porting” in any traditional sense of thernword: Rather, the process is outsonrcing,rntlie net effect of which is the loss of Americanrnjobs.rnI question, though, whether Tonelsonrnadec[uately deals with two related points.rnOne is the long-term impact of our annualrnrecord-breaking trade deficits. Won’trnanother shoe drop as the United Statesrnturns from the world’s largest creditor nationrnto the world’s largest debtor nation?rnWon’t there be a delayed impact fromrntrade deficits long after the immediaternimpact is absorbed? There may be bothrnan immediate job loss and a delayed lossrnin the American standard of living. Itrnseems only common sense that, whenrnone generation imports more than it exportsrnand gives dollars to make up the difference,rnanother generation will have tornreclaim those dollars by exporting morernthan it imports (or else turn over Americanrnassets to redeem the dollars heldrnabroad). Has America fully calculatedrnthe impact of the staggering trade deficitsrnthat characterize our recent trade policy?rnAnd what about the related thorn’ issuernof immigration? Most immigrantsrnarc poor; their poverty is what bringsrnthem to the United States in the firstrnplace. This drives down the wages of lowincomernAmericans even more directlvrnthan trade polic does. Is there anv realrndifference between exporting a jobrnthrough trade and importing a workerrntiirongh immigration? Tonelson touchesrnon the problem but backs away from arnfull discussion of the impact of massivernimmigration to this countn,’.rnImmigration policy is almost a taboornsubject in most quarters. Perhaps that isrnbecause, as Edward .Abbey once pointedrnout, conservatives love cheap labor whilernliberals love cheap causes. Wliatever thernmotivation, we largely ignore the effectrnimmigration (which adds approximatelyrnone million mostly poor, unskilled peoplernto the American population everyrn ear) has on the American worker and onrnAmerican societ. When you increasernthe supply of immigrants to the lowskilledrnworkforce, inevitably you depressrnwages and working conditions. The NationalrnAcademy of Sciences has foundrnthat immigration has a definite negafivernimpact on lower-skilled, less-educatedrnAmericans, thus widening the gap betweenrnrich and poor in this countn,. Notrnonly are immigrants poor when thevrncome here, they are more likely than thernnative population to remain poor. Present-rnda}- immigrants hae less education.rnfewer skills, pay less in taxes, and arernmore likely to avail themselves of welfarernand other government seriees than nativernhouseholds are. These facts, however,rnare seldom mentioned in public.rnAmerica needs and deseres a broader,rnmore thoughtful debate on trade policyrnand immigration than we have generatedrnto date. Both phenomena have largerrncosts than we currentiy are willing to admit.rnTonclson’s book could help startrnthat debate.rnRichard D. Lamm is a former governor ofrnColorado.rnWolfe in Wolfe’srnClothingrnby George GarrettrnO Lost: A Story of the Buried Lifernby Thomas WolfernText estahhshed by Arlyn andrnMatthew ]. BniccohrnColumbia: Universiti’ of South CarolinarnPress; 736 pp., $29.95rnTo Loot My Life Clean:rnTlie Thomas Wolfe-MaxwellrnPerkins CorrespondencernEdited by Matthew ]. Bmccolirnand Park BackerrnColumbia: Universit’ of South CarolinarnPress; 340 f-ip.. $39.95rnWhat we have here are two goodrnbooks published bv the increasinglyrnadventurous Uni crsity of SouthrnCarolina Press in celebration of the centcnarv’rnof Thomas Wolfe (1900-1938). OrnLost is the original version of what becamernLook Homeward, Angel (1929), therntext being carefully established and editedrnb Arlyn and Matthew J. Bruccolirnfrom a pencil draft in 17 ledgers, a tpescriptrncarbon copy (with a few missingrnpages), and five clusters of the ribbonrncopy. The editors tell us that “The settingrncopv of Lool; Homeward, Angel is unlocatedrnand presumed lost.” The job ofrncomposing an accurate text—a labor ofrnlove by the editors who have foregonernan’ earnings and royalties in favor of thernWolfe estate —was more complicatedrnthan it might have been since neitherrnWolfe nor his famous editor. MaxwellrnPerkins, nor his t)’pist, Abe Smith, troubledrnthemselves very much with smallrndetails. Most of the line editing andrnproofreading and correction for Scribner’srnwas accomplished by poet-editorrnJohn Hall Wlieelock. A few months afterrnpublication of A/7ge/, Wolfe received arnletter from Louis N. Feipel, whose hobbyrnwas proofreading published books andrnwho sent Wolfe a list of hundreds of errorsrnand inconsistencies. According tornthe editors, none of tliese errors and inconsistenciesrnin Angel was ever emended.rnThe scholarship is solid, and the strategyrnof the editors direct. “The rationalernfor this edition is to establish the text of OrnLost that should have been published inrn1929 by Charles Scribner’s Sons afterrnnecessary editing, house styling andrnproofing.”rnTo Loot My Life Clean: The ThomasrnWolfe-Maxwell Perkins Correspondence,rnpublished simidtaneously with O Lost, isrnwhat it announces itself to he and somethingrnmore. It offers some 251 letters exchangedrnbetween Wolfe and Perkins,rnJohn Hall Wheelock, Charles Scribner,rnIII, and others at Scribner’s, roughly twornthirds of which have never been published.rnThe letters are presented chronologicallyrnfrom the March 1928 “Note Forrndie Publisher’s Reader,” written beforernWolfe first made contact with Perkins, tornPerkins’ final telegram to Fred Wolfe onrnthe occasion of Tom’s death —”Deeplyrnsorry . . . ” In addition to useful notes,rnthere are five appendices —”UndatablernLetters,” “Unmailed Wolfe Letters,”rn”Maxwell Perkins’ Biographical Observationsrnon Thomas Wolfe,” “Errors and Inconsistenciesrnin the Published Text ofrnLook Homeward, Angel,” and “Scribner’srnAlteration Lists for Of Time and the River.”rnTaken together, these two books,rnamong other things, definitively dispelrnthe popular myth that, somehow or other,rnWolfe was an invention of MaxwellrnPerkins. As Bruccoli and Bucker put it.rnAccording to the popular version ofrnthis story, Wolfe was an undisciplinedrnwriter whose exuberant,rnoverwritten prose coidd only bernpublished through a collaborafionrnwith his editor. Perkins is portravedrnas a controlling editor-father tornWolfe, the child-writer, fromrnwhom words flowed unhinderedrnand unexamined. . .. The lettersrnpublished here document Wolfe’srnartistic and professional problemsrnAPRIL 2001/25rnrnrn