[PEN-L:11457] Re: Millennium takes a short cut?
> > Has a volte-face truly occurred at the World Bank ... ? Here's a bit of a critique that has been circulating in some Bank-watchdog circuits... From: Bretton Woods Project <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: WDR UPDATED BRIEFING Dear Friends, Attached is a briefing I have put together responding to the WB's World Devt. Report. Hope you find it useful. Alex BRIEFING ON ROLE OF STATE WORLD DEVELOPMENT REPORT (WDR) This short briefing outlines the main content of the World Bank's 1997 World Development Report and suggests angles to use in press work so that journalists can balance/enliven their coverage of the report's launch next week. The Bank will publish its WDR on The State in a Changing World on 25 June 1997. The WDR is the Bank's flagship research report, with around 150,000 copies produced in nine languages and a budget of $3 million. It is circulated widely to politicians, officials, universities and many other people across the world and is influential for many years. The Bank sees it as a means to communicate staff's views on key matters, and also to raise its profile as a global thinktank. For NGOs it is important to respond both so that the Bank does not capture or narrow this vital debate about the state and because the Bank this year produced the Report using a new process involving consultations from early on with NGOs, government officials, and business representatives. NGOs in India, Japan, the UK and elsewhere have all expressed their deep dissatisfaction with the process adopted and the way their comments were used and the Bank has been asked not to portray this Report as based on the views of civil society. NGO interventions at this point will be useful both to influence the press coverage and because the Bank's WDR team will in July make a presentation to the Board advising how the Bank should operationalise their findings. Their recommendations are likely to encompass issues such as privatisation/regulation and deepening the Bank's work on good governance and corruption. WDR team members are currently travelling to key world capitals to publicise the Report before an embargo/publication date of 25th June. If you do not have time to contact key journalists or do a press backgrounder/press release before the publication date, you could consider writing letters to the papers which cover the Report. The debate about the role of the state and the role of the World Bank will continue long after next week's WDR launch. The Bretton Woods Project intends to pull together some NGO thinking on this subject into a longer briefing to be launched at the Bank/Fund annual meeting in September. We would be very interested to see any comments your organisation makes on the Report, or any press cuttings from your country. WORLD BANK RELEASE The Bank's publication announcement for the Report makes the following main points: The Report looks as what the state should do, how it should do it, and how it can do it better in a rapidly changing world. Because of failures of state-led or dominated development many people have concluded that a minimalist state would be the best solution, but the WDR concludes that this extreme view does not match the evidence of many industrialised or newly industrialising countries which shows that an effective state is needed to complement the activities of private businesses and individuals. "An effective state is vital for the provision of the goods and services - and rules and institutions - that allow markets to flourish and people to live healthier, happier lives. ... the state is central to economic and social development, not as a direct provider of growth, but as its partner, catalyst and facilitator." The Report makes no attempt to describe a single recipe for an effective state - the requirements differ widely across countries at different stages of development. Differences in size, ethnic makeup, culture and political systems make every state unique, even among countries at the same level of income. The Report does, however, provide a framework for guiding reforms with a two part strategy: * Focus the state's activities to match its capabilities. Many states try to do too much with few resources and little capability. Governments should ... concentrate on the core public activities that are vital to development. * A state can improve its capability by re-invigorating public institutions. The Report puts particular emphasis on mechanisms that give public officials the incentive to do their jobs better and to be more flexible, but which also provide restraints to check arbitrary and corrupt behaviour. Effective states in the Report's examples all have some common features: "the ways in which government has set rules that more broadly underpin private transactions and civil society, and how the state has played by the rules itself, acting reliably and predictably and checking corrupt
[PEN-L:11456] Re: Child tax credit
