![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Local MoFo Announces Plans to Chill:
I know this guy who just finished law school and is waiting to hear about his results on the Bar exam. He sent me this (from the New York Times), and I thought I'd share it, maybe start a bit of a dialogue:
August 20, 2002
> By PAUL KRUGMAN
> Don't tell, maybe they won't ask. That was the message of a
> July memo from an official at the Department of Veterans
> Affairs, posted by Joshua Marshall at
> talkingpointsmemo.com. Citing "conservative OMB budget
> guidance" for spending on veterans' health care, the memo
> instructed subordinates to "ensure that no marketing
> activities to enroll new veterans occur within your
> networks." Veterans are entitled to medical care; but the
> administration hopes that some of them don't know that, and
> that it can save money by leaving them ignorant.
>
> It's not the sort of thing you'd expect from an
> administration that wraps itself so tightly in the flag -
> not, that is, unless you've been paying attention. For
> stories like this are popping up more and more often.
>
> Take George W. Bush's decision last week to demonstrate his
> resolve by blocking $5.1 billion in homeland security
> spending. This turned out to be a major gaffe, because the
> rejected bill allocated money both to improve veterans'
> health care and to provide firefighters with new equipment,
> including communication systems that could have saved lives
> on Sept. 11. Recalling those scenes at ground zero that did
> so much to raise Mr. Bush's poll numbers, the president of
> the International Association of Firefighters warned,
> "Don't lionize our fallen brothers in one breath, then stab
> us in the back."
>
> Or what about the trapped coal miners? After their rescue,
> Mr. Bush made a point of congratulating them in person -
> and Michael Novak, writing in National Review Online,
> declared Somerset, Pa., the "conservative capital of the
> world."
>
> But Mr. Novak didn't mention the crucial assistance
> provided by the federal government's Mine Safety and Health
> Administration. That would have raised some awkward
> questions: although the Bush administration's energy plans
> call for major increases in coal mining, its spending plans
> cut funds for mine safety. More conservative budget
> guidance.
>
> The point is that there is an inexorably growing gap
> between the image and the reality of the Bush
> administration's policies.
>
> Mr. Bush is a master of photo-op populism; his handlers
> seek out opportunities to show him mingling with
> blue-collar workers. But the reality is that this
> administration loves 'em while the TV crews are around,
> then leaves 'em when it comes to actual policy. And that
> reality is becoming ever harder to conceal.
>
> The federal budget is now deep in deficit, and everyone
> except the administration thinks it will remain there - not
> because of runaway spending, but because most of last
> year's tax cut has yet to take effect. And as my colleague
> Frank Rich points out, to offset the revenue losses from
> his tax cut, Mr. Bush would have to veto a $5 billion
> spending proposal every working day for the next year. Mr.
> Bush can no longer pretend, as he did during the 2000
> campaign, that there is enough money for everything. Now,
> to justify that tax cut, he must hack steadily away at
> programs that matter to ordinary people.
>
> Still, don't tax cuts also matter to ordinary people? It
> depends. Last year's rebate went to a lot of families. But
> the items still in the pipeline are income tax cuts for
> upper brackets - especially the top bracket - and
> elimination of the estate tax. For a married couple, only
> income in excess of $297,000 falls in the top bracket, and
> only an estate larger than $2 million pays any inheritance
> tax. Firefighters and coal miners don't make that kind of
> money.
>
> In other words, behind the photo-ops, the administration is
> busy squeezing programs that benefit firefighters, police
> officers, coal miners, veterans and other "humble people of
> America" (Mr. Novak's phrase), in order to make room for
> tax cuts that mainly help a handful of not at all humble
> people. That's not demagoguery, it's the plain truth. And
> it's a truth that will become ever harder to disguise.
>
> What are the political implications? When Al Gore wrote an
> Op-Ed article condemning the elitist policies of the Bush
> administration, pundits - and many Democratic politicians,
> including his former running mate - jumped on him with both
> feet. Populism, everyone insisted, doesn't work in American
> politics.
>
> Yet conservatives enthusiastically rely on populism - fake
> populism, based on staged shmoozing with ordinary Americans
> and attacks on the imagined cultural elitism of the liberal
> media. Why shouldn't liberals, who actually have the facts
> on their side, try engaging in the real thing?
>
It should go without saying that I am pretty damn liberal. And I am damn suspicious of this whole W thing, have been ever since that cheap-ass "election". Plus, since our last two presidents were admitted drug users, couldn't we maybe halt this whole "drug war"? Please...
