budgets are indeed being cut all over the state. I live in a very
    small town which is affiated with a larger small town for schools.
    The amount of our school budge that usually comes from taxes is
    only a fraction of the total need because we've always gotten
    state help. This year without state help there is a 2.2. million
    dollar short fall in our education budget. We are already understaffed
    when it comes to special needs teachers. Right now, all the untenured
    teachers have received pink slips and the property taxes are going
    to have to go up to meet the budget. We are a poor rural town and
    the neighboring town is a poor older manufacturing town. The kids
    are the ones that will suffer. Ours will do okay, because we will
    suppliment any losses at home. But there are many kids whose
    parents don't have the time or ability to do the same.
    
    Bonnie

    	The seriousness of the problem spills over to other states but
    Mass. is just beginning to feel the crunch. The Governor that so
    many love in Mass. is a jerk in financial matters. The people of
    Mass. have NO ONE but THEMSELVES to blame because they consistently
    send the same politicians back to the house and senate year after
    year after year. These "reps" and I use the word loosely, are the
    weight of misery in Massachusetts. They expend millions of dollars
    on ridiculous folly and and then go to the taxpayer for more. Now
    local towns are going to have to meet short falls that the Duke
    stole ($91,000,000 in lottery money, remember???) to balance his
    budget.
    
    I moved from Massachusetts because of the total frustration I felt
    in town, county, and state politics. In New Hampshire I pay $300
    a month in property tax (along with 5% Mass. Income) but my local
    Representitive listens to my ideas and has even brought one to the
    floor of the legislature already. The NH lottery goes to education
    and helps the state with its administration. Maybe Mass. should
    look at the same thing.
    
    I get so angry when the gov is screaming about semi-automatic weapons
    (of 4000 crimes in which weapons used in 1988, 7 involved semis)and
    his AG screaming about Seabrook, the Senate President involved in
    a nasty payback scam, and a rep that's trying to re-introduce a
    seatbelt law that the voters killed a year ago, NOTHING of any
    importance will get done because they really don't give a sh*t about
    anyone but themselves and their pockets.......
    
    My anarchist tendencies come out when Massachusetts politics are
    discussed.....
    
    The littele towns have no strength. The high school in the town
    where we lived (West Boylston) is closing and will become part of
    regional HS from what I've heard. The cost of operating a HS with
    only 250 kids is prohibitive with state requirements. Approx. 1/3
    of the 8th graders are going to private schools because the school
    tenures extremely poor teachers and spends much too much money on
    sports (in their opinion). Now a really nice HS that offered small
    classes and an excellent education will shrivel up and die because
    of political failure, not parental failure.
    
    Only people can make changes. If we care enough, there are ways
    to help. Voluntary co-op teaching for subjects like reading and
    gym for the elementary classes can reduce budgets by 15%. Those
    classes really don't require educators. People who are part time
    musicians can help children to learn to read music and appreciate
    it. A artist can give classes. All it takes is a bit of organization.
    I teach kindergarten once a month, and it is rewarding. If we parents
    didn't co-op, the cost would be over $300 a month (NH does not have
    public kindergarten) not the $150 we pay now (half days). You may
    have to put some teachers out of work or cut them to part time,
    but everyone has to pay the price in hard times.
    
    Ken

 The teachers that receive pink slips are political pawns. The government knows
how to turn the thumb screws. If they threaten to lay off some teachers, parents
will give in to those who claim that taxes are not high enough. Funny thing is,
while they manage to cut the necessities, the waste, fraud and corruption
continues unabated. The senate president's office is still getting "redone" at
a huge cost to the taxpayers, but we don't have enough money for teachers? Hah!
Priorities! The government proves it's me first, and to hell with my 
constituents. Well, Mass voters, like they say, you get what you pay for...

 The  Doctah

    From today's Boston Globe:
    
    SCHOOL RAT PROBLEM STIRS EVERETT TRUANCY
    
    A handful of parents pulled their kids out of classes yesterday after 
    reports were confirmed that rats were scurrying about at Lafayette
    Elementary School.  But school officials, who have declined to close
    the school, said classes will be held today as scheduled.  The rat 
    problem first came to school administrators' attention two weeks ago,
    shortly after an adjacent home, which had been vacant for some time,
    underwent demolition.  
    