OK, Max, this is what I don't understand. If Clinton wanted the kiddie credit to be refundable, why has he agreed to disqualify those with incomes <$19,000 and reduce its amount below $500 per kid for families below an income of $25,000? What do you think of the reasons given for doing so--that through the EITC these families which do pay payroll and sales and other taxes already get more than enough cash to cover all their income tax and employee share of payroll tax? Is that a good reason to disqualify these families from a credit other families will receive (these families receive other kinds of tax breaks, the absolute magnitude of which probably often exceeds the EITC that really poor families receive)? Republicans warn that such a refund for the very poor would be welfare, a subsidy for the very poor--ie the unfit. Clinton provides no resistance here, and the House Democrats, I would bet, are probably ready to sacrifice the claim that really poor families receive the full kiddie tax credit. I am sorry if I still have not understood your argument or failed to be precise. In my defense, the WSJ did refer to how convuluted this debate has become. All the best, Rakesh
[PEN-L:11455] Re: Child tax credit
Max B. Sawicky wrote: >(Sigh.) There was already a wedge between those classified >as working or nonworking. Putting this on the EITC and its >boosters verges on the 'social fascism' rap. The EITC was a resort >to get some money to some poor folks. C'mon Max, didn't you read the DLC welfare literature? Time limits are the stick, and the EITC was the stick. And you're not going to deny that the EITC is a public subsidy to low-wage employment, or more accurately, low-wage employers. >"People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." > > -- John Sununu Are you making fun of Sununu, or adopting this as your motto? Doug
[PEN-L:11454] Re: Child tax credit
Max notes: "(Sigh.) There was already a wedge between those classified as working or nonworking. Putting this on the EITC and its boosters verges on the 'social fascism' rap. The EITC was a resort to get some money to some poor folks." Max, the EITC is a way to get the govt to subsidize part of the costs of reproducing the most oppressed sectors of the working class, bring them above poverty levels, which underestimates the actual reproduction costs of labor anyway. The EITC was not meant to counteract the maldistribution of income. It is a subsidy at the expense ultimately of better paid sections of the working class to capital (Shaikh and Tonak have found that the working class as a whole pays out more in taxes than it receives in benefits and compensation); such tax policy is bound to exacerbate divisions and resentments within the working class and thus lay the ground for fascist politics, organized against the symbol of a poor immigrant and black underclass. So here I would emphasize not so much the division between the deserving and un-deserving poor, as Doug has; rather the EITC seems to put a wedge between better and worse paid sections of the working class. This is why Gingrich is beginning a campaign to attract those better parts of the working class by highlighting the abuses of EITC (though the real problem is not undeserving recepients but the failure of actually qualified people to really receive it--Maggie once noted a study which found that almost 1/2 of those who do qualify do not collect?). The abusers are implicitly symbolized as a black and brown lower working class. See Dan Carter's From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich, which I have been browsing in the bookstore Rakesh Ethnic Studies
[PEN-L:11453] Re: child tax credit
Rakesh writes: >Clinton is just using tax policy against those whom he doesn't have the guts to call openly "the unfit". < I think it's a mistake to focus too much on the mental processes inside Clinton's head. This leads to too much moralism, too much crying about Clinton's bad attitudes, too much focus on personalities. It's clear, however, that the _objective_ results of his policies are anti-poor and racist. It's also clear that Clinton lacks the guts for _anything_. The reason he is in favor of screwing the poor is (1) they don't have the money to contribute to his or his party's war chest and (2) they're not organized politically, pressuring the Beltway Bandits to do things for them. And of course, events such as the riot/rebellion/civil disturbance in Los Angeles a few years ago (a temporary substitute for serious political organizing) are dim memories at this point. Anyway, such problems have been prevented (so far) by tossing a large chunk of the impoverished youth into prison as part of the "war on drugs." When Doug writes about dueling versions of meanness, it reminds me of "dueling banjos" in the film "Deliverance." I guess we've already seen the kind of rape scene that occurs in that movie, this time as government policy. BTW, the letter I posted to pen-l a couple of days ago concerning affirmative action seems likely to be published in the L.A. TIMES early next week. A cue for would-be letters to the editors writers: keep 'em short and witty. This has always worked for me. that's it for today. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:11452] Re: Child tax credit
