Friday, May 12, 2006

Monk To Marry Mary Katharine Ham

As soon as she says "Heck Yeah".

And why wouldn't she??

Shush!

So what brought on this Merry Mad Moment®?

This ratchere:

I am all sincerity when I say that my love for limited government is born of compassion. I went to inner-city public schools. As a result, I had a lot of experience with the ins and outs of social programs from an early age. I saw what they did to weaken the family structure--particularly the black family-- which in turn hurt my fellow students' chances of succeeding in school. I saw how the class warfare rhetoric of those who supported such programs was a contributing factor to the sad state of race relations in my city.

I recognized that a public housing program that gave away plaques and held ceremonies for people who had lived in the projects the longest might not be the best way to encourage citizens to take charge of their lives. And, I eventually realized that it was not wrong to wish more for people than a government handout when our country has so much more to offer. Because, from what I saw, the programs that sought to help many of the people I grew up with were the very things that hurt them most of all.

I really, honestly, truly believe that every American citizen and the light of the American spirit has a better chance of surviving and thriving outside the giant, clumsy snuffer the federal government likes to call "assistance."

Yes, people need help sometimes. They need a safety net, but I just think the federal government is very good at saying its helping and not so good at actually helping.

So, why is it so bad at it? I think it's because the federal government is so daggone big! Seriously, no one knows what's going on up here. It's so big that no one even bothers checking to see whether programs are working or not.

Some are pushing an idea-- that Bush, to his credit, has backed in the past-- to form a sunset commission, which would evaluate federal programs, identify the failing and the redundant, and then ask Congress to vote up-or-down on whether those programs should continue to exist. Many folks outside the Beltway would think we probably already do this. It's common sense, right?

Nah! Not in D.C., y'all. As of last year, these were some of the redundancies in the federal government, according to The Heritage Foundation:

- 342 economic development programs
- 130 programs serving the disabled
- 130 programs serving at-risk youth
- 90 early childhood development programs
- 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange
activities
- 72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water
- 50 homeless assistance programs

You think maybe, just maybe, there's something we could cut in there? You think just one or two of those programs might disappear and we wouldn't notice the difference? And, wouldn't improving the efficiency of those programs be good, not only for current and future taxpayers, but for the people the programs serve?

Read it all.

No comments: