EITC, poverty and race

["John Gelles" <jjgelles@xxxxxxxx>]

Alan Isaac pointed yesterday to a NYT article on Clinton's
legacy, the war on poverty, race in America, and Monica's
negative effect on Clinton's political power.

The earned income tax credit (and related tax credits) to put
cash in the hands of the woriking poor have offered wage
subsidies in place of pay for not working. They make more
sense.
            They would make even more sense if they were
paid every two weeks and separated from the income tax
industry.
            That industry wastes the time of bureaucrats and
private income tax refund offices; and it keeps the whole
country ignorant of how to run an economy efficiently in
modern times.
                    It is make-work of the worst kind -- when
we should, instead, pay more for actual health care, child
care, education and environmental cleanup.

The Times credits Clinton and Gingrich for stumbling into
what amounts to a better anti-poverty program than
welfare -- but that ain't saying much.

As for race, the areas where affirmative action is not
needed -- popular athletics and music -- is where race
no longer matters. Merit alone rules.
        Football, baseball, basketball, and now golf and
tennis have ended a good deal of racism, just as popular
music and dancing did in an earlier time.
        Religion, law, politics and business are also coming
into their own as areas where peoples can come together
to appreciate each other's merit and numerical power.
        Real progress has been made on race over the
past 40 years.

What will the Bush "legacy" on poverty and race be like
in four or eight years?  "Legacy" in quotes because, (as
the Times pointed out,) Clinton's legacy was achieved
for historical reasons -- only some of which carry his
imprint.
            My guess is that Bush's will be equal or
better than Clinton's. His party needs black and
Latino voters -- and it will only be natural for him
to know that and act accordingly.

Meanwhile, will Bush bring supply side economic
theory under Greenspan (not Volker) to its logical
result? Will he cut taxes, fight poverty, and take full
advantage of our technilogical prowess to rebuild
America -- so as to raise his family's dynastic
potential to a new high in American history?
        It's up to him.
        I think he has the smarts. Will he have the
luck?

    John Gelles  www.1944.org