    Exterminators were called and they poinoned the rats, but more rats
    subsequently appeared.  Parents have compleined that the smell of
    decaying rats and of deodorant pellets used to cover the stench is
    making their children ill.  Principal Johyn Andreucci said, however,
    exterminators have assured him no serious health hazard is involved and
    that it is unnecessary to close the school. (AP)

    from Tuesday's (March 28) Globe:
    
    Volunteerism Shows No Rise, Poll Finds
    
    Americans are not responding to President Bush's "thousand points of
    light" message by giving more time and money to charity, according to 
    a poll released yesterday.  Most of the 1,010 people polled by the
    Marist Institute of Public Opinion said they planned no changes in
    the time they volunteer or the money they give to charity, said Dennis
    Murray, president of Marist College in Poughkeepsie.  Bush, as part of
    his call for a "kinder and gentler" America, has asked Americans to
    give more time and money. (AP)

    
    We are being taxed to death. Where are all the dollars going?

    to fatten the pockets of the bureaucrats?

    Per Dapper O'Niel, on WRKO yesterday:
    
    The School Board came to the City Council asking for $4,500,000
    for 'Special Education' in 1988. The Council gave it to them and
    they proceeded to give out $3,000,000 in raises and $1,500,000 for
    SpecEd. This year they asked for $6,000,000 and O'neil asked for
    a line item expense report. $5,000,000 was earmarked for administrative
    raises. They were told to go to ......There are 700 adminstrators
    in Boston. Chicago has 27, LA 13. says alot doesn't it?
    
    Massachusetts has nearly 100,000 people getting a paycheck from
    the state. In a state of 6,000,000 that's one of every 60. I would
    say the answer to "Where does the money go?", is into the pockets
    of bureaucrats.
    
    Next to Louisiana, Massachusetts is reported to be the most corrupt
    state. The people of Massachusetts are the most lethargic about
    it. Keep votin' those good ol' boys back in. Let Mikey and his cronies
    suck the coffers dry with paybacks.
    
    The whole system needs an enema.
    
    Ken

    What happened to the 1000 points of light? Poverty doesn't just
    exist in Mass. Our standard of living is relatively high. With
    a population of 6 million, Mr. Dukakis's administration put 55000
    mothers through training programs and off of welfare. Many make
    over 20K per year now. This is fact. I can name you 3 women. Where
    is the money going? Government yes, but also to Japanese industry.
    When the term "economic recovery" comes up, I always ask, "who
    recovered?" The rich were never sick. The standard of living has
    gone down in the last 8 years for the first time in American history.
    This is a sad fact. Freedom is nothing to a child without a full
    belly.
    
    I don't want to ramble any more. I'm going home.
    
    Kate 

    Over half of our federal budget is spent on defens.  I think this
    is insanity. A country is its people and if its children are poorly
    educated, malnourished and not given the needed medical care than
    eventually that country will self-destruct no matter what kind
    of expensive arsenal it possesses.
    
    Instead of cutting social programs to the bone and expecting
    the private sector to make up the difference, why can't we
    cut the defense budget to the bone and let those who want
    to contribute to the building of Star Wars? 
    
    re 497.24
    
    I do not agree that Massachusetts is one of the most corrupt
    states and would be interested in knowing your source.
    
    Sue
    
    

    re .26-
    
    >    Over half of our federal budget is spent on defens.
    
    I don't believe this is correct.  My impression was that 23% of
    our current federal budget goes to Defense.  Anybody got facts?
    
    DougO

                    US Defense Budget   Federal Net Outlay
    
    1970            81.7               196.6
    1975            86.5               326.1
    1980           134.0               579.0
    1981           157.5               -na-
    1982           185.3               -na-
    1983           209.9               795.9
    1984           227.4               841.8
    1985           252.7               936.8
    1986(act)      281.0               989.8
    1987(est)      284.9              1015.6
    1988(est)      303.3              1024.3
    1989(est)      323.3               -na-
    1990(est)      343.9               -na-
                                       
    *data from OMB, Dept of Treasury as tabulated in
    Information Please Almanac 1988
    
     
    

    re .28-
    
    Thanks Bob, I asked for facts and you provided 'em.
    I note that, contrary to the assertion in .26 that
    over half the federal budget goes to the defense budget,
    your numbers tell a less-reported tale.  I only checked
    the years 83-88; they showed a percentage increasing
    from 26% to almost 30% in that period; more than my
    first-guess at 23%, but considerably less problematical
    than the frightening assertion in .26.
    
