Michael,
I have agreed with you that a Bush administration
is not likely to be substantially worse than a Gore
administration on either Supreme Court appointments
or environmental policy.
I have argued that policies
towards unions and social security are likely to be
more important. I also agree with Brad DeLong that
there will be a tilt in terms of income distribution. The
biggest source of anti-poverty policy has been
EITC expansion which will not be undone by a Bush
administration. But, elimination of inheritance (aka
"death") taxes and lowering the top marginal income
tax rate will stop the (very) recent (and slight) trend
towards greater equality of income in the US.
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, November 04, 2000 5:32 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:3964] voting for Nader again: A reply to Barkley
> Presidents do not appoint people in a vacuum. The people who advise
>the presidents know the consequences of terribly stupid decisions. So,
>Bush, in such a divided country, without dare to appoint another
>Clarence Thomas. Now, it is true that many justices have disappointed
>to people who originally appointed them. Some were more liberal; some
>more conservative.
>
>The court does not operate in a vacuum either. When people get angry,
>the court changes direction.
>
>Reagan was able to blame for depression on Carter because Carter had
>already taken the wrap as an incompetent. He can blame Clinton for an
>awful lot terrible things, but he was not incompetent.
>
>Finally, James Watt may have been better for the environment than Bruce
>Babbitt.
>
>--
>
>Michael Perelman
>Economics Department
>California State University
>Chico, CA 95929
>
>Tel. 530-898-5321
>E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