August 20, 2002
> By PAUL KRUGMAN
> Don't tell, maybe they won't ask. That was the message of a
> July memo from an official at the Department of Veterans
> Affairs, posted by Joshua Marshall at
> talkingpointsmemo.com. Citing "conservative OMB budget
> guidance" for spending on veterans' health care, the memo
> instructed subordinates to "ensure that no marketing
> activities to enroll new veterans occur within your
> networks." Veterans are entitled to medical care; but the
> administration hopes that some of them don't know that, and
> that it can save money by leaving them ignorant.
>
> It's not the sort of thing you'd expect from an
> administration that wraps itself so tightly in the flag -
> not, that is, unless you've been paying attention. For
> stories like this are popping up more and more often.
>
> Take George W. Bush's decision last week to demonstrate his
> resolve by blocking $5.1 billion in homeland security
> spending. This turned out to be a major gaffe, because the
> rejected bill allocated money both to improve veterans'
> health care and to provide firefighters with new equipment,
> including communication systems that could have saved lives
> on Sept. 11. Recalling those scenes at ground zero that did
> so much to raise Mr. Bush's poll numbers, the president of
> the International Association of Firefighters warned,
> "Don't lionize our fallen brothers in one breath, then stab
> us in the back."
>
> Or what about the trapped coal miners? After their rescue,
> Mr. Bush made a point of congratulating them in person -
> and Michael Novak, writing in National Review Online,
> declared Somerset, Pa., the "conservative capital of the
> world."
>
> But Mr. Novak didn't mention the crucial assistance
> provided by the federal government's Mine Safety and Health
> Administration. That would have raised some awkward
> questions: although the Bush administration's energy plans
> call for major increases in coal mining, its spending plans
> cut funds for mine safety. More conservative budget
> guidance.
>
> The point is that there is an inexorably growing gap
> between the image and the reality of the Bush
> administration's policies.
>
> Mr. Bush is a master of photo-op populism; his handlers
> seek out opportunities to show him mingling with
> blue-collar workers. But the reality is that this
> administration loves 'em while the TV crews are around,
> then leaves 'em when it comes to actual policy. And that
> reality is becoming ever harder to conceal.
>
> The federal budget is now deep in deficit, and everyone
> except the administration thinks it will remain there - not
> because of runaway spending, but because most of last
> year's tax cut has yet to take effect. And as my colleague
> Frank Rich points out, to offset the revenue losses from
> his tax cut, Mr. Bush would have to veto a $5 billion
> spending proposal every working day for the next year. Mr.
> Bush can no longer pretend, as he did during the 2000
> campaign, that there is enough money for everything. Now,
> to justify that tax cut, he must hack steadily away at
> programs that matter to ordinary people.
>
> Still, don't tax cuts also matter to ordinary people? It
> depends. Last year's rebate went to a lot of families. But
> the items still in the pipeline are income tax cuts for
> upper brackets - especially the top bracket - and
> elimination of the estate tax. For a married couple, only
> income in excess of $297,000 falls in the top bracket, and
> only an estate larger than $2 million pays any inheritance
> tax. Firefighters and coal miners don't make that kind of
> money.
>
> In other words, behind the photo-ops, the administration is
> busy squeezing programs that benefit firefighters, police
> officers, coal miners, veterans and other "humble people of
> America" (Mr. Novak's phrase), in order to make room for
> tax cuts that mainly help a handful of not at all humble
> people. That's not demagoguery, it's the plain truth. And
> it's a truth that will become ever harder to disguise.
>
> What are the political implications? When Al Gore wrote an
> Op-Ed article condemning the elitist policies of the Bush
> administration, pundits - and many Democratic politicians,
> including his former running mate - jumped on him with both
> feet. Populism, everyone insisted, doesn't work in American
> politics.
>
> Yet conservatives enthusiastically rely on populism - fake
> populism, based on staged shmoozing with ordinary Americans
> and attacks on the imagined cultural elitism of the liberal
> media. Why shouldn't liberals, who actually have the facts
> on their side, try engaging in the real thing?
>
It should go without saying that I am pretty damn liberal. And I am damn suspicious of this whole W thing, have been ever since that cheap-ass "election". Plus, since our last two presidents were admitted drug users, couldn't we maybe halt this whole "drug war"? Please...