    DougO

Re: .27 et al

    A problem  with  statistics  like  these  is  that  there  is some
    question  about where to put things like veteran's benefits, which
    are  clearly defense related, but often end up described as social
    welfare  programs.  Also  the  Department  of  Energy does all the
    development  of  nuclear  weapons,  so  you should include part of
    their  budget under defense. And a large fraction of space shuttle
    missions  are  to  launch military sattelites, so some fraction of
    NASA's budget should be considered defense spending. And of course
    one  can argue that some fraction of payments on the national debt
    stem from military spending.

    I have  heard  claims (that I can't substantiate) that if one does
    these  calculations  (not  including  debt  payments) the "Defense
    related" part of the federal budget exceeds 50%.

--David

    These figures are government estimates.  I've read that the government
    has quite a variety of ways to establish statistics, for example the
    deficit numbers change quite drastically depending on how the
    numbers are calculated (whether social security is included).  
    Do these numbers reflect the true picture?  
    
    Mary

        A  few  people  made  comments  about  feeling  sorry  for  the
        children who are affected by poverty. I think that  is  a  fair
        statement  to make, but I think we should be careful about what
        we are feeling sorry for.

        I remember when I was about six or seven and  there  were  (let
        me  see,  Arthur,  Franky, RoseMary, Jimmy, Hershel) five other
        kids living at home. Rosemary had to share a bedroom  with  me,
        Jimmy  and  Hershel.  Us  three  boys shared a bed. Hershel is
        retarded  and  would  sometimes  be  selfish  and  kick me, but
        otherwise we managed. 

        My father was sick a lot, plus he was a  Black  man  trying  to
        make  a living in the sixties. He was brilliant, but had to many
        odds  against  him.  He washed dishes for minimum wage (he also
        was the president of  a  non-profit  organization  that  built
        homes and sold them or rented them to low-incomes) My mother
        hadn't  started  working  yet.  Her strict  catholic upbringing
        taught her to stay home to mind the children. Plus,  a  woman's
        place was in the home back then anyway, right?

        I can remember the time my mother went to  bed  crying  because
        they  had  one dollar to buy groceries! We ate a lot of bologna
        and potatoes. It took a long time for me to figure out  why  we
        often  had to boil our bath water on the stove. (by the way, we
        took baths in twos!)

        My  point  is,  however, that *we* children weren't unhappy. We
        had a lot of fun and I've never regretted the good  times  that
        I  had  when we were living at the poverty line. We didn't miss
        something that we never had (materialistic possessions). It's
        not  like the neighbors were doing any better! :-) We would all
        get together and buy a kick ball  which  would  last  us  until
        someone  popped  it.  Or we would play hide-and-go seek or kick
        the can. Hide-and-go-seek doesn't cost anything  (well,  unless
        you  went traipsing through someone's garden), and you can find
        a can for kick the can in the garbage. We played *stick* ball.
        We  built  our  own bicycles  from  the scraps we found on
        garbage day or the dump. We made money going to the store for
        the elderly  or  shoveling sidewalks.  We  *shared*  a  lot 
        between siblings and friends. 

        I agree  that  we  need  to  make  sure  these  kids  are  fed,
        educated,  not  abused,  etc.,  But don't make the mistake that
        your middle-class children  are  better  off  or  happier  than
        those living in poverty.

    re: 32 LDP::CARTER
    
    Amen!!!
    
    I never knew I was poor until someone told me.
    
    Ken

    Lies, damn lies and statistics notwithstanding....
    
    The latest statistic I heard about the amount spend on
    defense was in a report last week on All Things Considered about the
    Mass. couple who haven't paid federal income tax for several
    years. The reporter quoted the statistic that $.28 of every
    tax dollar goes to defense (I can't remember if they said
    defense-related).  For what it's worth...
    
    Richard

    re: .29
    
    DougO,
     
    I think the figures presented by Mr. Holt are misleading, they
    include neither veterans' benefits nor any military research
    such as Star Wars.  According to figures I was given (by the
    Peace and Social Concerns Committee for the Acton Meeting of
    Friends, ie. Quakers) the fiscal budget for '88 was 813 billion.
    Approximately 35% of that budget was spent on the military,
    and another 19% was spent on veterans' benefits and military
    research.  I think you should be frightened by that. I am.
    