> What you have here, Rakesh, is dueling forms of meanness. The EITC is > intended to drive a wedge between the "working" and "nonworking" poor, > between the worthy and unworthy, the fit and unfit, the deserving and > undeserving. That's why Clinton and the DLC love it. Dick Armey and his > comrades think that since the EITC is refundable - i.e. you get it even if > you don't pay any income tax - it's not fair to give folks a credit if > they're already paying no taxes. So to Armey & Co. all the poor are > undeserving. Or as fellow Texan Sen. Phil Gramm says, society is divided > into those who pull the wagon (his rich consituents) and those who ride in > it (the poor, all of whom are undeserving). (Sigh.) There was already a wedge between those classified as working or nonworking. Putting this on the EITC and its boosters verges on the 'social fascism' rap. The EITC was a resort to get some money to some poor folks. By your logic, we might as well dispense with the standard deduction and exemptions, since they are mere sops to the low-income among us and emphasize the malicious distinction between the deserving and the un-. MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic 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. ===
[PEN-L:11451] Re: Child tax credit
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rakesh bhandari) > Subject: [PEN-L:11449] Re: Child tax credit > As it has been suggested to me privately that I have misunderstood this > child tax credit, I reproduce what I read in the WSJ: > > "Neither Mr. Clinton nor Congressional Republicans are interested in > subsidizing the very poor. Families who make less than $19,000 or so > wouldn't benefit from White House, Senate or House plans, although they > would under alternatives offered by Democratic leaders of the House and > Senate. And all three bills would give the $500-a-child credit to families > with children smack in the middle of the middle class whose income, > according to the latest Census Bureau data is about $40,000 a year. (About > one sixth of the 37 families with children have incomes below $15,000 and > one sixth above $75,000.) > > "The big issue is whether to give any money to working families with > incomes bewtween roughly $19,000 and $28,000. Mr Clinton would, the House > wouldn't and the Senate is in between. In a recent interview, Mr Gingrich > acknowledged the president "may well get something" in the end 'because we > want the bill signed.'"WSJ, 23 July, 1997, A20 > > Now if there is going to be a child tax credit, why should the really poor > not get it? Because they already enjoy the EITC? Of course all children of low-income *should* benefit from a credit. That isn't what's at issue. The credit only applies logically in the first place to children in families who file under the income tax. If it applied to all, it wouldn't be a tax credit. It would be a childrens' allowance, a great thing but not what is in play right now. A tax credit in simplest terms offsets a tax liability. The EITC blurs that definition by being "refundable," meaning if the credit exceeds your tax liability the govt mails you a check for the difference. The struggle in this tax bill was for the kiddie-credit to have a similar feature. Clinton was better on this than the G.O.P., as the article points out, though not as good as the House Democrats. So your implicit complaint that the tax credit is not a childrens' allowance is analogous to criticizing a bridge because it is not a school bus. Moreover, your equation of Clinton and the G.O.P. on this issue was overdrawn. There's enough other points of similarity to slam Clinton (e.g., see "The Good for Nothing Budget," an EPI Issue Brief), but this wasn't one of them. The danger of glossing over the difference is indifference to the choice between Clinton's tax bill and the Republicans. Neither is great, to say the least, but they aren't the same. Is it too much to strive for a little precision in our criticism? > Well, others who will enjoy this kiddie tax credit also enjoy tax breaks as > well (eg, mortgage deductions). It cannot be because the really poor True but irrelevant. > already enjoy a tax break (the EITC necessary for their reproduction as > wage slaves after all) that the "really poor" are being punished by > disqualification for this child tax credit. Clinton is just using tax > policy against those whom he doesn't have the guts to call openly "the > unfit". As a further example, why is he giving a tax break to families for > kids in college for which this tax break poor families will *not* qualify > *even* if family members are in college, much less if they are not. What Clinton really wants is his lousy budget deal. He isn't thinking about the "reproduction of labor," for which the tax credit or its lack are irrelevant. He's doing the education credit in a misguided but more-or-less honest effort to get something that can be classified as "public investment" accomplished. The right time to be screaming about this was last year during the debate on welfare reform. It's a little late for that now, though I'm sure the opportunity will return. Cheers, MBS "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic 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. ===
[PEN-L:11450] Re: Child tax credit
