Well, then that settles the whole question of government spending on new agencies. LOL.

As I recall, my "doctrinaire" comments (not sure what "doctrine" you mean, other than opposition to deficit spending) were about the recklessness of perpetual deficit spending and the now decades-running profligate climate in Washington, in which money can be printed out of thin air and spent like Monopoly $$$'s.

My point certainly wasn't as picayune as some single and utterly negligible job in the White House.

Over-simplified as your point is, how many government-efficiency-making government agencies have ever worked? Al Gore's "Reinventing Government"?

Show me ONE historic federal success. ONE.

(If you could, Obama wouldn't be palming anything off on a "performance officer" with his fancy talking points).

Also, your parting shot is just plain distortion, implying that a libertarian view is knee-jerk in opposition to creation of any agency...even one that would, IN FACT (not just in the fantasies of its creators at the moment of its creation) result in a net reduction of government waste, inefficiency, or excess.

One of the things I learned in first year government from my wise old prof, was that no purported efficiency/savings agency or plan or scheme is worth spit when Congress and the President know they can collude to spend however and on whatever their whims desire.

Bet your bippy any such "savings" will never be a matter of the bottom (net) line, but rather an opportunity to spend these "savings" somewhere else.

It's just the culture, Dana. Your anecdote and Obama's promises aren't worth jack in light of overwhelming reality.

But hey, we'll see. I always have "hope" when it comes to government efficiency and spending reduction.

But faith is whole 'nother matter.
Tyler Nixon | Homepage | 01.07.09 | #