    Sue

    Spending too much on defense and too little on children is
    not only immoral but also bad for the economy.  According to
    the Quakers' report, every one million dollars spent on defense
    resulted in the creation of 28 jobs, while every million spent
    on consumer goods created 57 new jobs, and every million spent
    on education created 70 new jobs.
    
    Sue

    re .35, Sue-
    
    I just heard that Dick Cheney has proposed a $10B cut in the next
    budget for DoD (Cheney is the new SecDef) and part of that cut is
    $.8B from Star Wars.  If Dick is going to save money by not funding
    certain parts of Star Wars, as reported in national news, I interpret
    that as meaning he is paying for the rest of it ($4.4B).  And, having 
    just gotten out of the Air Force 18 months ago, I can assure you that
    over one third of the Air Force budget goes into R&D.    
    
    Yet you said that the budget was 35% military, with no other numbers,
    and didn't include "... any military research such as Star Wars."
    Somehow, I trust Mr Holt's numbers and his attributed published
    source, much more than I trust those of The Friends.
                                         
    DougO

          
Note 497.37                  
SKYLRK::OLSON 
   
    >  And, having just gotten out of the Air Force 18 months ago, I can 
    >assure you that over one third of the Air Force budget goes into R&D.    
     
    Perhaps over one third of the Air Force budget does go into Research
    and Development but that R&D will most probably end up as classified
    information and therefore will not contribute to the American
    economy, not to mention the fact that most (if not all) of the R&D
    will be on weapons research instead of R&D on science, health, or
    economics projects and hence will be worthless to the public sector
    anyway.
    
    >Yet you said that the budget was 35% military, with no other numbers,
    >and didn't include "... any military research such as Star Wars."
    >Somehow, I trust Mr Holt's numbers and his attributed published
    >source, much more than I trust those of The Friends.
     
    I certainly wouldn't (no offense Mr Holt).  
    The government has lied to us and deceived us many times.  
    The Friends are known for their integrity.          
    
    

    DougO,
    
    If I was mistaken in believing that Star Wars was separate from
    the military budget then the error is mine, not the report put
    out by the Society of Friends (I read the report a while back).
    However, that still doesn't address the fact that military pensions
    and other other military-related expenses are not included in
    the budget directly under defense spending.  I will try to find
    a copy of the budget so that I can quote a more reputable source
    than those peace-mongering Quakers.  I find it interesting that
    you seem to find the idea of spending 50% as appalling as I do.
    I have a friend whose father-in-law is a retired admiral.  He
    doesn't dispute the fact that about half of our disposable budget
    is being spent on defense (and defense related ) - he just argues
    that given the world situation such an expense in necessary.
    
    Sue

     DougO,
    
    I felt very patronized that you thought it necessary to tell
    me who Dick Cheney is.  Unfortunately, I'm well aware that he
    is now Sec. of Defense.    
    
    Sue 

 Perhaps Doug was directing that particular thought at members of the conference
in general rather than at you personally. It saves time from having to write
a response to "Who's that?"

 The Doctah

    Thanks, Doctah, for the vote of confidence, your explanation is
    correct.  And my apologies to Sue for giving you the impression
    that I was patronizing you; such was not my intent.
    
    DougO

    
    The statistics I entered earlier represented the DoD budget, not
    the DoD budget + the VA budget. I think the VA budget amounts to
    a billion or so ( I can look it up) which puts it at about 1/3 of
    1% of DoD outlays.
    
    The DoD budget's largest line items are for costs related to personnel,
    such as benefits and salary. 
    
    This is not to say that new programs aren't expensive, however.
    But we have to spend something here, at least as long as the 
    world remains populated by madmen and dictators. The question
    is whether some of the money we spend on the DoD is wasted, or
    not. I suggest that some, indeed, is being wasted.

>    The question
>    is whether some of the money we spend on the DoD is wasted, or
>    not. I suggest that some, indeed, is being wasted.

 I think that there is little question that some DoD money is misspent or
wasted. I cannot think of a single area of government spending where this is
not the case. I guess the ideal thing to do would be to find out which areas
of governmental spending have the most waste or misspent money, and clean
them out. I would not be at all surprised to see the DoD and welfare/human
services heading the list.

 The Doctah