Thanks Tom.
This year I don't think much will
happen, as per the wrestling match
point. After the ritual grunting
and hair pulling, the parties will
default to big debt
reduction.
An exception is a likely
expansion of the minimum wage. This
gives the Repugs a chance to give some
new tax breaks to "small" business.
The budgetary implications will be
small. The Repugs don't want to give
the Dems the min wage issue for the
fall.
Large tax cuts are dead dead dead.
Just ask Steve Forbes or Bob Dole.
Or watch
Junior Bush sink in South Carolina
like he did in New Hampshire.
I keep coming back to the fact that the
drive for debt repayment seems to indicate
something new in deep U.S. political economy.
I don't know exactly what. Foregoing a
possible expansion of the public sector is
obvious enough, but we weren't getting that
anyway.
mbs
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Edwin Dickens
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 4:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:16171] Re: Budget Blast
Congratulations Max on a great piece. One thing though. Given your
insistence on politics as having to do with the possible, why do you think
Congress will go for greater spending on child care etc.? In other words,
why do you think the Democrats are wrong to think that, if they abandon the
call for paying down the debt, they'll be outmaneuvered into large tax cuts
for the rich rather than more social spending?
Edwin (Tom) Dickens
Max Sawicky wrote:
http://www.newsday.com/coverage/current/editorial/wednesday/nd679.htm
