Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (16952)	6/16/2001 11:07:58 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

Agnosticism is the only way that seems rational to me. I have never said that I was an atheist, nor do I consider myself one. Though other people keep thinking I am one. But then other people are so sadly deluded in so very many ways I guess that isn't surprising.

To: TimF who wrote (16952)	6/17/2001 6:25:55 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Tucson, Arizona Sunday, 17 June 2001 Danger lurks in Bush's compassionate conservatism By Edward H. Crane President Bush has restored dignity and integrity to the White House. That is no small feat. He's also made positive contributions on the policy front, the likes of which we haven't seen since Ronald Reagan's first term. Some, such as his plan partly to privatize Social Security, weren't even proposed by Reagan. His no-explanation-needed dismissal of the American Bar Association's role in "vetting" judicial candidates was heroic. So, too, his rejection of the junk science Kyoto agreement on global warming. That said, there is something disturbing about the philosophy that underlies the Bush administration. "Compassionate conservatism," as reflected in Bush's legislative agenda, is a philosophy that says the federal government is going to be "strong and active" - in Bush's words - in involving itself in the lives of Americans. It is an ideology that is closer to that of the New Democrats at the Progressive Policy Institute than to the Goldwater-Reagan heritage of the GOP. "In essence," says professional sound biter Marshall Wittman of the Hudson Institute, "what we're seeing is the triumph of big government conservatism. Everyone assumed "devolution" meant the absence of a government role. In fact, it means a continued presence." Bush's proposals for increased federal spending on local education, his "faith-based" initiative to fund local religious charities, proposals for marriage counseling and teaching responsible fatherhood, Wittman told the Washington Post, all add up to "the death of libertarianism." Well, Wittman's long-held enthusiasm for big government may blind him to the fact that libertarianism is a vibrant and growing part of the national debate these days. (Cato, is, after all the second-most-cited think tank in the nation.) Still, he has a point about this administration representing a victory for big government. Bush's father was a big government man, but only in a kind of unthinking, ad hoc way. George W. Bush and his advisers are wrapping their proposed interventions in society in a framework that says the government has the ability and the obligation to see how things are going locally and to fund what "works." "It will be government that directs help to the inspired and the effective," Bush proclaimed on the campaign trail. That thought inspires neo-conservatives who've never feared government power - only those misguided individuals who ran it. It also inspires New Democrats like David Osborne, whose book, "Reinventing Government," reads like a script for the Bush administration. Osborne writes, "Those who steer the boat have far more power than those who row it" - meaning the federal government need not do everything, just control everything. "Governments that focus on steering actively shape their communities. . . . They put more social and economic institutions into motion. . . . They make sure other institutions are delivering services and meeting communities' needs." So much, then, for constitutionally limited government and the concept of federalism. As Osborne notes, if the federal government is paying for something, it's calling the shots. It is possible that Bush is naive about the consequences of compassionate conservatism - that he doesn't realize funding will be determined politically and not by merit. Or that even if it were by merit, the recipient organizations would be corrupted by a growing dependence on federal funds. Or that those funds will come with strings attached. The real danger lies in the casual acceptance of the idea that the federal government should have an "active" role in everyday American life, that if there's a problem, why, the federal government will find some worthy organization to solve it. This is bound to undermine what little principle remains in the Republican Party today. Today, we are faced with compassionate conservatism. So I was not surprised when I received a fax the other day from the Republican Policy Committee in the U.S. Senate boasting that "since Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, federal education spending has exploded." The headline: "GOP Outspends Democrats on Education." * Edward H. Crane is president of the Cato Institute (www.cato.org). Readers may write to him at: Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20001. azstarnet.com

To: TimF who wrote (16952)	6/18/2001 7:40:01 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Tim, here's a classic on Federal regulation. There are calls for it in the case of amusement parks but nowhere in the article do I find an explanation for why Federal oversight would be an improvement. There is some discussion that current regulations are not uniform but we're not told what's inherently wrong with that. There's also a slight hint that national regulation would require more thorough reporting. Although the headline is about regulation, it's not at all clear why Federal regulation would improve safety. Looks like a classic case study to me. A call for Federal regulation. Why? I looked up the proposed legislation and it doesn't offer a reason. washingtonpost.com Karen