From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: The Democratic Debate with Peter Jennings (was Re: Thoughts on '92)
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 12:11:16 GMT

In article <PUCCIO.92Jul28173531@media-lab.media.mit.edu>
puccio@media.mit.edu (Jim Puccio) writes:
 
(first- kudos to Jim on his fine notes. Now, my critique:)
>
>
>THE DEBATE, IN OUTLINE:
>
>Brown:  Revamp tax code.  Tax 13% income + value-added taxes - rent.  Proposes
>    conservation-orientated jobs for battling energy and waste.  Sounds vaguely
>    New Deal in nature.  Waxes forth on the importance of energy efficiency.
 
This was a truely radical notion that was trashed by the Clinton camp using
corrupt figures. A pity, as Brown actually had some very sharp things to say
about the true tax rates people actually paid overall.
 
>
>Harkin:  35 Billion should go to cities and communities for infrastructure.
>    Japan and Germany are more competitive due to superior infrastructure.
>    Uses Headstart as example.
 
The "infrastructure" argument is nonsense. Look at post-war Germany and you
see that the Marshall plan money didn't rebuild Germany; the economic
policies did. England, with all the reperations it extracted and all its
"infrastructure" spending stayed on a war economy for years. This amounts
to a promise to raise taxes. It should seem clear that the problem is not
a lack or roads and government spending, but a lack of capital investment
in productivity owing to tremendous disincentives to invest. A better business
environment would employ more people.
>
>Clinton:  Agrees with Brown about energy.  Says we should invest in education
>    and training, including worker training.  (After the highly-filtered
>    pounding I've heard from the media, I am struck by how intelligent the man
>    sounds - it's the first time I've really had a chance to hear him speak
>    unedited.)
>
We already spend a tremendous amount on education with pretty poor results. Why
not open up the K-12 market and let schools compete? Look what competition did
for the auto industry.
 
BTW, FInland has had choice in education for about 80 years. Both the private
and public systems thrive. Competition has improved both
 
>Tsongas:  Waxes forth on competitive advantage vs. Japan.  (I notice that
>    despite whatever he has to say, the man *sounds* idiotic.  At this point
>    I am convinced that he can't play to the voters, and am soon vindicated in
>    this belief.)
 
Yep.
>
>Brown:  Talks about the rigged system.  Holds forth on the need to strengthen
>    labor unions, on employee empowerment, and worker ownership.
 
Employee empowerment comes when there's a booming economy and a shortage of
labor. You can't legislate a higher wages. Worker ownership is not a panacea.
Many large worker buyouts of the 70s and 80s have collapsed.
>
>Clinton:  Says he created jobs at 10x the national average in Arkansas.
>
How, is the question.
 
>Harkin:  Says he is the "#1 opponent to Reagan and Bush"
 
Content-free.
>
>Clinton:  Would focus on competing with other countries, on education and
>    training.
 
This is one of the big errors that Reagan and Congress made together. They
tried to simply price compete with the rest of the world by cheapening the
dollar, the idea being that US goods would become cheaper. What they forgot
was that US capital good also became cheaper and very attractive to foreign
investors- hence the boom in foreign ownership of US capital. Not too
bright, though not really significantly large. The apparant value is overstated
relative to US ownership abroad owing to inflation and book values that
ignore capital gains.
 
>All:  Favor cuts in defense spending.
>
>Tsongas:  Capital gains tax cuts for long-term investment.  Talks about growing
>    new companies.
 
Look! And intellignet idea!
>
>Harkin:  Says what we need is *investment* tax credits, not *capital gains*
>    tax credits, since that will promote long-term investment in business, as
 
Either he was being purposively duplicitous, or he really thinks there's
a difference. How do you credit investment if you don't allow the capital
gains that acrue therefrom?
 
>    opposed to the selling of businesses.  Calls for a "Children's Trust
>    Initiative," consisting of women's, infants' and children's programs.
 
Vague.
>
>Clinton:  Calls for a "Commercial ARPA" !!!!!  Stresses the need for the US to
>    invest in future technologies.
 
ANother fallacy- that the government can decide better than private industry
what areas of research will be profitible. Why tax the companies and then
inefficently redistribute the proceeds? Why not just a hefty credit for
research in the first place?
>
>Brown:  Says we should focus attention at home:  crime, drugs.
>
>Harkin:  Calls for something new to replace NATO.  Claims to have written a
>    book on the subject.
 
I have a quote on my desk from Yevegeny SHaposhnikov, former USSR Defense
Minister, who says "I do not think there is any need to create any sort
of bloc at present. NATO is a sort of factor of stabilization in the world
and, to some extent, on the continent of Europe." (sept. 18, 1991, quoted
in Arms Control Today, Oct 91)
>
>Tsongas:  Is opposed to quarterly reports - they make business too oriented
>    towards short-term goals.
 
That may be, but is he going to legislate how business do their reporting?
 
>Harkin:  Stockholders should have the right to control salaries of CEOs.  Calls
They do.
 
>    for education reform, job training, and extra resources for police forces,
         ***************** really? Like choice?
>    to ensure swifter and more sure prosecution.
 
>
>Tsongas:  Not in favor of the death penalty for crimes against individuals,
>    though he thought it was OK for crimes against society (e.g. drug dealers,
>    killing police, etc).
>
>Brown:  Morally opposed to death penalty.
>
>Harkin:  Opposed to the death penalty.  It is arbitrarily applied, and not a
>    proven deterrent.
>
>Clinton:  Supports the death penalty.  Calls for passage of the Brady Bill.
 
I'm with him. It has a 100% effective record re recidivism. ;-)
>
>[My notes get pretty raggedy here.  I think maybe things turned chaotic, or
>perhaps the candidates were not making clear enough points for me to capture
>them succinctly, or maybe they were repeating themselves, and I didn't bother
>to write things down.  Oh, well.]
>
>Clinton:  Very pro-education.
 
...while still supporting a government monopoly on it. How'd you like a
state-owned Telephone system, too?
>
>Harkin:  Says something about the "Rosa Martinez" story.  (Anybody out there
>    know what this refers to?)  Against the free trade agreement.
 
Almost every economist supports free and open trade, and has, since Holland
in the 16th Century showed how well it worked. But politicians use it as a
whipping boy.
>
>Tsongas:  Pro-free trade agreement.
>
>Clinton:  Basically in favor of free trade agreement, but thinks it is flawed
>    in its details.
>
>Harkin:  Calls for a value-based foreign policy (uniform respect for human
>    rights), and arms abatement.
 
Jimmy Carter rides again!
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc