What Can Government Do About It?
Karl Wee
how we need an "inspiring" presidential candidate, how "we" should address
the supposedly huge economic and social insecurities faced by many
Americans, etc. etc. The fact of the matter is, whether we like it or
not, that there is little that government can do, and where it has
tried, it has not only failed miserably but made us much worse off
than originally.
For example, our easy prosperity of the '50s and '60s were not a
product of government. It was simply a matter of the U.S. having the
only surviving sound industrial base after World War II. When
competition began coming from Europe and Japan in the '70s, the
average American began to lose the ability to cruise through school and
expect a lifetime of middle-class comfort with a virtually guaranteed
blue-collar manufacturing job.
Unfortunately, the easy life of '50s and '60s also created a mentality,
an entrenched sense of entitlement. Not only did people come to expect
not having to study hard and still getting decent jobs, the growing
tax base also created financially insidious entitlement programs whose
consequences we are only beginning to suffer today and will be suffering
very badly during the next few decades. Social Security pays the average
recipient five times what he paid into the system over his lifetime,
and even its money on paper ("trust fund" money which really doesn't
exist) will be dried up before the young workers today will retire.
Medicare suffers the same problem, only much worse. As a result, the
fantasy of the solvancy of these programs has lured many uninformed workers
into a false sense of security, which will make them more dependent on
these programs. The government's anti-poverty programs have been a
disaster, as have its attempts at "free" public education. It is
well known in economic circles that government-sponsored job training
programs rarely work. The New Deal never really cured the Great
Depression (which was finally cured by the war), and the only economic
policy that has really created our current wealth from pre-industrial
poverty is free enterprise.
(See Robert J. Samuelson's excellent new book, "The Age of Entitlement",
for a lucid discussion of the entitlement mentality.)
The fundamental problem of American society (and its fundamental strength,
too, by the way) comes from us, the people. We are the ones who truly
wield the ultimate power, the ballot. We are the ones who want the
best products at the cheapest prices but also feel we are somehow
owed a permanent good job simply by being born. We are the ones who
demand low taxes and high benefits and end up with a 5 trillion dollar
national debt. We are the ones who don't feel like working hard at
school, feel like watching sports rather than re-tooling during our
off-hours, and somehow think we should beat inflation every year in
our growth of income.
To be sure, politicians deserve their share of blame, particularly those
who spend the most time pandering to rather than pointing out our
logically inconsistent dreams. And those who create monstrously complex
programs that make it impossible for voters to vote intelligently on
policy issues, while creating lucrative opportunities for special interests
inside these complexities. But, ultimately, we are responsible, because
this is still a democracy.
It is time to stop looking around for the "inspiring" politician. At
this stage of the game, the best possible politician we can get is an
honest person who will conscientiously make sure government doesn't
do more harm than it already has, and that our public finances will
not pay too dearly for its excesses of the past. For inspiration and
hope, we have no choice but to look in the mirror. The next time you
hear a politician pandering to you, it really is too good to be true.
--
==========================================================================
|
Karl Wee | "Consensus is the negation of leadership."
Preferred email: kw...@sqa.com | -- Margaret Thatcher
bender
>For example, our easy prosperity of the '50s and '60s were not a
>product of government. It was simply a matter of the U.S. having the
The GI bill was a major factor in creating the American middle class. It
allowed many thousands of people to get an education who would never have
had that chance. These people moved into the workforce and greatly
increased productivity.
Is it just a coincidence that the most successful countries in the world
tend to have what you would call "liberal" governments; Japan, Canada,
many of the northern european countries.
Government is not inherently evil, the people who vote for bitter,
hateful, rhetoric spouting politicians are inherently evil.
Chloe Carter
>In this election season here in the U.S., it is fashionable to talk about
>how we need an "inspiring" presidential candidate, how "we" should address
>the supposedly huge economic and social insecurities faced by many
>Americans, etc. etc. The fact of the matter is, whether we like it or
>not, that there is little that government can do, and where it has
>tried, it has not only failed miserably but made us much worse off
>than originally.
This is pretty much the thesis of Robert Samuelson's recent book,
"The Good Life and its Discontents". Samuelson's main point is
that somewhere along the line we got the idea that government could
solve all sorts of social problems that it really doesn't have the
power to solve, and that government's all-too-predictable failure
to bring about the Perfect Society has lead to today's widespread
discontent with government.
The Gingrich Republicans are really just a different species of the
same over-promising politician, except that they are promising to
solve everyone's problems by *getting rid* of government, rather than
*using* government. The outcome is still the same: the problems don't
get solved, and people blame government and politicians.
>For example, our easy prosperity of the '50s and '60s were not a
>product of government. It was simply a matter of the U.S. having the
>only surviving sound industrial base after World War II.
It was partially that, but not only that. A very big contributor
to the prosperity of that era was the G.I. Bill, which gave access
to a college education to millions of qualified men who otherwise
would not have gone to college. If anyone in these skeptical times
is looking for an example of a government program that worked, the
G.I. Bill is a fine example.
>(See Robert J. Samuelson's excellent new book, "The Age of Entitlement",
>for a lucid discussion of the entitlement mentality.)
Aha! I too recommend Samuelson's book, but I was less impressed with
it than you seem to be. I don't really buy Samuelson's pervasive use
of the term 'entitlement'. Yes, we have created some 'entitlements'
over the past few decades, but I don't think that you can apply the
concept of entitlement to the wide range of phenomena. For example,
unlike Samuelson, I don't think that Americans really believe that
they are 'entitled' to a good job.
There has been at times an over-reaching on the part of government,
and some cases where government's attempts to solve problems failed,
but I don't attribute this to a sense of entitlement. I just think
that people want to try and solve problems, not just accept them as
some unstoppable force of nature. People believe that human problems
are solvable by humans.
>Karl Wee | "Consensus is the negation of leadership."
>Preferred email: kw...@sqa.com | -- Margaret Thatcher
- Chloe
Karl Wee
>The GI bill was a major factor in creating the American middle class. It
>allowed many thousands of people to get an education who would never have
>had that chance. These people moved into the workforce and greatly
>increased productivity.
College educated people has never been more than 20% or so
of the population. In fact it was much less than that in the "good
old days". How much of this small group was helped by the GI
bill is also a question. Yet the middle class was much larger
than that.
>
>Is it just a coincidence that the most successful countries in the world
>tend to have what you would call "liberal" governments; Japan, Canada,
>many of the northern european countries.
No. There is a fundamental force at work which makes people want
government to take care of more of their problems when countries
get rich. Liberal governments are the RESULT of prosperity,
not the cause. In fact, European countries have a chronically
two-digit unemployment rate on average, as a result of lack o
competitiveness and too much employment regulation. Japan is by no means
liberal in economic terms.
>
>Government is not inherently evil, the people who vote for bitter,
>hateful, rhetoric spouting politicians are inherently evil.
There is a fundamental reason why government programs don't
work. There's no reason for any party in the program be considerate
of the public pile and every reason to get the max for them-
selves. This includes beneficiaries, politicians, bureaucrats,
and private suppliers. In the end it is invariably the taxpayer
who gets the shaft. You can't blame people who become bitter when
their 15% contribution to Social Security becomes unreliable
because beneficiaries today are getting five times their lifetime
contributions. There are some real problems.
--
==========================================================================
Karl Wee
>The Gingrich Republicans are really just a different species of the
>same over-promising politician, except that they are promising to
>solve everyone's problems by *getting rid* of government, rather than
>*using* government. The outcome is still the same: the problems don't
>get solved, and people blame government and politicians.
The main thrust of the Republican program was basically to try
to rein in the excesses of the welfare state in order to make
it financially more stable, such as cutting the rate of growth
of Medicare from 11% to 6.5% a year. Or block granting programs
in order to link taxation to spending. The whole budget balancing
exercise was no more than saying, if the Americans want to feel
compassionate, they'll have to pay up. It was no radicalism at
all, much less getting rid of government. However, it would have
stabilized our long term future a lot more if Clinton hadn't stopped them
at every turn. The program hasn't failed to work; it hasn't been
carried out. And I don't think anyone has any illusion of this
solving everyone's problems.
>Aha! I too recommend Samuelson's book, but I was less impressed with
>it than you seem to be. I don't really buy Samuelson's pervasive use
>of the term 'entitlement'. Yes, we have created some 'entitlements'
>over the past few decades, but I don't think that you can apply the
>concept of entitlement to the wide range of phenomena. For example,
>unlike Samuelson, I don't think that Americans really believe that
>they are 'entitled' to a good job.
From my experience, there are so many resources available for
the individual to better himself (books, evening courses, libraries)
that it's hard to think of any reason why people have to blame
someone else for their economic misfortune (corporations, govts,
the Fed, etc.), especially when people who are laid off are typically
really lazy workers, to be perfectly frank. There are so many
good jobs chronically unfilled and waiting for qualified candidates
out there (the key word is qualified) that it's hard for me to
comprehend this thing called "economic anger" except with the
image of a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum. Yet, as
we've found out in New Hampshire, there is a huge population who direct
their anger at someone else for these problems. And this among
Republicans. God knows how many more Democrats think this way too.
>
>There has been at times an over-reaching on the part of government,
>and some cases where government's attempts to solve problems failed,
>but I don't attribute this to a sense of entitlement. I just think
>that people want to try and solve problems, not just accept them as
>some unstoppable force of nature. People believe that human problems
>are solvable by humans.
