Jay's Tuesday Free Enterprise Quote - 12 June 2012

James - history repeats itself because we don't learn from it!

Randy - in parts of his various works he predicts that such bureaucratic growth would be the demise of the "Republic."

Richard - or we all lose.

Steven - that's what we need, more laws!  That nobody can describe or understand, maybe, but hey, more laws!

Than - it is incestuous and insidious!

Karl - and the rest of the story?

This "move" is reported by the "White House" to save $3 billion OVER 10 YEARS!  That means it will save $80.  And during those 10 years the gubment will spend a proposed $240 TRILLION!  That there is some real savings!

Analysis:

" On its face, this sounds positive—streamlining, reducing duplication and complexity, and improving service. As long as implementation of the President’s proposal does not become womb-to-tomb government regulation of trade or entrepreneurship, it may prove a useful step in facilitating competition by U.S. business in markets abroad.

The President’s request that Congress restore statutory authority for plans to reorganize government agencies—an authority Presidents had for many years but expired in 1984—is good in concept. Such legislation should give to a President broad authority to propose changes, including abolishment of agencies, and should ensure that a presidential proposal receives a timely up-or-down vote in Congress. Above all, the process must provide that the President’s plan takes effect when the Congress approves it by joint resolution, rather than having the plan automatically take effect unless Congress disapproves it by joint resolution.

The latter automatic approach would cede too much authority to the executive branch, as whatever plan the President came up with to change government would take effect automatically as long as the President retained the support of the one-third of one house of Congress necessary to sustain a presidential veto of a joint resolution of disapproval. Significant changes in the organization and functioning of the federal government should have the support of a majority of both houses of Congress. "  Heritage analysis January 18, 2012

But hey, it saves big bucks!  On whose side would Tacitus be - Heritage or the "White House?"

Pat - and all you have to do is turn off Facebook or ignore it!  Try that with any gubment, which has true power.

Not me Mike!  Tacitus!  The gubment HAS to keep itself fat!  And look at Wisconsin to see what they gubment workers do when the citizenry learns they simply don't have enough fat to give!  In Virginia our governor, who inherited a huge deficit, simply went back to 2006 spending.  We are in the black and I did not notice any disruption in services.

Thanks Steve.  These problems have been around for millennia.

I'm not against streamlining gubment Karl!  Hooray for that!  But it is a bit of fluff, don't you think, to "streamline" an amount that is less than a drop in the bucket, um hot tub, um pool, um lake, um Pacific Ocean and pretend it is accomplishment. 

And the best sunset clause I can think of was proposed years ago with term limits for Congressmen and Senators.  As I recall that was the only thing not passed in that proposal!  Hmmm, I wonder why not?

C'mon Karl.  Solyndra isn't about the amount of money!  That is bad enough, but that money was "awarded" after it was obvious the company was going down.  Where did it go?  Can you spell c-r-o-n-i-e-s and s-l-u-s-h f-u-n-d?

And I don't want it both ways.

I still like your sunset clause idea.  But not as much as I like Santa Claus.

How cool is it that something said so long ago is held up today as wise!  Thanks Steve, Tacitus would be proud to be featured!

Thanks Steve!  I will email him.

Gayle - I don't know what a kind of nose that would be, but he certainly doubted the benefits of bureaucracy.