> From: James Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11225] tenure & attention > . . . > Two messages bring up the fact that not everything that's posted to pen-l > evokes a response. god knows I try, but one can't pay attention to > everything, respond to everything! Jim, You are among those least open to criticism regarding lack of output on PEN-L. > . . . > The other message is from Max: >>... I find it pathetic that this is the > first mention on PEN-L this year of a little thing called the Federal > budget... Anybody ever consider how academic discourse, including the > "marxian" variety (replete with fantasies of "extreme class struggle") > becomes a shield from politics?<< > > Discussions of the Federal budget show up in the L.A. TIMES at least three > times a week. Just because it doesn't show up on pen-l doesn't mean that it > doesn't exist in pen-l members' minds. Maybe the lack of comment on this > issue represents an admirable restraint in posting (something that I tend > to lack, mea culpa). But unless something especially interesting or useful > is said, I see no reason to have pen-l posts. Anyway, Max, you could have We could re-phrase to say that nobody found anything interesting or useful to say. > posted a lot of stuff on this subject, just as Dave Richardson used to post > the interesting labor updates. (I, for one, miss them.) Why didn't you do > so? didn't you think it was important? I don't want to spam mailing lists in which I participate. I did post a notice of my web page, where my journalistic forays on the budget, among other things, can be found. > BTW, I haven't seen any references to "extreme class struggle" on pen-l. > (BTW, it's no fantasy: that's what Clinton and Gingrich are doing.) Also, The quote is from Louis P., and he wasn't referring to Bill or Newt. > it should be noted that pen-l does not simply consist of academics and > politics is more than parliamentary maneuverings. Right on both counts. But the budget is about more than parliamentary maneuverings. It's about who gets roughly a third of the national income. > >>Only one person here took me up on my query regarding advice to the > French social- democratic movement. I don't expect anyone to jump at my > signal, but the deafening silence is testimony to the same problem.<< > > Perhaps people were so dismayed by the French SDs' growing sell-out that > they didn't see any point to answering your call. I can't speak for anyone > but myself, but it seems a bit futile to propose policy solutions to people > who will ignore them (especially given that my suggestions would come from > the US). Given the balance of political forces in France and the > international constraints, maybe it's reasonable for the French SDs to > ignore them. If I were in France, I would be trying to change that balance... The question was not on telling the SD's anything in particular, but what could a left government in their position do in a practical vein, under present circumstances? Basing political program on unforeseeable, rare political events (e.g., a general strike), rather on routine, existing political conditions is a form of escapism. That is my point. I'm not, incidentally, accusing you of unique and/or grave susceptibility to this criticism. I do think it's a fair description of the list's output. > That said, I am not against policy proposals. It's not my specialty, but > I'm always interested in creative ones, especially ones that are designed > to keep our rulers honest rather than being based on faith in their > benevolence. BTW, telling people to resist wage cuts & attacks on civilian > programs (to avoid underconsumption, etc.) is a form of policy advice. It's > aimed at the people, a more worthwhile audience than the policy elite. Mostly well and good. > . . . > That may be true for some on pen-l, but it's not true for all. Sure. There are exceptions to rules. > BTW, why didn't pen-l comment on the absorption of Hong Kong by China? on > the adventures of the Mars rover? We can't comment on everything! we > shouldn't. The budget could have been written by Martians who have already taken over Hong Kong, for all the interest it has aroused here. Nobody in particular should comment on everything, quite right. And some people shouldn't comment at all, though you are clearly not one of them. I'll close by noting a few time bombs in the pending budget agreement with major political-economic import: * a tax bill which threatens to severely curtail future revenue growth, in particular by virtue of the indexation of capital gains income subject to taxation; * a deregulation of Medicaid and Food Stamps which would allow state governments to privatize administration of most welfare programs; * means-testing of Medicare, which threatens to open the door to privatization of what publicly-financed health care we have in the U.S. * an utter failure to address long-term factors promoting gross expansion of Federal deficits. I think there is more here than "parliamentary maneuverings." Or maybe it's all just too obvious for words. Cheers, MBS =================================================== Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===================================================
