From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The Democratic Debate with Peter Jennings (was Re: Thoughts on '92)
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:04:10 GMT

In article <168337329.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu> MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
>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.

This and Brown's response to the question about a Supreme Court
Justice 'litmus test' were the two answers of his that I really liked.
If only he could have stopped being such an idiot about his 800 number
and bashing the other candidates for being 'part of the system' (where
did Jerry Brown make his living all his life, one wonders?).  I
thought he showed either incredible ignorance or incredible courage
when he responded to Kerry's question about whether he [Brown] was
saying he [Kerry] was 'bought and paid for' with 'yes'.  

[Kerry was a Navy SEAL.  Either Brown didn't know what that is, or he
has more guts than brains.]

> 
>>
>>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.

Harkin struck me as the typical Democratic Liberal.  He came in dead
last on my list of who I would vote for, after watching this debate.
If Harkin had been the candidate, all the efforts by the Republicans
to paint their opponents as 'tax and spend liberals' would be working
a lot better (because in Harkin's case, they would be true, judging
from what he was proposing).

> 
>>Harkin:  Says he is the "#1 opponent to Reagan and Bush"
> 
>Content-free.

My impression of Harkin as a whole.  However, to be fair, I know
someone who comes from his home state, and they thought he'd done a
great job.

>>
>>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?

A good idea (I think funds spent on research should be tax-exempt,
myself.  I think we USED to do that, until they started looking for
another source of tax revenue and started taxing this.  Research (as
opposed to Development), of course, took a nosedive soon thereafter.

>>
>>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?

I believe we already do.  That is the problem.  Business (of the
publicly owned variety, of course) are REQUIRED to issue quarterly
reports by law.  If you don't issue stock and it's a totally privately
held business, of course, you don't have to tell anyone anything
(except the IRS).

>>
>>Clinton:  Very pro-education.
> 
>...while still supporting a government monopoly on it. How'd you like a
>state-owned Telephone system, too?

Isn't that what we, in effect, have now?  What's the difference
between 'state owned' and 'state and federally regulated monopoly'?
Not much. 



-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc