Gautam wrote: > >>I could point out that Krugman has become such a loon that he has written >>in the New York Times his belief that Enron is more important than >>September 11th. >>
You don't like Krugman? How about this guy from the Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23789-2002Feb4.html "But Congress should ask whether the Defense Department, under the heading of fighting terrorism, has decided that it doesn't have to make any tough choices. Do uniformed personnel need another large across-the-board pay hike, the second broad increase in two years, or could the services meet their needs with more targeted pay raises? What's happened to promises of more businesslike practices and elimination of duplication among services? To ask such questions reflects no lack of zeal for the war. Nor should the administration let Congress off the hook for its support of unnecessary bases and weapons programs, simply because now it's easier to pork up than to fight back." Or this one from the Globe: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/036/oped/Bush_s_stimulus_comes_down_to_arms+.shtml "WASHINGTON VIA THE BACK door, President Bush has finally found an economic stimulus program that can get through Congress - military spending. The fact that it's the wrong kind of economic stimulus at the wrong time, that it has essentially nothing to do with winning the war on terrorism, the fact that it represents a shattering of previous Bush commitments and that Congress is more apt to make the situation worse than curb it - none of that has mattered in the budget being unveiled this week." The Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0202050114feb05.story?coll=chi%2Dnewsopinion%2Dhed " Can the nation afford the additional tax cuts proposed in the president's economic stimulus plan and his proposal to extend by two years the tax cut plan approved in 2001? No, it can't. Can the White House wrap its $379 billion defense budget in the flag and dismiss all skeptics as unpatriotic? No, it can't. The defense budget will deserve a substantial boost, but it will also deserve close scrutiny." The San Jose Mercury News http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/opinion/edit/082672.htm "But the $2.1 trillion federal budget that President Bush submitted to Congress on Monday, wrapped in a cover photo of an American flag, is neither even-handed nor equitable in imposing austerity. And in again pursuing tax cuts that he couldn't get past Congress last year, much to the benefit of the wealthy, Bush would risk future deficits under the guise of an economic stimulus." The Cato Institute http://catoinstitute.com/commentary/index.html "But how will more defense spending win the war on terrorism? The answer is that it won't." etc. etc. -- Doug email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zo.com/~brighto "Imagine all the people, Living for Today" John Lennon
