it's also progressive (in the sense that each permanent resident gets an
equal amount) while reinforcing macroeconomic fluctuations at the same
time. (A recession would cause the surplus to fall, and thus the stimulus
to the economy from the distributions of the surplus.) That's not a very
common combination, something only a professional pundit could think up.
At 08:06 PM 02/01/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>This would be a wonderful opportunity for demagogues. A politician who
>votes to spend money, say for the homeless, would be accused of taking
>checks directly away from individuals.
>
>On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 04:28:18PM -0800, Jim Devine wrote:
> > here's an economic proposal, reprinted from SLATE:
> > >A NY [Times] op-ed plumps for an idea favorably discussed by the WP's
> > >David Broder in his column yesterday, and now apparently making the
> policy
> > >rounds in Washington: Instead of a tax cut programmed over the coming
> > >decade based on guesses about future budget surpluses, how about
> returning
> > >a portion of each year's actual surplus to taxpayers in the form of a
> > >rebate check? The key advantage: when the surpluses don't pan out, the
> > >government isn't committed to giving away money it turns out not to have.
> > >The Times piece suggests that this year's check could and should total
> > >$500 per permanent resident, so that a family of four would get $2,000.
> >
> > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
> >
>
>--
>Michael Perelman
>Economics Department
>California State University
>Chico, CA 95929
>
>Tel. 530-898-5321
>E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