I guess the wisdom we've gained as a nation is that there are
some hidden costs of every attempt to have government solve a
problem, and that is the danger that the government programs
take on a life of their own and we can't take them down even
when they've become destructive in nature (e.g. Social Security
and Medicare.)
>
>>Karl Wee | "Consensus is the negation of leadership."
>>Preferred email: kw...@sqa.com | -- Margaret Thatcher
>
>- Chloe
Travis J.I. Corcoran
In article <Dn41w...@world.std.com> ben...@world.std.com (bender) writes:
> Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.economics,ne.politics
> From: ben...@world.std.com (bender)
> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 05:29:19 GMT
>
> Government is not inherently evil, the people who vote for bitter,
> hateful, rhetoric spouting politicians are inherently evil.
Ah. Argument by assertion and slandering.
Wonderfully convincing rhetoric.
--
TJIC (Travis J.I. Corcoran) http://www.openmarket.com/personal/tjic/index.html
Member EFF, GOAL, NRA.
opinions (TJIC) != opinions (employer (TJIC))
"Buy a rifle, encrypt your data, and wait for the Revolution!"
PGP encrypted mail preferred. Ask me about mail-secure.el for emacs.
Jack Worthington
The parable below was written by a friend and reviewed by another
friend(JPM). Your reasoned opinions are sought. Thanks.
In the Land of Saye
by
B. V.
A certain genie was traveling through parts unknown when he
happened upon a kingdom known as the Land of Saye. Passing
through the area, he noticed that it had a prosperous and vibrant
economy. The farms were well kept and tidy and he noted the
cheerfulness of the people as they moved their products along the
roads.
When he entered the villages and towns he again noticed the
vigor and purposefulness of the inhabitants. Although there
was prosperity, trade did not overflow its accustomed channels
and flood the countryside. There was a balance between the
various sectors of the economy.
The genie, impressed by what he saw, decided to linger a bit
in the kingdom and see if he might discover the causes of the
success of the place.
So he stopped at an inn in one of the larger towns with the
idea that he would talk to some of its learned men on the morrow.
This particular town had a university and the next day he paid a
visit to the illustrious professors at the Department of
Economics. The professor he interviewed was a pleasant old
fellow by the name of Smith. The first question the genie asked
Smith:
"How do you account for the evident prosperity of your
Kingdom. You must have more natural resources than the
neighboring kingdoms."
"On the contrary," said Smith, "we have few natural
resources. Our success is based on the application of sound
economic principles. In our country we follow the Golden Rule of
Economics: 'He who helps his neighbor helps himself.'"
Genie: That's a fine-sounding slogan but how does it work in
practice?
Smith: Very simply we believe that the various branches of
commerce should complement and help each other. Each
seller should have foremost in his mind the satisfying
of the needs and wants of his customer.
Genie: Be more specific.
Smith: For example, we tell the farmers that they must supply
the very best food at the most economical price to the
people in the city. Only in this way can city dwellers
be healthy and strong and raise strong, large-boned
children. And then they will efficiently produce the
materials and manufactured products that the farmers
need and in this way the farmers will benefit. And we
tell the city folks to work hard to produce the very
best plows and sickles and rakes so that the farmers
can be efficient and produce even more food for them at
even more economical prices. In short, we tell the
farmer it is good for the city dwellers to prosper
because then they can buy more of the products from the
farm. And we tell the city folks that it is good for
them when the farmers have good crops because then the
farmers can buy more of the products from the towns.
And we tell the factory workers that it is good
for them when the factory owner prospers because then
he can pay higher wages or invest in more equipment
that will make their labor more efficient which will,
in turn, lower the price of the goods they produce.
After all, the workers are the primary ones who buy
those goods. And we tell the factory owner that it is
good for him if his workers make good wages because
then they will have more buying power to pay for the
things the factories produce and also they will be able
to save some of their wages which can then be used to
invest in more efficient factories to make even more
goods for them.
And more generally, we tell the talented and
wealthy not to lord it over the less talented and poor
because they depend on them to supply many of their
needs. And besides their talents are not of their own
making--they are gifts from heaven.
And we tell the poor and less talented not to envy
those with talent and riches because they need them to
provide jobs and to make investments and to support
the charities and pay taxes that pay for the roads,
street lights, schools, etc. You may not know it but
we have more money paid to charities in this kingdom
than anywhere else. It's because we have so many rich
people. And men of talent--musicians, painters,
sculptors, calligraphers, poets, etc.--provide
intangible wealth that increases the enjoyment of life.
To summarize, in our kingdom, we honor diversity.
every honest calling is honorable.
The genie mulled over what Smith had said. "You seem to be
saying that your economy is based more on co-operation than
competition." "That's right," said Smith. "Much too much has
been made of the competitive nature of markets--of survival of
the fittest, the predator and the prey--and all that. There's an
element of competition but it's not the primary thing--not even
in nature.
