On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Max Sawicky wrote:
> I do not refer to his acquiesence to tax cuts. This was not
> unexpected, merely a sign of his political scruples. Boy, isn't it
> great that the Fed is politically independent?
>
> Rather, it was his justifications for doing so. These included the
> merits of the government *failing* to divest itself of debt, since a
> government with no debt to service would be in danger of using tax
> revenue to purchase financial assets, and this would be bad. So in
> this AG is implicitly declaring that, by his lights, Social Security
> should not be funded in any way to meet expected future needs.
Just to double check, he'd still be more than happy with the idea of privatizing contributions into personal investment funds, right? Or does that still count as "Social Security" owning assets because it's compulsary? I think Ayn Rand would think so. You might be giving him too much credit for having principles, even crazy ones. :o) Talk about a whore of the state.
> I spoke to Hill staff who were stunned by all this. Maybe some
> Members will now figure out that fiscal discipline only applies when a
> Democrat might get credit for spending or tax cuts.
You certainly get a big I-told-you-so for that.
> So in my book, besides revealing himself to be a political hack
> suitable for Supreme Court nomination
Well put. Is this going in a column?
> AG certifies himself as a full- fledged Nut.
Do you think there might be the slightest glimmer of rationality underneath this smokescreen of babble? I.e., the recognition that a world without treasury debt would be financially less stable and the US would have a less important place within it?
Besides of course his principled desire to give all the surplus to rich people.
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com