w1ld wrote:
] I would be interested in your feedback on this article.

Ted Rall is a crackpot. He is entertaining but he is not a reasonable source of information.

I don't really like Bush. I like him better the Rall. Trying to analyse this article puts me, of course, in the preverse position of defending Bush. You'll never hear this out of me again.

Bush does not make unilateral tax cut decisions. Most of the tax related decisions mentioned here, including the estate tax mess, were passed by a democratic Congress. The estate tax is just flat stupid for reasons Rall doesn't mention and I don't feel like explaining. Its basically an ass backwards committee style nightmare. His observation that this is what caused the budget problems with the states is interesting, but I doubt its the whole truth. The estate tax cut takes ten years to wind up, yet all the states are having money problems now. If a tax cut to the states caused their budges to break, this obviously did not occur in proportion to the decrease in estate tax income. Therefore it must be more complex then that.

I imagine the economic slowdown was a much bigger factor in this situation then any policy decision. The only thing that could have been done about that is greater action on the Clinton's part to stomp on an obvious economic bubble. I doubt Bush would have done better there then Clinton.

Bush DID propose an across the board $300 tax cut. This benefits the poor more then the rich. Rall ignores this.

Homeland security is all kinds of questionable. Yes this is democratesque authoritarian government. I'm not going to argue with that. Its probably better then the previous notion of retooling the FBI. I'm still not convinced it will be effective. Obviously this is a reaction to September 11th and not a premeditated policy direction. That doesn't make it good, but it also doesn't make Bush a big government guy at heart.

There is no Social Security Trust fund and there never was. Social Security has been and will continue to be fucked. The people who control it now benefit from it too much to fix it. Our generation will be the ones benefiting when it finally breaks down, and we won't bother to fix it because we aren't, in general, that kind of greedy. (BTW, if anyone wants to challenge that predicition you better come well armed with information.) I agree with the republican's efforts to construct a federalized system of personal investment. Haven't seen anything out of the dems on this to speak of. At least they are TRYING to fix it.

Obviously neither Bush nor the republicans nor the democrats agree with the thoughtful economic analysis offered by the anti-globalization movement. Its not unrepublican to support free trade. Of course, ask the Canadians what they think of Bush's free trade policies if you want an earful. They think he is more protectionist then any recent administration and they are hopping mad about it.

Of Rall's list of government handouts, the only interesting one is the Halliburton deal. Its possible that favorites were played there, but the fact that Halliburton got the deal is not evidence of foul play in and of itself. I don't really disagree with the airline bailout. That industry is an important national infrastructure, and you can't plan for something like 911. The current problems with United are more due to changes in the airline market toward discount airlines like Southwest and general economic slowness. I'm not following closely but I doubt you'll see another bailout there. Reinsurance is a huge problem and the actuarial tables have changed dramatically since 911. Calling the reinsurance payment pork just makes Rall look uninformed.

The oil thing was obviously an international policy decision and it alone does not equate to "polluters are running rampant." You can kind of see Rall leave the realm of reasonable analysis and glide into unsubstantiated ranting here...

I would challenge Rall to propose a solution to the Al'Q problem that does not involve the troop deployments he labels as "imperialist." I never heard anyone seriously propose an alternative to hunting down Al'Q. Radical Communists take pot shots at it but they don't offer anything resembling an alternative. This is just blind hate.

My issues with Bush:
1. He is not a very inspiring leader. They should have run Powell, but I guess that would appear "radical" because there are still too many racists in this country.

2. Iraq is a cop out. I, for one, am prepared to handle the fact that dealing with Al'Q is not simple, and I don't need the US to beat Iraq over the head to know that Americans are fearsome enemies and that they are doing something about the problem. I'd rather he be straight forward about this. The ruse is too thin.

3. The economy is fucked. What it NEEDS is a carrot. People need to beleive that things are moving somewhere. They need to be inspired to work hard. Bush is not offering a carrot. I want to see long term planning on what is going to happen in the next ten years economically, of the sort the Dems were busting out in the early 90's. If it exists, I don't know where it is. I don't think it does. Bush doesn't seem to be doing anything at all on this front.

4. I don't like watching personal liberties/checks and balances falling like dominoes. I don't think this is Bush as much as its the federal beaurocracy taking advantage of the opportunity to expand itself, but he certainly isn't helping matters.

RE: GEORGE W. BUSH, LIBERAL