 |
 |
|||
 |
 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
 |
Bruce Bartlett Jude Wanniski February 6, 2004 |
 |
From:Jude Wanniski jwanniski@polyconomics.com
To: James K. Galbraith <galbraith@* * * * *.edu>
Re: Bruce Bartlett
2/6/04 6:51 pmJamie...
I'm going to ignore your comments on Bartlett until you address the memo I wrote to you last week that you said you would get around to answering. I know where you go on taxes, as you say, but I want you to engage in dialog, not just tell me you disagree with me.
As for Pakistan, I believe the source of all these nuke issues in the Middle East is the Israeli nukes. Read Michael Lind in the new issue of the Nation on the neo-cons. Khan is a hero in Pakistan among the masses because he did not let anything stand in his way on his path to getting an Islamic nuke. I'm sympathetic to him and to Khan. The Likud Israelis are coo coo, and so are their supporters in the US. But then, maybe you are a great admirer or Sharon and Netanyahu and the Eretz Israelis. Yes? No?
Jude
At 05:11 PM 2/6/2004 -0600, you wrote:
There is a great deal to this.
The good news is that it would not be a bad thing to fund a positive economic program with additional revenues, aiming not for budget balance but for a deficit in the sustainable range. I'm not afraid of three percent. You know where I would go on taxes, even though you don't like it!
We can also cut spending, among other things by focusing on security spending that actually meets security needs (no missile defense), and by introducing an element of control or competition to drug costs. So I don't think that from an economic standpoint the problem is unsolvable. Much more could be said on this to be complete, but I'll leave it for now.
On another matter, are you writing on Pakistan and the bomb? If you haven't read B-H Levy's book Who Killed Daniel Pearl? I would very much like to recommend that you do so and give me your reaction, particularly in view of the pardon issued to Mr. Khan yesterday. This is not a partisan and not really even a political issue, in my view, rather one of survival, and I would be very gratified to have you raising your voice if you think the analysis is even close to being correct.
Jamie
At 09:44 AM 2/6/2004 -0500, you wrote:Any thoughts from any of you on Bruce Bartlett's column today?
* * *