From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: THE CLINTON CABINET
X-Xxdate: Tue, 15 Dec 92 13:02:25 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:06:08 GMT

In article <742@blue.cis.pitt.edu> Paul S Galvanek, psg+@pitt.edu writes:
>>You must have a degree in misrepresentation and exaggeration.... His
plan
>>did include the health care reform costs but spread these costs over the
>>proper time period for implementation of the plan (4-5 years), something
>>you
>>conservatives don't do when making statements like this.
>>
>>Note a fact: All major health organizations endorsed Clinton's plan over
>>the anemic noncomprehensive band-aid put forth by Bush. Furthermore,
>>the plans were analysed by a bipartisan committee which stated that the
>>Clinton plan would save the national economy 220 Billion by the end of
the
>>decade. 
>
>yeah and he WAS going to give a middle class tax cut, right up until he
>got elected, just like everything else he said he would do in the
>first hundred days and promptly backed away from the day after the
election.

1.) This is changing the subject. 2.) The case is still open on the middle
class tax cut. Frankly, it would not bother me in the slightest if this
didn't occur for a while as long as some progress was made to strengthen
our long term economic position, fix our infrastructure, institute some
progressive social programs to replace the regressive ones we have now,
clean up our environment, provide us with a high-speed rail system, etc.
If some of these things don't occur now, I will juswt have more money
squeezed out of me later. I, unlike you, will not be penny-wise and
pound-foolish.

>
>Boy Norman, you really gulped the whole speel, hook, line and sinker
didn't
>you.

I did a massive amount of research before I made my voting decision.
Much of it
based on records (spelled ACTIONS) rather than rhetoric (spelled TALK).
You are the one that seems to have been hypnotized by all that supply-
side nonsense.

>What Bill did not do, at it was reported by every one of the major
>media outlets,  is he didn't include the costs in his proposed budget 
>outline, nor did he explain which cuts might be made or revenue increased
>to cover the cost.

All you have to do is read his proposal statements to know what a gross
exaggeration and misrepresentation of fact this is. 600 of this countries
best economists, including 8 Nobels, endorsed the Clinton plan. Although
many of them had reservations about some aspects of it (as do I), they
consistently stated that the philosophy was sound. And don't give me
this anti-intellectual nonsense you have been masquerading as an
arguement. Just because a person makes his living at a University
does not negate his qualifications to evaluate real-world policy.

>I can't prove a negative, that he didn't do something,
>so I'll leave it to you to provide some refence to show where he did
cover 
>how he would pay for it.

Read "Putting People First" By Bill Clinton. Although there is a problem
with
the numbers, the resulting deficit would still be MUCH smaller than
anything
we saw under Bush and Reagan. Furthermore, any stated numbers in such a
proposal must be taken with a grain of salt because the economic and
political
realities upon implementation will dictate the amounts and schedules of
the programs. There are many problems in this country that are quickly
heading toward criticality. Fixing them now will be far cheaper than
fixing
them later. Again, I would rather be penny-wise than pound-foolish.

>
>Sorry but more than one expert has said that Clinton's number "don't add
up"
>and that's because they don't.

True. Neither did Reagan's or Bush's... Furthermore, the defense
spending, which
caused their increased deficits, a.) did nothing to solve any of our
biggest
economic or social problems, and b.) saddled us with a huge
military-industrial
complex that will take years and $$$ to wean.

>You and I will have to wait and see what 
>he really intends to do and I'll but the house the American economy gets
>another lessen in why raising taxes and spending is not a good thing and
why
>letting people liek Laura Tyson and Robert Reich test their theories on
us
>is even worse.

I hope you have another house. Most experts from both persuasions have
been quite pleased with his appointments to date.

>
>Only time will tell.

My point exactly.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson