I hope you are right (except on the last point about defense: The already whittled that down by expanding the definition of defense.).
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Max Sawicky <[email protected]> wrote: > It's hard to see the committee agreeing when one side is locked into some > revenues and the other into none. My prediction is the trigger gets pulled > (caps on discretionary) and then they diddle the caps into something > somewhat less onerous (but still contractionary). And there will be less > harm to defense than has been advertised by the Dems, big surprise there. > > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 6:48 PM, michael perelman > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Is there any control to stop the committee to include extraneous >> policy in the name of cutting the debt? Perhaps abolishing minimum >> wages or abortion or anything else that would supposedly reduce the >> debt/deficit? Could it include Obama/Bush's free trade deals? >> >> -- >> Michael Perelman >> Economics Department >> California State University >> Chico, CA >> 95929 >> >> 530 898 5321 >> fax 530 898 5901 >> http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com >> _______________________________________________ >> pen-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 530 898 5321 fax 530 898 5901 http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
