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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (13630)	10/25/2006 9:35:20 AM
From: Mr. Palau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

what drivel peter you can do better btw, i am surprised and disappointed to see that you are tolerating cyberloon's racism again you can do better

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (13630)	10/25/2006 10:31:18 AM
From: Mr. Palau	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

A Case for Divided Government by William Niskanen William A. Niskanen is chairman of the Cato Institute and former acting chairman of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers. For those of you with a partisan bent, I have some bad news: Our federal government may work better (less badly) when at least one chamber of Congress is controlled by a party other than the party of the president. The general reason for this is that each party has the opportunity to block the most divisive measures proposed by the other party. Other conditions, of course, also affect political outcomes, but the following types of evidence for this hypothesis are too important to ignore: Point One. The rate of growth of real (inflation-adjusted) federal spending is usually lower with divided government. The table below presents the annual percentage increase in real federal spending by administration, in each case with the percentage increase in the first year of a new administration attributed to fiscal decisions made in the prior administration. Administration Years Divided/United Annual % Increase Eisenhower 8 D 0.4 Kennedy/Johnson 8 U 4.8 Nixon/Ford 8 D 2.5 Carter 4 U 3.7 Reagan 8 D 3.3 Bush 4 D 3.4 Clinton 8 D 0.9 The only two long periods of fiscal restraint were the Eisenhower administration and the Clinton administration, during both of which the opposition party controlled Congress. Conversely, the only long period of unusual fiscal expansion was the Kennedy/Johnson administration, which brought us both the Great Society and the Vietnam War with the support of the same party in Congress. The annual increase in real federal spending during the current Bush administration, by the way, has been 4.4 percent -- not a happy state of affairs, given the war and a renewed majority of the president's party in both chambers of Congress. Point Two. The probability that a major reform will last is usually higher with a divided government because the necessity of bipartisan support is more likely to protect the reform against a subsequent change in the majority party. The Reagan tax laws of 1981 and 1986, for example, were both approved by a House of Representatives controlled by the Democrats and have largely survived. The major potential reforms of agriculture, telecommunications, and welfare in 1996 were approved by Clinton and a Republican Congress, although only the welfare reform has survived subsequent legislative and regulatory changes. The primary exception to this pattern, of course, is the Great Society. My judgment, however, is that the prospect for a major reform of the federal tax code, Medicare, or Social Security will be dependent on more bipartisan support than now seems likely in a united Republican government. Point Three. The prospect of a major war is usually higher with a united government, and the current war makes that clear. Each of the four major American wars in the 20th century, for example, was initiated by a Democratic president with the approval of a Congress controlled by Democrats. The war in Iraq, initiated by a Republican president with the support of a Republican Congress, is consistent with this pattern and has already proved to be the only use of U.S. military force lasting more than a few days that was initiated by a Republican president in over a century. American voters, in their unarticulated collective wisdom, have voted for a divided federal government for most of the past 50 years. Divided government is not the stuff of which legends are made. But the separation of powers is probably a better protection of our liberties when the presidency and the Congress are controlled by different parties.

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (13630)	10/25/2006 11:18:14 AM
From: ILCUL8R	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

All of this is a plausible scenario but I submit it is mostly crafted to strike fear in the hearts of people to motivate them to vote for Republicans. In other words, it is all just politically inspired opinion and not very honest opinion at that. Read this book: amazon.com The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End by Peter W. Galbraith My opinion is that bungling by Bush lost the Iraqi war almost from the beginning. But, my opinion remains that most of the liberal Democrats realize the gravity of the result and will not just "cut and run," rather they will help improve the quality of the dialog about what to do with our forces in the middle east. The result of this improved dialog might be that forces are withdrawn, or that they are focussed on other areas, or that they remain, or that more are brought in. But, these decisions will be made by a group less fenced in by having to defend their previous stupidity and arrogance. Read the book Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror by Michael Scheuer . My $0.02