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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (398672)	4/25/2003 11:35:50 AM
From: Mark Konrad	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Buddy, another superb response. I think GW's package is already sufficiently skewed towards demand in percentage terms for lower income earners and small businesses; the eliminations of the "marriage penalty" and double-taxation of dividends are also important, imo. I agree about eliminating tax loopholes (which would include subsidies to particular sectors/industries, various forms of corporate welfare) and dramatically simplifying the tax code for further efficiencies (40-something thousand pages of tax code is well past ridiculous). I was also disappointed by the rash of spending, particularly on wasteful and counterproductive social programs, and believe much of that was an opening salve to soothe disaffected Democrats from election wounds. If GW was hoping to win over the likes of Daschle, et al, it was a repeat of the same mistake Reagan made. The FDR/Nixon approach of simply using "executive orders" may have been a more effective approach. Daschle, et al, would hardly be whining any more than they are now. As for Afghanistan and Iraq, Newt Gingrich has made some valid points regarding USaid (and the UN has already shown itself to be miserably inefficient and politically polarized). For all the hand-wringing about "occupation," the US Army and its Corps of Engineers is immensely more efficient and productive at both rebuilding and humanitarian needs (evidence abounds in post-war Europe, Japan, and South Korea). Keep the UN out (and to a certain degree, our own State Department) and let real work be done by those who know how to do it. As for revenues to the Treasury, there is accumulating evidence that both the economy and tax receipts may be at or near a nadir. With business inventories at lower levels and companies operating with greater efficiency and lower payrolls, an upturn (even a small one) may have a larger and more dramatic effect than some economists are predicting (as happened during both the Kennedy and Reagan years). A surprise on that end would be welcome, indeed. On the politics of a Republican vs Democratically controlled Congress, I'm not sure GW has it any better than Reagan did. Reagan had the support of populist "Dixiecrats" which generally don't exist anymore; they've retired, died or changed parties. Perhaps more significantly, the passage of 20 years has eroded what little was left of the concept of "states rights" which also included a measure of fiscal responsibility. A large percentage of our population no longer thinks of individual states as a significant form of government but merely as a place to renew one's drivers license. The Federal Government now is looked to first, rather than as a means of last resort, to provide healthcare, welfare, education, etc. These are the programs and bureaucracies which continue to mushroom in cost as they become progressively less efficient. Turning this around and re-delegating some of the authority and responsibility back to the states (and cities) will be even more difficult now than in Reagan's time. And the fact that GW is actually adding to these programs right now certainly won't make it any easier. Centralization of everything, rather than local control and authority, is still the trend. I do applaud GW's efforts to encourage Americans to become both more self-reliant and more generous with their time and money for charities and humanitarian needs. It has been shown over and over that charities, particularly those run by major religious organizations, are immensely more effective and efficient than similar programs run from Washington. Bottom line, it's not the hearts and minds of Iraqi's that I'm concerned with GW winning over, it's those of everyday Americans right here at home. All that said, and with full appreciation for the tremendous amount of work to be done, I'm still quite optimistic--MK--