material for the Reagan/Bush/Bush generation, but it's enormously biased in its opinions, more so than Harpers for example. It's more on the lines of New Republic or the Nation, both of which I find useful but not always compelling.
The coverage of Bush has been mostly focussed on what he is proposing with little reasoned or reasonable analysis in the general press or Television. I like Ivins and Krugman and all the other people who offer a contrasting viewpoint in contradiction to the leap of faith that is being required by this Administration. Right now any information is better than no information.
I have heard the 3% claw back talked about occasionally but have not seen it clearly laid out as it was in the Ivins article. I am still not clear why the government feels it has a right to 3% of what you're supposed to be saving for your retirement but maybe I just haven't read the right article yet. I don't read US newspapers as a rule being occupied with keeping track of Canadian news as well as US.
Thanks for the Feb 8 article Crowsfoot, I hadn't found that one yet. Always enjoy your input.