people perish.” Jerry Brown dropped inrnand saw a jobs program in tlie waters ofrnMarsliall Field’s basement: “Don’t tellrnme we ean’t put people to work, thernpipes under Chicago are bursting.”rnThe real story, as David Johnson ofrnthe Chicago Tribune later reported, hadrnnothing to do with Republican budgetrncuts and everything to do with goofingrnoff by the Democrat’s patronage-bloatedrneit work force:rnAs a chronology of the events thatrnled to the disaster revealed, at everyrnstep where they could havernsaved the day, city workers werernloafing, dallying, or goofing off.rnThe saga goes back to last spring,rnwhen a maritime constructionrncompanv was awarded a $335,000rncity contract to pound clusters ofrn50-foot-long wooden pilings intornthe river bottom around an oldrndrawbridge. . . . The city engineerrnin charge of monitoring the jobrnne’er made a final inspection ofrnthe site because he couldn’t find arnparking spot near the bridge.rnWhen an inspector eventually discoveredrnthe damage five monthsrnlater, he took dramatic photos ofrnthe cracked tunnel wall, exposedrnpilings, and the leaking rier silt,rnbut didn’t pick up his film for arnweek. It took another week andrnhalf a dozen meetings beforernsomeone decided to write a memornrecommending that the tunnelrnbreach be repaired. Then city officialsrnbalked at paying the repairrncosts—$50,000 more than thern$10,000 originally estimated—andrninstead scheduled another roundrnof meetings. .. . And the wallrncame tumbling down.rnIt wasn’t country-club greed or low taxesrnthat turned that small leak into a multibillion-rndollar flood. It was just one morerncase of us not getting our money’s worthrnfrom the gocrnment. Our “contributions”rnto the public sector weren’t toornsmall—they were too large and toornsquandered.rnReich tells us that infrastructurernspending is low and declining when it’srnactually bloated and expanding. Federalrnspending on highways and airports increasedrnby 19 percent and 38 percent respectivelyrnin the last four years in realrndollars. The same is true for transit andrnIIUD spending, up 23 percent and 52rnpercent from 1989 through 1992. Still,rneven with the need to cut spending andrnreduce the deficit, infrastructure has becomernthe mantra of the Clintonites, withrna steady drumbeat for fiber-optics andrnmore roads. This time, we’re asked tornhave faith that higher taxes will go forrnmore than eight guvs standing around arnpothole.rnWhat we have here is a con job—arnfake infrastructure crisis based on fudgedrnnumbers, like JFK’s missile gap. Thernbottom line in Clinton’s program is arn$16 billion increase in infrastructurernspending for next year that cats up thernentire proposed $ 10 billion annual tax increasernon top income earners and all ofrnthe proposed $6 billion in new corporaterntaxes. Does anyone outside of I larvardrnor North Korea think it will “grow therneconomy” to transfer economic decisionmakingrnand all these assets from thernmost successful people in the privaternsector to the amateur central planners inrnthe White House?rnWith Head Start, Clinton proposes torndouble its spending to $6 billion by 1996,rnin spite of the fact that its own founder.rnDr. Edward Zigler of Yale, says it’s nowrnso mismanaged and unproductive thatrnwe should just shutter one-third of itsrncenters. Winston Churchill said, “Somernsee private enterprise as a predatory targetrnto be shot, others as a cow to bernmilked, but few see it as a sturdy horsernpulling the wagon.” Reich can’t see thernhorse. He can’t see why we need privaternentrepreneurs to innovate and risk andrninvest when those in the faculty loungerncan do everything better.rnReich savs, “The investments ofrnwealthier Americans no longer tricklerndown to the rest of the American people.”rnIf that’s true, if nothing tricklesrndown, then why does he support the taxrncredits that attract new business to therninner city? Isn’t the goal that a new pizzarnshop owner and auto bodv shop hire arndozen jobless kids and that what tricklesrndown is less poverty, less crime, less drugrndealing, and more self-reliance? In thern1980’s, did Reich notice the 76 percentrnjump in new business investment in realrndollars and the 20 million new jobs?rnDidn’t the jobs trickle down from thoserninvestments? In the Reich paradigm, arnpolitically correct trickle is any spendingrnby the government, while an incorrectrntrickle is any claim that anything positiverncan flow from the private sector.rn”The success of American capitalismrnno longer depends on the private investmentsrnof highly motivated Americanrncapitalists,” savs Reich. So, for the firstrntime, it no longer matters if we demoralizernthe ambitious and destroy the profitsrnin the private sector. The governmentrncan get wealth from taxes andrndirect investments from the Oval Officernand the Labor Department. Bulletrntrains and Federal Infant StimulationrnCenters can trickle down, and the Presidentrncan tell us that we are no longerrnalone.rnRalpli R. Reiland is an assistantrnprofessor of economics at Robert MorrisrnCollege in Pittsburgh.rnAcademic Snobberyrnby Jacob NeusnerrnIt Can’t Happen Here Different strokes for differentrnfolks” means, in academic language,rn”We have our own culture, so bugrnoff.” Europeans tell this to Americansrnwlio arc curious about natie habits. I rememberrnthat while teaching at FrankfurtrnUni’ersity in 1991 1 commented in arnmemo to colleagues on students whorndon’t do any reading or preparing forrnclasses and on professors who don’t talkrnto anybody anyhow. In reply, a colleaguernon the theological faculty thererntold me, “Well, we have our own academicrnculture, and, anyhow, now I won’trnha’C supper with you.” I hadn’t knownrnhe was planning to; neither had he.rnWhile a Visiting Fellow at Clare I lall,rnCambridge University, last ear, I saw arncopy of a letter that I would have supposedrnno circle, howeser tighth’ closed,rnwould have wanted sent from its midstrnWrite it to feel better, but then trashrnit—everybodv knows that! It was a responsernfrom a woman at a research instituternto a letter from a man with whomrnshe had spent some ears in graduaternseminar. The man had yvritten to in iternher out for supper; they had publishedrnbooks on similar subjects, and he wantedrnto talk to her about a problem of commonrninterest. After making fun of hisrnname and saying she couldn’t even rememberrnhim, she declined the invitationrnin the following manner:rnOCTOBER 1993/49rnrnrn