At 01:53 PM 7/19/2006, you wrote:
>On Jul 19, 2006, at 1:37 PM, George Scialabba wrote:
>
>>Well, not just *any* laundry list. Suppose they campaigned really
>>hard for universal single-payer health care,
>
>That has lots of potential.
>
>>retention and extension of the estate tax,
>
>Apparent loser politically.
>
>>increased capital gains tax,
>
>Neutral to loser.
>
>>50 percent reduction of the defense budget,
>
>Probably a big loser.
>
>>stiff gasoline tax,
>
>Political suicide.
>
>>large research budget for alternative fuels,
>
>Nice, as long as no one has to pay for it.
>
>>universal free preschool,
>
>Potentially popular, if you can get someone to pay for it. Didn't
>this lose in Calif, even though it was going to be funded by lightly
>moistening the fat boys?
>
>>3 percent of national income for overseas development assistance,
>
>Most Americans probably think we're spending more than that already.
>In any case, almost no constituency for this.
>
>>no tests of nuclear weapons and gradual reduction of the stockpile
>>plus no-first-use pledge,
>
>Sadly, phrases like "cut and run" do have some sticking power."
>
>>30 percent increase in the minimum wage to be funded by a 1 percent
>>surtax on incomes over $1m/yr,
>
>Quite popular.
>
>>renunciation of our Security Council veto,
>
>What's and let furriners push us around?
>
>>increased and timely payment of UN dues,
>
>That might fly, as long as it didn't look like furriners were going
>to push us around.
>
>>constitutional amendment stripping corporations of status as legal
>>persons, extension and enforcement of the Freedom of Information
>>Act, greatly increased citizen oversight of EPA and FDA, etc, etc,
>>etc. [Add your own laundry items.] Wouldn't that be progress?
>
>It would be, but I'm not sure the masses are ready for this. I doubt
>you could get more than 15% approval for this agenda, though maybe
>I'm too pessimistic.
>
>Doug
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk