back in back
Well, I'm back from Ohio, and as soon as I break out of my interstate 80-induced stupor, I will post some music stuff culled from bumming around campus this weekend.

In the meantime, though, Paul Krugman is talkin' like Thomas Frank and me, too, and confirming the Financial Times' suggestion that maaaaaaybe this tax cut is designed to create a deficit so big that the much-hated social programs will have to be cut or eliminated.

On the bright side, so much of that money (more than US$400bil, yeah?) is tied up in sunset clauses that it will hopefully energize the Dems enough to both push hard for the next congressional elections and to keep making this cut (and the 2001 cut) an issue, so we can rip it back out in time. Maybe I'm being too optimistic there, though.

The Frank article in Harper's, again, is really good. He cites a study, for instance, that says that without the 2001 tax cut, we would still be in surplus.
posted by Mike B. at 12:09 PM 0 comments