Russ wrote after Denys and I :

> I know too little of French politics to make any other
> statement than this:
> if they put the health, education and welfare of their
> children first, even
> if it means going into debt, they will come out ahead in the long run.

First, we also have senators here. They are not directly elected by voters,
but their function in government, as I understand it, is roughly the same.

Now comes the fun part :

Each year, with my tax return, the equivalent of the IRS sends me a notice
describing how my money is collected (breakdown of taxes) and spent
(breakdown of expenditures). And yes, if you read it fast, you get the
impression that the French government really puts education above
everything.

Unfortunately, this is ludicrous. To give the impression that education is
the biggest item of government expenditure, they add education +
state-funded research + other research budgets, like space exploration
(!!!). The reality is a bit different, with the following approximate
breakdonwn of expenses, sorted by decreasing order of magnitude :

Army/Defense : 24% (which hardly puts us on the world affairs radar screen)
Debt service : 21% (thanks to decades of runaway deficits)
Education : 18% (yes, we think that educating our children is important)
European Affairs : 11% (the 'black hole' of near non-accountability)
etc.

Where do I get that information ? It's all in the public domain ! It's just
a different presentation of the notices we get with our tax returns.

Now, I've been paying taxes, filing returns and reading similar notices
since 1985. In that time, we've had many governments, some left-leaning,
some right-leaning. What strikes me most is a near-constant pattern of
government spending. Very, very little change, with 5 major "alternances"
(power shifting from right to left, or from left to right) in the meantime.

So I can't blame ONE political party for the current state of affairs, but,
if I want to be honest (you bet !!!), I have to blame them ALL !!!
>
> I believe the debt our federal government carries is an
> unnecessary burden
> around the necks of our entire population, but I would rather
> be in debt
> taking care of the next generations of my country and
> repaying the care the
> generations which preceded me deserve for their efforts, than have a
> balanced budget made mostly by cutting services to children,
> families, and
> the elderly while funding military actions and making changes
> to our tax
> laws which seem only to benefit the wealthiest of our nation.

Perhaps a middle-of-the-road course is possible, with some measure of social
services and some measure of repaying the debt ?

> Of course, with the aging of the Baby Boomers, it isn't so
> far away when the
> political strength and largest voting block will be old enough to make
> social services for the elderly a force no politician will be able to
> ignore.  Hmmmmm, what was I working on before going off on
> this tangent?
>
> Rs~
>
> Russ Smith

Even in a welfare-state country like France, I'm not counting on government
to fund my retirement. Hopefully, I've put some money on a private plan
(compulsory for executives), that has been partially invested in the stock
market. Good thing they did not put everything in stocks, we would have
taken a battering of untold proportions when the tech bubble burst. The fund
managers have been wise enough to diversify their investments in stocks,
bonds, real estate, etc.

Christian

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *