Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mephisto who wrote (8520)	12/11/2001 6:49:21 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 93284

A Stimulus Not Worth Passing The New York Times Editorial December 9, 2001 If President Bush truly wants an "economic stimulus" package on his desk this year, he needs to do more than exhort Congress to get moving. He and the Republican leaders in the House and Senate should drop the pretense that tax-break giveaways to corporations and the wealthiest Americans are the key to reviving the economy. On Friday, Republicans broke off bipartisan negotiations on stimulus legislation, raising doubts about whether any measure to help the economy can be enacted this year. But in a slump like the one right now, an ineffective and lopsided bill is worse than no bill at all. Congress has to decide this week whether it wants to provide a real stimulus and help those hurt by the downturn, or give handouts to the people who need them least. The country would be better off with no stimulus package than with one that abolishes the minimum corporate tax, as Republicans demand. Part of the sweeping tax reforms of 1986, the minimum tax is a sensible rule requiring corporations that have used loopholes and deductions to reduce their tax bills to zero to pay at least something to the federal Treasury. With the prospect of deficits stretching out to the horizon, and the administration claiming that it cannot afford to spend more money on homeland security, the idea of permanently eliminating this source of revenue is outrageous. Republicans initially also wanted corporations to get refunds based on the repeal of these taxes, retroactive to 1986. The outcry over that proposed giveaway forced them to back down a bit from that idea. But tax law is infamously tricky, and the measure remains structured so companies could use it to recoup past taxes. The positive effect on the economy would be negligible, and the federal Treasury would be the loser. The winners, beneficiaries of huge and unnecessary windfalls, would include General Electric, General Motors, I.B.M. and even Enron, the bankrupt energy concern. The Bush administration and Congress did enough damage to the government's long-term financial health with the tax cuts enacted last June, and the country is now seeing the results in the future deficits. The stimulus package backed by the White House would accelerate the high-end tax cuts that were approved earlier this year but are not scheduled to take effect for several years. These particular cuts will almost certainly be reconsidered and perhaps repealed by Congress when it starts wrestling with deficits and the need to make drastic spending cuts next year. Sticking them into the stimulus package is just a ploy to nail down a benefit to the wealthiest 1 percent of America before the country realizes it cannot afford the bill. Last week, Republican leaders agreed to include in the stimulus an extension of unemployment benefits for nearly eight million Americans out of work. They took that step to secure Democratic votes for a separate bill to grant Mr. Bush expanded trade-negotiating authority. Republicans have also accepted the concept of tax breaks for those low- income Americans left out of the tax cut earlier this year. But these are only half-steps, hardly worth trading for the budget-wrecking effects of the other provisions. Extended unemployment benefits under the Republican plan would still go only to white- collar workers, not to part-time or recently hired people who were laid off. At a minimum, the stimulus bill needs to help all Americans who need jobless and health benefits. There can certainly be room for tax breaks for business in a stimulus package. One sound approach would be to expand business tax deductions for future expenses and depreciation. Such steps would truly encourage new investment and also focus their benefits on the small and medium-size businesses hit hardest by the economy today. Congress should also include a measure to help the states close their budget deficits. There is an impasse in Congress now on the stimulus, and Republicans favoring a bill for rich and big corporate taxpayers apparently think they do not need to make concessions. They simply plan to blame the Democrats if nothing is passed. That is why Mr. Bush needs to stop his exhortations and do the dirty work of negotiating with Congress. The presidential bully pulpit goes only so far. More welcome would be some tough decisions to get a bill that can not only be passed but can also do some good. nytimes.com

To: Mephisto who wrote (8520)	12/11/2001 7:49:25 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93284

We know he doesn't think of these things himeslf. So the question is, whose bad advice is he taking. Bush to Withdraw From ABM Treaty By Ron Fournier AP White House Correspondent Tuesday, December 11, 2001; 4:36 PM WASHINGTON -- President Bush has decided to give Russia notice that the United States will withdraw from the 1972 nuclear treaty that bans testing of missile defense systems, U.S. government officials said Tuesday. He will announce the decision in the next several days, effectively invoking a clause in the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that requires the United States and Russia to give six months' notice before abandoning the pact. The White House plans called for announcing the decision Thursday, but officials cautioned that date could change. The four government officials spoke on condition of anonymity. With the decision, Bush takes the first step toward fulfilling a campaign pledge to develop and deploy an anti-missile system that he says will protect the United States and its allies, including Russia, from missiles fired by rogue nations. Bush has said the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks heightened the need for such a system. Russia and many U.S. allies have warned Bush that withdrawing from the pact might trigger a nuclear arms race. Critics of the plan also question whether an effective system can be developed without enormous expense. Administration officials have said that Russian President Vladimir Putin had assured Bush during their October talks in Washington and Crawford, Texas, that U.S.-Russian relations would not suffer even if Bush pulled out of the treaty. They said Bush's decision reflects a desire by the Pentagon to conduct tests in the next six months or so that would violate the ABM. Bush defended his position anew during a national security speech Tuesday at the Citadel in North Carolina. "Last week we conducted another promising test of our missile defense technology. For the good of peace, we're moving forward with an active program to determine what works and what does not work. In order to do so, we must move beyond the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a treaty that was written in a different era, for a different enemy," Bush said. "America and our allies must not be bound to the past. We must be able to build the defenses we need against the enemies of the 21st century," he said. The decision came as Secretary of State Colin Powell, in Moscow, said Russia and the United States are near agreement on drastic cuts in long-range nuclear arsenals, but remain at odds over a U.S. missile defense. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said the arms-reduction deal could be ready for the next summit between President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin, tentatively scheduled for Moscow next spring. But the U.S.-Russian disagreement over missile defense is so deep that Russia is bracing for the possibility of a U.S. withdrawal from the landmark 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, Ivanov told a joint news conference with Powell at the Kremlin. "The positions of the sides remain unchanged," Ivanov said. Despite the missile-defense impasse, both Ivanov and Powell were upbeat about prospects for wrapping up a deal to reduce nuclear warheads. Powell said he was taking Bush a Russian recommendation on arms cuts that responds to Bush's announcement last month that the United States would cut its nuclear arsenal over the next decade by two-thirds, from just under 6,000 warheads now to between 1,700 and 2,200. Powell did not disclose specifics. But a senior State Department official, briefing reporters on Powell's plane, said the Russian recommendation was in the same ball park as the Bush announcement. Ivanov said Russia prefers to see the reductions presented in treaty form. Bush has opposed such a move in the past, suggesting that the reductions should be put on less formal grounds. washingtonpost.com