rakesh bhandari wrote: >Now if there is going to be a child tax credit, why should the really poor >not get it? Because they already enjoy the EITC? > >Well, others who will enjoy this kiddie tax credit also enjoy tax breaks as >well (eg, mortgage deductions). It cannot be because the really poor >already enjoy a tax break (the EITC necessary for their reproduction as >wage slaves after all) that the "really poor" are being punished by >disqualification for this child tax credit. Clinton is just using tax >policy against those whom he doesn't have the guts to call openly "the >unfit". As a further example, why is he giving a tax break to families for >kids in college for which this tax break poor families will *not* qualify >*even* if family members are in college, much less if they are not. What you have here, Rakesh, is dueling forms of meanness. The EITC is intended to drive a wedge between the "working" and "nonworking" poor, between the worthy and unworthy, the fit and unfit, the deserving and undeserving. That's why Clinton and the DLC love it. Dick Armey and his comrades think that since the EITC is refundable - i.e. you get it even if you don't pay any income tax - it's not fair to give folks a credit if they're already paying no taxes. So to Armey & Co. all the poor are undeserving. Or as fellow Texan Sen. Phil Gramm says, society is divided into those who pull the wagon (his rich consituents) and those who ride in it (the poor, all of whom are undeserving). Doug
[PEN-L:11449] Re: Child tax credit
As it has been suggested to me privately that I have misunderstood this child tax credit, I reproduce what I read in the WSJ: "Neither Mr. Clinton nor Congressional Republicans are interested in subsidizing the very poor. Families who make less than $19,000 or so wouldn't benefit from White House, Senate or House plans, although they would under alternatives offered by Democratic leaders of the House and Senate. And all three bills would give the $500-a-child credit to families with children smack in the middle of the middle class whose income, according to the latest Census Bureau data is about $40,000 a year. (About one sixth of the 37 families with children have incomes below $15,000 and one sixth above $75,000.) "The big issue is whether to give any money to working families with incomes bewtween roughly $19,000 and $28,000. Mr Clinton would, the House wouldn't and the Senate is in between. In a recent interview, Mr Gingrich acknowledged the president "may well get something" in the end 'because we want the bill signed.'"WSJ, 23 July, 1997, A20 Now if there is going to be a child tax credit, why should the really poor not get it? Because they already enjoy the EITC? Well, others who will enjoy this kiddie tax credit also enjoy tax breaks as well (eg, mortgage deductions). It cannot be because the really poor already enjoy a tax break (the EITC necessary for their reproduction as wage slaves after all) that the "really poor" are being punished by disqualification for this child tax credit. Clinton is just using tax policy against those whom he doesn't have the guts to call openly "the unfit". As a further example, why is he giving a tax break to families for kids in college for which this tax break poor families will *not* qualify *even* if family members are in college, much less if they are not. Rakesh
[PEN-L:11448] Re: Child tax credit
>credit. There will be no deal without at least some gains for the >working poor. The Administration has been pretty strong on this >particular point so far. Max, this is disturbingly evasive. For Clinton, the "working poor" does not include "very poor" families--that was the whole point of my post. You say nothing about the horrible invention of this invidious category, a modern euphemism for the "unfit". Most of your post is simply irrelevant to the concern I raised. You then responded to what I wrote: >> Of course the headline should have read "Bipartisan Support for Negative >> Eugenics Prompts Less Outrage Than In Nazi Germany" > >I would say that whether or not low-income families with >children get a few hundred dollars per kid in tax credit >refunds is not quite on a par with 'Eugenics.' Save your >energy for when we really need it. Of course, relative to income of a "very poor" family, $500 per child is not an insubstantial sum. Eugenics can proceed through incentives and/or coercion. This legislation is based on a perverse logic of human worth, and to the extent that this legislation validates that logic, it validates the attempt to operate on the basis of it. And, by the way, it did not take much energy to express my outrage at the logic of human worth that is implied in this attempt to distribute the tax credit. Rakesh
[PEN-L:11447] Re: Child tax credit
