From: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Subject: Re: Tsongas Economic Plan
Reply-To: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:39:37 GMT



In a previous article, tdsmith@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Timothy Smith) says:

>In alt.politics.elections, wft@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Tell) writes:
>>I think one aspect of the Tsongas Economic plan that defintely needs
>>to be returned to the national debate is Tsongas' call for a cut
>>in the capital gains tax, favored by both Bush and Perot but opposed by
>>Clinton.  Has Clinton changed his mind in favor of it now?
>
>    Clinton was ALWAYS in favor of a capital gains cut!  At least get
>your facts straight! He has been in favor of TARGETED capital gains 
>cuts for his entire campaign. (I saw a position paper a year or two 
>ago where he laid out his plans. They haven't changed. I heard him on 
>McNiel Lehre a year ago saying that we need a capital gains cut. Tsongas 
>agreed with the bulk of Clinton's CG plan on the same show.)

But a capital gains tax cut only contributes to the problem, rather
than providing any solution. Without seeing the problem analyzed,
it can't be solved.

The difficulty is that the source of wealth is labor - not capital
- a capital gains tax cut rewards something that fails to contribute
more wealth to the economy - 

HIgher wages and shorter hours are needed to increase the wealth that
is available for the economy - that means a more stringent set
of labor laws which act as a pressure on corporations to invest more
in technology and more efficient methods of production - 
while rewarding those who produce the wealth - the workers.

The attack by Carter, Reagan and Bush on the labor laws in the U.S. 
has led to the speculation that has undermined industrial investment.
The only way to change that is to begin to put some
teeth into the labor laws in the U.S.

None of the candidates are talking about doing such and won't
under the one party with two wings system of governmeent in the U.S.-
There is a need for a labor party - but one that will oppose the 
trade union leaders who are part of the current Democratic-Republican
one party in the U.S. at the present moment.

>    The difference between Bush and Clinton is that Clinton doesn't
>want to reward short term speculation.  He feels that three month stock
>market tricks don't do anything but line the pockets of Wall Street.
>He would rather see investment in the manufacturing base, or in research,
>etc.

  If this were true he would be proposing strengthening the labor laws,
shorter hours legislation, higher wages, legislation, etc.



>    I tend to agree, having seen many good companies bought with hostile 
>takeovers, leveraged to the hilt, then left to die as the corporate 
>raiders find another target.  Many companies avoided investment in the
>future so that they wouldn't become targets of corporate raiders.  Even
>though these companies would like to act long term, the predatory 80's
>forced them to think lean and quarterly.

This is why there needs to be legislation for higher wages and shorter
hours and for more democratic unions. Otherwise there is untold money
for speculation, not for productive investment.

            Ronda
-- 
Ronda Hauben                    email address:ae547@yfn.ysu.edu
Amateur Computerist Newsletter              or
P.O. Box 4344                   rhauben@heartland.bradley.edu
Dearborn, MI 48126