Text 14222, 104 rader
Skriven 2007-05-08 19:26:22 av Josh Hill (592.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: unions
==================
On Mon, 7 May 2007 23:15:27 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message=20

>>There are lots of exceptions, I think. There have to be.
>
>"Few" is a relative term.   In the context of a set of books that has ov=
er=20
>18,000 gun laws and a tax code no one understands completely, the term "=
few"=20
>has some room.
>
> The more exceptions you create, the more precedents there are to create=
 a=20
>situation in which there are no limits...a government that has no limit =
or=20
>idea of what it's supposed to do any more other than anything and=20
>everything.  A government that has the power to pass the Patriot act but=
 not=20
>defend its own borders.  We pay people not to grow things.  We tax peopl=
e at=20
>the federal level so we can give money back to the states in a grant to=20
>build a Sports Hall of Fame (Suffolk County Sports Hall of Fame, Long=20
>Island).
>
>My view of the function of a federal government does not include taxing =
for,=20
>or being involved in the building of a sports hall of fame building.... =
but=20
>these days who cares?  Pork is fine as long as it goes to my district,=20
>right?

I'm not defending pork. But I don't think the solution to pork barrel
spending can be found in quick fixes (albeit some would be helpful,
e.g., the line item veto). As long as people elect politicians because
they "bring home the bacon" we'll have it. As long as people elect
politicians who are in the pay of special interests we'll have it. And
this is true whether government is Federal or local.

>  The only limit is the Supreme Court, which is supposed to be a last=20
>resort, and even that is limited in what it can (and should) get involve=
d=20
>in.  I'm not comfortable with the no definition of limits to our governm=
ent=20
>other than nine politically appointed indivduals.
>
>Government will adapt...it has to, and that's fine...but you seem to be =
much=20
>more comfortable with the idea that government is "anything we want it t=
o=20
>be" than I am.  That doesn't make you wrong and me right.  I'm just=20
>expressing my view.
>
>You don't trust Bush and what he' has/will/might do.  Fair enough.  I do=
n't=20
>trust ANYONE that much...even if I think they have the best of intention=
s.=20
>Once you have a government program, it's permanent.

Melville's Law of Fast and Loose Fish, innit. But it's not entirely
true. Sacrosanct programs have been cut in the past, and will be
again. A new president will almost certainly be tougher on pork than
Bush is. The new Congress will almost certainly be less pork-prone
than the old one.

>>>In that area though... why does Hawaii have an interstate highway?
>
>>Possibility A: It would unfair to give all the other states Federal
>>money for highways without giving Hawaii its cut
>
>--
>Great! Let's waste lots of money all over the place just so everyone
>feels like they've gorged themselves on pork in a fair way.  The
>same mentality as "Spend it or you'll lose it budgeting."
>
>You're idea of "fair" government, not mine.

Unless the highways aren't used, they don't constitute waste. If
Hawaii is anything like the other places I've lived, we need better
roads, not worse. The interstate highway system, like so many valuable
government programs, has gone to hell since Reagan and the Republicans
put the squeeze on funding. Insufficient investment harms the economy
and the country. Let's trim what needs trimming -- agribusiness and
fossil fuel subsidies, for example, or weapons systems that were
designed to defend against a country that no longer exists -- and use
the resulting savings to fund programs that /do/ offer important
benefits. And let's get rid of political slop like the Department of
Faith-Based Initiatives or the inefficient use of private contractors
when the Federal government can do a task for less. Neither political
horse trading nor ideological preconceptions should determine our
funding priorities.

--=20
Josh

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths,
and how many, what day it=92s going to happen, and=20
how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean,
it=92s, it=92s not relevant. So, why should I waste my=20
beautiful mind on something like that?" - Barbara Bush
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)