> Subject: [PEN-L:11442] Child tax credit > If I read yesterday's WSJ correctly, it seems that Clinton has agreed that > whatever the upper limit on income for qualification for this $500 per > child tax credit, so-called "very poor" families (<$19,000yr) will not be > able to receive it putatively because they already receive other offsets. The tax bill remains entirely in flux. The Administration and the GOP could compromise on the extent of refundability of the tax credit. There will be no deal without at least some gains for the working poor. The Administration has been pretty strong on this particular point so far. The real problem with the tax bill for the Administration is the proposed indexation of capital gains. That's the only feature that they've indicated would trigger a veto. That's unfortunate because there is lots of other garbage in the bill which Clinton would let pass in order to get his budget. I have two journalistic pieces on this topic on my web page, if anyone is interested (URL is below). The Republicans have been passing appropriations bills rapidly. This means the President is gaining enormous leverage in the negotiations because every bill that is passed is another chunk of the government that can't be shut down. With no deal, the so-called entitlement programs (e.g., social insurance, welfare) go on as under current law. It's getting to the point where the White House could walk away if they don't get what they want and suffer no ill consequences at all. Even the deficit is projected to go into surplus in two years under the status quo. A great opportunity for a Democrat in the WH, if only we had one. > As if those who will qualify for this credit don't receive other kinds of > offsets! This is just a war on the poor, a violent eugenics of the type > sanctioned by The Bell Curve. And Clinton has agreed to it. Clinton stands Not exactly, see above. > here to the right of some Democrats in the House and the Senate who have Did you just sail in? Clinton is to the right of the median Democratic Member of Congress. > . . . > Of course the headline should have read "Bipartisan Support for Negative > Eugenics Prompts Less Outrage Than In Nazi Germany" I would say that whether or not low-income families with children get a few hundred dollars per kid in tax credit refunds is not quite on a par with 'Eugenics.' Save your energy for when we really need it. Cheers, Max "People say I'm arrogant, but I know better." -- John Sununu === Max B. SawickyEconomic 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. ===
[PEN-L:11446] FW: BLS Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, THURSDAY, JULY 24, 1997 Top Fed officials went to Capitol Hill again yesterday In answer to the question, "Is inflation so low that deflation is now a worry?," Greenspan said, "`While ... the measured inflation rate has come down ... there are none of the characteristics in this economic structure which lead us to conclude that we are moving in a direction of deflation,' a worrisome tendency for prices to fall. A good part of the recent decline in producer prices reflects a welcome decline in computer prices. Prices of services still are rising " Workers can expect pay raises this year and next of 4.2 percent, roughly equal to annual pay increases they've been getting, according to a compensation planning survey conducted by William M. Mercer Inc. of 900 mid-size to large companies. Their bosses can expect raises this year of 4.4 percent and next year of 4.3 percent, the survey found (Washington Post, page E1). DUE OUT TOMORROW: BLS Reports on Employee Benefits in Medium and Large Private Establishments, 1995
[PEN-L:11445] Solidarity With korean People Expressed
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more info. --15834B0E181B Pyongyang, July 22 (KCNA) -- Meetings were held in Romania and India, a photo exhibition and a film show in Madagascar and Togo, a symposium in Zimbabwe and a round-table talk in Guyana from June 21 to July 11 during the month of international solidarity with the Korean people. The speakers at the meetings said that the Korean people and the Korean People's Army (KPA) displayed matchless mass heroism, repulsed the invasion of U.S. imperialism and won a historic victory under the wise leadership of President Kim Il Sung. Saying that the President performed immortal exploits for the peaceful reunification of Korea, they noted that his plan for national reunification is being brilliantly put into practice by Secretary Kim Jong Il. The KPA has been strengthened into an invincible army under the wise leadership of the Supreme Commander, Secretary Kim Jong Il, they said, and added that the Korean people would unfailingly achieve national reunification. A letter to secretary Kim Jong Il was adopted at the meeting held in India. KCNA Shawgi Tell Graduate School of Education University at Buffalo [EMAIL PROTECTED] --15834B0E181B--
[PEN-L:11444] Rodong Sinmun On Provocative Remarks Of S. Korean War Maniacs
