daddy bush shilling for money

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when a former president of the United States lends his name to a direct mail marketing campaign. Daddy Bush lost whatever shred of dignity he may have had by sending out letters inviting people to the 2003 President's Dinner. Which, by the way, he and Barbara will not attend. Oh, and for just $150 more on top of the $2,500 cost of the ticket, you can get an individually numbered and matted limited edition photo of Shrub accompanied by a note from his Shrubship. Which, I guess they think, attendees can promptly sell on eBay.

I would call 202-478-4425 to find out more information, but I don't want to run up my phone bill because I have to be careful about my money since I was LAID OFF from my job last September. Since ex-President invited me and didn't say word one in his invitation about MY having to PAY anything to attend this dinner, I should be able to attend without paying the $2,500, which I can't afford since I was LAID OFF. So I will send back my RSVP in the postage-paid envelope without enclosing a check since I can't afford the price of the ticket. Maybe they'll send back a nicer invitation than the cheesy piece of crap enclosed with the begging letter from Daddy Bush.

If I were to attend this dinner, it would be kind of strange because I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Republican. So why I got this exclusive invitation, I have no idea -- I guess the person who makes the list is the same person who suggested that I'm a good candidate for the Leadership Award (that I wrote about in the entry titled 800-650-8375 SCAM).

I wonder where they got this mailing list? Maybe my name is on it because I subscribed to Forbes (which I can't afford any more since I was LAID OFF).

On a side note, Paul Krugman wrote an interesting column in the April 22 New York Times: "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs" Here is a snippet:

Republican politicians are obviously under instructions to push that job number. On the Sunday talk shows some of them said "1.4 million jobs" so often that it sounded like an embarrassing nervous tic.

Of course, there's no reason to take that number seriously. Basically, the job-creation estimate came from the same place where Joseph McCarthy learned that there were 57 card-carrying Communists in the State Department. Still, let's pretend that the Bush administration really thinks that its $726 billion tax-cut plan will create 1.4 million jobs. At what price would those jobs be created?

By price I don't just mean the budget cost; I also mean the cost of sacrificing other potential pro-employment policies on the altar of tax cuts. Once you take those sacrifices into account, it becomes clear that the Bush plan is actually a job-destroying package.

Not that the budget cost is minor. The average American worker earns only about $40,000 per year; why does the administration, even on its own estimates, need to offer $500,000 in tax cuts for each job created? If it's all about jobs, wouldn't it be far cheaper just to have the government hire people? Franklin Roosevelt's Works Progress Administration put the unemployed to work doing all kinds of useful things; why not do something similar now? (Hint: this would be a good time to do something serious, finally, about port security.)

The answer is that we can't have a modern version of the W.P.A. because, um . . . because tax cuts are essential to promote long-run economic growth. Yes, that must be it. Just look at a new study by the Congressional Budget Office, now headed by an economist handpicked by the Bush administration. It concludes that the Bush plan may have either a positive or a negative effect on long-run growth, but that in any case the effect will be small. Wait, that's not the answer we wanted. Quick, find another expert!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/23/03 at 11:32 AM
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: lunatic news

Previous entry: so dizzy ...

<< Back to main