RE: Re: RE: Re: tax cut passes Congress (U.S.)

["Max Sawicky" <sawicky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here is a condemnation of the tax cut bill by possibly the next Senate
Finance Committee Chairman, Kent Conrad (D-ND). He mentions that he
supported two alternative tax cuts, belying the notion that the
Democrats lost because they did not present their own plans.

<http://conrad.senate.gov/~conrad/releases/01/05/2001523955.html>

mbs:  the Dems were dragged, kicking and screaming, to
support a tax cut of $725 billion.  They released it early
this year; it was too little and too late.  Bush had been
touting his own plan for over a year.  Campaigns around
the marriage penalty and estate tax had been going on
forever.  There were no parallel Democratic campaigns.
I defy anyone on this list to tell me the main
provisions of the Dem plan.  Everyone knows the Dems
don't really want a tax cut AT ALL.  They'd rather pay
off public debt and give teaspoons of money to their clients/
interest groups in D.C.

Conrad is indignant that the "budget surplus" is gone. In 2001 the
surplus exists only on paper. It's based on projections of better
economic times than these. Now, the pie has shrunk. In essence, there
isn't enough money to expand military and education spending, provide
prescription drugs under Medcare, and reduce the size of the national
debt.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/27/politics/27SURP.html>

mbs:  rubbish.  'The surplus is gone premise' rests on bogus
accounting.  It's the Wall Street line.  Over half of the
surplus remains -- about $3 trillion.

The traitor Baucus will remain head of Finance as long
as the Dem margin in the Senate is so small.  If they
took him off, all he would have to do is switch parties
and the Repugs would give it back to him.  After all, he
did vote for their tax plan.  If there is payback it will
be after the '02 elections, if the Dems increase their
margin.

mbs