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more info. --15834B0E181B Pyongyang, July 22 (KCNA) -- The south Korean war maniacs, far from drawing a serious lesson from the severe blow they sustained after their armed provocation against the north along the Military Demarcation Line, are making provocative remarks getting on the nerves of the north and aggravating the tensions. Commenting on this fact, a news analyst of Rodong Sinmun today says: When he met Powell, Former Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff of the United States on July 19, Kim Young Sam prattled about completion of war preparations in the north and begged for the maintenance of full defence preparedness between south Korea and the U.S. troops. The south Korean puppets vociferated about possible terrorist act by the north and held a war confab on anti-submarine operations. The puppets are staging war exercises in the area of Seoul under the signboard of defence training in the wake of a comprehensive tactical training of commandoes in areas of Mt. Thaebaek. These ill-boding military rackets prove that the threat of aggression on the Korean Peninsula comes from the south to the north. They also show to what extent the south Korean war maniacs have gone in their war preparations. Defence and security on the lips of the south Korean puppets are precisely slogans for provoking war against the north. Provokers are bound to meet with a severe retaliation. There is no mercy in war. KCNA Shawgi Tell Graduate School of Education University at Buffalo [EMAIL PROTECTED] --15834B0E181B--
[PEN-L:11443] E;Interact with the 2nd Encuentro via the Web! Jul 25 (fwd)
Folks: Some of you with internationalist leanings might be interested in paying some attention to the 2nd Intercontinental Encounter now underway in Spain. This 2nd Encounter follows the first which was held in Chiapas, Mexico last summer. There were over 3,000 grassroots activists at that meeting; some 4,000 are expected at this one. There are a wide variety of materials available that have been prepared for it and some ways you can interact with it if you are so inclined. Harry -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 02:36:30 -0500 (CDT) From: Chiapas95-Lite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Chiapas 95 Moderators <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: E;Interact with the 2nd Encuentro via the Web! Jul 25 This posting has been forwarded to you as a service of Accion Zapatista de Austin. Note:Please repost this message to other relevant lists. Folks: This is to call your attention to three new items which are now available on the WWW that make it possible for you to interact with the 2nd Intercontinental Encounter for Humanity and Against Neoliberalism even if you can't go to Spain. 1. A collection of materials in English prepared for the the 2nd Intercontinental Encounter in Spain. These materials are organized by workshop (1 - 6). The site gathers papers that can be found on the official multilingual Spanish site and others. The papers are html formatted and can be downloaded from the web with a simple "print" command without needing any further formatting. (The Spanish site papers require formatting with a word processing program.) The URL for accessing these materials is: http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/wk0index.html 2. A Web Page with Daily Reports from Spain. The URL for this page is: http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/dailyreports.html 3. An interactive "web foro on Encounter 2" where you can post your ideas about the encounter, or encounters in general, or about the papers prepared for the meetings, or respond to others comments already posted. This is a "threaded" posting board to make it easy to follow various lines of discussion. The URL for this foro is: http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/nave/webforo.pl Comments and contribution too long to post on this board can be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for posting on Daily Report page, to relevant lists and to Spain where substantive messages and comments will be downloaded and posted at the Encuentro sites for public consumption. All three sites can be accessed through the Chiapas95 webpage at URL: http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html These pages and these materials have been constructed by a team of members of Accion Zapatista and of the Zapnet Collective. Some are attending the Encuentro in Spain and some are managing the web sites from Austin. -- To unsubscribe from this list send a message containing the words unsubscribe chiapas95-lite to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:11442] Child tax credit
If I read yesterday's WSJ correctly, it seems that Clinton has agreed that whatever the upper limit on income for qualification for this $500 per child tax credit, so-called "very poor" families (<$19,000yr) will not be able to receive it putatively because they already receive other offsets. As if those who will qualify for this credit don't receive other kinds of offsets! This is just a war on the poor, a violent eugenics of the type sanctioned by The Bell Curve. And Clinton has agreed to it. Clinton stands here to the right of some Democrats in the House and the Senate who have proposed alternative plans which would extend the credit to the socalled very poor. For Clinton and Gingrich, it seems that the very poor has become an euphemism for the underclass, a euphemism for the residuum, a euphemism for the expendable. The article was titled "Partisan Child Tax Credit Battle Has Become Fight Over Whom Washington Wants To Subsidize", 7/23/97A20. Of course the headline should have read "Bipartisan Support for Negative Eugenics Prompts Less Outrage Than In Nazi Germany" Rakesh
