Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna
Too bad you and I aren't in charge, Steve. If I was the benevolent dictator and you were my consigliore--or vice versa--a state-by-state or region-by-region test might be an OK idea. Then you and I could choose where it would be tried out and for how long. But we've got "the 435" involved in this thing, and they'd all want the test to be in their district or their state.
To some extent, whatever reforms are finally agreed to will wind up getting rolled out over an extended period of time. I've read somewhere that whatever changes are agreed to might not take effect until as late as 2015. That would be plenty of time for people to disect the programs and demand changes. Heck, we'll have a presidential election and three Congressional elections before then. I'm looking for some small solace in how long implementation might actually take.
|
Even if NO changes ("reform" indicates a positive) occur in the next ten years, the government agency to manage/oversee/fiddle this action will have been created, funded, contractors hired in lieu of employees to fill offices, write regulations and procedural documents, design a new logo and issue new business cards and signs, make titles, provide political appointee jobs, go on fact-finding missions, establish and staff field offices, and SPEND MONEY on all of the overhead activities to "be ready" to do something. What a waste!
This wouldn't be so idiotic if just half the congressfolk and either the President or Vice President had any credentials, experience and understanding in delivery of consumer services. - any kind of consumer service! It's like a group of short-order cooks deciding federal railroad policies.
We elect representatives (President, Congressfolk. et al) to act as our legislative and administrative agents. When they are not knowledgeable about the subject at hand, their responsibility is to get smart about it before acting. That includes full dissection of the bill in front of them section-by-section, meeting with experts to acquire any mission knowledge, and voting only when fully knowledgeable about the pros and cons. Anything less is poor performance, and any other agent we have who acted poorly would be immediatgely discharged. I would rather have a representative/agent vote "abstain" if the rep didn't understand fully what was before him/her, than vote Yea or Nay out of ignorance. What this action, as many others before it, show is that the representative is not the voter's agent, but rather is the party's agent - save for a few who still believe in the Constitution.
Even if the program is scrapped, the new "health care reform" federal agency shall continue to breathe, be fed, and "be ready" just in case. Both parties will insure that the political appointee slots remain no matter what, and the contractors will continue to fill positions in lieu of.
Fire them all in 2010 (House and 1/3 Senate), and the rest in 2012.