Dear Marjorie,
The news draught continues. The Times leads with a story about how Republican Senate leaders decided Wednesday night against pushing a big tax cut, because Clinton would veto it and they don’t have the votes to override. Since this fact has been obvious to everybody, the news isn’t that a big tax cut won’t happen; it’s that the conservative true believers in the House and the Senate, who want another battering ram against Clinton in the fall elections, aren’t going to get it (though surely they’ll find some way to paint him as a tax-and-spend liberal). A big fear for the Senate leadership is that Clinton would accuse the Republicans of trying to get a big tax cut so they could slash away at Social Security. Since the House intends to push ahead with the big tax cut, it’s possible the Senate will change its mind. In which case a flimsy choice for the lead story in the Times will look even flimsier. Not that I’m criticizing; they had to lead with something.
The Journal’s Washington Wire column says White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles, who has been rumored to be leaving the administration since roughly three days after he joined it, may run for governor of North Carolina.
The most interesting story in today’s papers is buried on page A23 of the Washington Post. (I.F. Stone once quipped that he loved reading the Post because you never know where you’ll find a page-one story.) It’s about a fight I was unaware of over whether Congress should force the Consumer Product Safety Commission to restore its once-strict standards about flame-retardant sleepwear for children. Apparently, starting in 1993, the CPSC eased up on rules that had once dictated that all sleepwear for kids be flame-resistant. Now, “snug-fitting cotton garments” that are more flammable are allowed. The story is making me think twice about my routine habit of putting Willie, 5, and Alice, 2, to bed in t-shirts, which, come to think of it, aren’t flame-retardant. This is an interesting case where the yuppie prejudice against (flame-retardant) polyester comes into conflict with the yuppie affinity for (more flammable, but also more tasteful) cotton. Please tell me what to think.
Confused,
Tim
