From: cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: I HEARD ROSS PEROT WILL BE BACK
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:53:32 GMT

hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:

>In article <38800@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:

>Perot makes a big thing about "making hard choices" etc etc. Yet what is his
>plan to balance the budget? He wants to extort $200 billion per annum from
>Europe and Asia to cover the deficit. Does that sound remotely like a hard
>decision?

No hard choices, eh?

* Increase in gas tax by $.10 per year for 5 years (still not European
rates).

* Increase income tax rates on the top 4% of taxpayers from 31% to
34%.

* Lower home mortgage interest deduction from $1 million to $250,000.

* Tax social security and medical benefits for those with incomes
greater than $25K per year.

* Cut defense spending more than either Bush or Clinton have proposed.

Whatever anyone thinks about Perot's personallity, they can't say that
his plans lack specifics anymore. His plan is more specific and
realistic than Bush's or Clinton`s. Even avid detractors, such as the
LA Times, can only say that "the time is not right for these changes."
It is never easy, or the 'right time' to make hard (political) choices
such as these.

Whether we get $200 billion from Europe/Asia over a 5 year period will
make little difference. Maybe Europeans should think of it as a
'stability tax.' All the major parties in power in Europe have
expressly stated that they want a US presence in NATO for stability
reasons. If that is the case, then I don't see any problems with the
US asking them to pay for it.

>Just for the record I will make a few more predictions for the future:

>	1) Perot will back out at the last minute and support Bush

Maybe, but doubtfull.

>	2) IBM will either stop manufacturing computers or file for
>	   chapter 11 by the year 2000 (when I first made this 
>	   prediction in the mid 1980s it was thought impossible,
>	   now it is considered rather less likely.

This won't happen. What does this have to do with the above political
discussion? Or are you just a run-of-the-mill American hater, ready to
make all kinds of dire predictions? 

>	3) Saudi and Kewait will have revolutions within ten years.

Who really cares? Ten years from now, we (stupid Americans) will be
well on the way to commercial fusion energy, and the Arab nations will
not command the excessive attention which they now do.

>If Perot was a housewife from middle America running a genuine grassroots
>campaign this might be true. As it is the *ONLY* reason why Perot gets given
>time of day is that he is very, very rich.

He recieved attention because he has a unique American quality of
shooting from the hip, and calling it how he sees it. Harry
Truman ('give-em hell Harry), and Will Rogers both had this quality,
each with their own flavor. Truman, like Perot, was much more caustic,
while Rogers was more ironic and sarcastic in tone. But it is
important not to miss the point that there must be large grain of truth
in what is being said in this manner. If not, the prognosicator soon
looses his audience. 

As a European, I don't expect you to understand this unique American
political tradition. I can't blame you for taking events here and
interpreting them a European light (i.e. only the rich and powerfull
can have any input in the governing of a country). Saddly, it is 
all you know.

Perot has struck a nerve with the American populous. That is why he
continues to receive attention. I'm in no way defending Perot's
personality, his actions in this election, or his fitness to be
President. I will say that he continues to illuminate a very important
issue in this campaign, and is therefore worthy of the attention he is
getting.

>Phill Hallam-Baker

				Brad Cote'
				University of California, San Diego
				STARE Project
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections