There are much better alternatives, than the current system jeffp. I don't suppose NicoleC will be supported in her old age by the people providing her health care services, namely "other people's children" she is so unwilling to have her tax dollars go to support?

The point I'm making is that it is idiotic to suggest that we can live without taxes. Taxes pay for the government services that provide us with our standard of living and quality of life. Anyone who hasn't figured out that out yet, is like still voting either Democrat or Republican.

And BTW, if Lott's record is what NicoleC suggests, ie not "proof of racism" then just what exactly constitutes proof of racism by politicians, if not their voting record, and the written and audio records of their speeches and public remarks?

Lott is on the way out, because if he doesn't go, the race issue could be the albatross around Bush's neck that causes him to lose the election come 2004. Only 9% of African Americans supported Bush in 2000, and he knows he needs to up those numbers to get in again in 2004 if the economy stays stagnant or gets worse, and unemployment (especially) keeps going up. Lott didn't just piss off African Americans though. The Latino community was pretty angry about this whole debacle (especially Bush and the Republican leadership taking so long to distance themselves from Lott). Now, an argument could be made I suppose (though I don't think an effective, reasoned argument can) that Bush can win without the African American vote. But he sure as shit can't win without the Latino vote. The White House, especially Karl Rove, knows this, hence Bush's long overdue condemnation of Lott yesterday.

Question is, and this is what frightens me, is who will replace him? Lott wasn't a Bush loyalist, and he was also a largely ineffective parliamentarian (Daschle is only slightly better at it). If an effective parliamentarian who is loyal to Bush gets into the job, then we can be more or less guaranteed that the Bush agenda will be in place, if not implemented, by 2004. Then, even if Bush loses, it will make it much more difficult for a successor to undo the tremendous amount of damage being done right now by Bush. You can't prop the logs back up, once they've been clearcut "to prevent forest fires".