President George W. Bush has stated clearly and often that he feels the US Government is too large, that more decisions should be left to individual states, and that tax cuts and other incentives for investors and for businesses are needed to encourage economic growth, which he suggests will ultimately lead to more jobs. What kind of jobs those would be is not clear. Taking history as our guide, we imagine one scenario from such a policy, and a direct question to him on it at some future news conference, if anyone can locate the journalist with the nerve to ask it.

Q: Mr. President. You've been saying the federal government should be doing less, that states should be taking over a lot of what Washington does -- social welfare programs, disaster response, and so on. Washington has too much power over people's lives, you've said; The state houses should have more control, pick up more of the burden.

With the markets struggling, fuel prices and the trade deficit both rising, with so many companies laying off employees, cutting pay and benefits; more jobs going overseas every year to countries in Asia and Central America, for example, where workers are paid so much less... there's talk that some states might try to bring back slavery -- to keep labor costs down and help companies compete better on the world market. What's your opinion of that?

A: We are a nation of laws. American Laws. Throughout our history, many bills have been passed by the Congress and signed into law by myself and my predecessors in this great and humbling office. Laws having to do with a lot of different things.

It's... a tough situation, no question about it. Tough on farmers, small businesses, tough on working people, and on the American taxpayer. It kind of depends on how you look at it. See, you've got two opposing theories here. Not unlike the situation in the schools that we've talked about--teaching Darwin's theory of evolution versus the theory of Intelligent Design. Two theories, two different points of view.

Now, when it comes to slavery, well of course it offends us. It's got a bad history, got a bad... reputation. But the fact is, ever since the end of the Civil War just about, the federal government's been subsidizing cotton and tobacco farmers. More than a hundred years now. Hundred and twenty. Whatever.

Up to now, the American people have gladly shouldered these costs. Otherwise, a lot of farmers and small businesses would o' gone bust. Then there'd be fewer jobs, an even bigger drain on the economy.

But the fact is, we also got a war to fight now. And there's Social Security to worry about, and Medicare, and Medicaid, school lunch programs, Head Start. Lotta programs. Some of 'em may have to go, or get cut back.

We got a lot of unemployed people out there... and homeless... particularly down south, thanks to Hurricane Katrina, and Rita, and now Wilma. No place to work. No place to live.

So, to answer your question as I understand it; One theory is of course... Slavery's un-American, it's immoral, it's got no place in a democracy. I totally agree.

But then you got another theory that says... we've got a large population of poor -- no jobs, no homes, no PROSPECTS of jobs. No health insurance. Many of them are living in motels, at taxpayer expense. Some of 'em get free continental breakfast and Cable TV thrown in. At taxpayer expense. During a time of war.

Might there a solution? Call it slavery, call it whatever. Look at it the other way, you could also call it guaranteed employment, with benefits; subsidized housing, free roof over their heads, plus food on the table for them and their kids. Not to mention long term job security.

And all of it at the expense of the employer, the private sector, not the taxpayer.

Low wages in foreign countries are hurting the American worker, no doubt about it, luring American businesses elsewhere. This might help keep some of them here.

Two theories - one says it's bad, it violates our democratic sensibilities. The other one says you could save a lot of lives, and you could help the farmer and the small businessman, and the national economy.

Maybe it's just the word. "Slavery." "What's in a word?" Shakespeare said that. Didn't he? Well, somebody did.

Like I said about the evolution/intelligent design thing: This is a democracy. Why not just put it out there and let the people decide? State-by-state. Know what I mean?

Next question.