Darwin and his offspring have greatly exaggerated the
competitive aspects of life. In nature and in markets, the
primary thing is cooperation and mutual satisfaction. Look at a
hive of bees, for example. They all work together. Only
infrequently does survival of the fittest come into play--such as
when the newly emerged queens fight each other."
The genie listened to all this without commenting. Finally
he said, "You also seem to place a lot of emphasis on production
of goods and services." "That's right," said Smith. "You help
the economy by your production not by your consumption. Some
economists have exalted consumption--but that's putting the cart
in front of the horse. In order to have consumption, there
must first be production." "But what about demand?" said the
genie. "What are you doing to ensure that there is enough demand
for the things your kingdom produces?"
"Very simple," said Smith. "The true source of demand--the
only true source of demand--is production. Mr. Farmer can only
buy the wool stockings of the woolens merchant if Mr. Farmer has
had favorable crops. In other words, Mr. Farmer's production is
the source of his demand. A few years ago we heard many
complaints from our merchants that they could not sell their
merchandise in a certain part of the kingdom. They suggested to
us that the farmers there didn't have enough money. After a
little investigation, we discovered that a shortage of money was
not the real problem. Rather, the farmers there had lost their
crops due to a hail storm. So it was their lack of production
that led to the lack of demand for the merchants' goods. So you
see when one branch of commerce suffers, the others suffer. But
when one succeeds--then the others share in the success."
Genie: So if production levels are maintained then demand
takes care of itself.
Smith: Exactly.
Genie: This brings me to another subject. Do you allow trade
with other kingdoms?
Smith: Absolutely. We must trade to get certain things we
need.
Genie: I noticed that the Kingdom of Socialism lies on your
Northern border. They seem to be having serious
problems with their economy. I noticed alot of
poverty as I traveled through there a few days ago. Do
you have much trade with them?
Smith: Very little.
Genie: Why is that? I should think with their low production
rates that they would have tremendous desires for your
products and constitute a source of limitless demand.
Smith: You are forgetting the basic principle of our land.
Only by producing the things that his neighbor wants
does one get the wherewithal (the "demand") to buy the
production of his neighbor. We can't sell our products
to the Kingdom of Socialism because that land doesn't
produce anything in return that we want.
Genie: How dull of me. But what about the kingdoms you do
trade with--the ones that do produce lots of products.
Aren't you afraid they will flood your kingdom with
goods and drive your own producers out of business.
Smith: Not at all. Remember they can sell us something only
if we sell something to them. And we will only buy if
having their product benefits us more than keeping the
product that we are selling. Remember--a fair deal is
not equal. Both sides must benefit from an exchange.
Genie: But your producers must resent the fact that the
foreigners are selling to their customers and thereby
drawing their demand away.
Smith: (slightly exasperated) You must have spent a long time
in the Kingdom of Socialism. Our producers like to see
foreigners selling here because only in this way can
the foreigners get the money to buy our producers'
products.
Genie: I'm starting to get a glimmer of what you are talking
about. Thank you and Good Day.
At this, the genie departed and went back to the Inn.
Although he was starting to understand a little of what Smith was
talking about, he felt that he had to hear the other side before
he made up his mind. So the next day, he headed for the Kingdom
of Socialism.
What a contrast when he crossed the border. Everywhere
farms were in disrepair, crops left unattended, people lying
about alongside the roads, listless and detached from their
surroundings. He traveled to the Capitol and found a room in the
inn. It was a dingy hole that smelled of boiled cabbage
and cheap gin. But it was the only place available. Next
morning, he went to the Government Building and found one of the
ruling elite--a man by the name of Engels.
Genie: You seem to be having a lot of poverty right now.
Engels: Yes, this is primarily due to the exploitation by
certain classes--particularly owners of capital. Also,
the farmers have been very troublesome lately--refusing
to sell their products at the controlled price.
Genie: But I understand that you have organized some of the
farm workers into co-operatives. How are production
levels there?
Engels: Not good. The weather has been poor. Also, the farm
workers are rather lazy and we have had problems with
theft and sabotage. We are educating them now in the
principles of socialism. No doubt things will improve.
Genie: What, in your opinion, is the problem with free
markets?
Engels: Very simply, they allow a system of exploitation. The
weak are crushed by the strong. The various branches
of commerce and society are natural enemies of each
other. And left alone, one group will exploit and
destroy the others. The farmer is the natural enemy of
the urban dweller and he will gouge and cheat him
whenever he can. And capital is the enemy of labor and
it will exploit it and gobble it up. We also believe
that the rich are natural enemies of the poor. Also,
the white race is the natural enemy of the black race.
And men are the natural enemies of women and the old
are enemies of the young. At least this is what we
teach. It may not be completely true, but at least if
we can widen the many natural separations between
people, then it becomes a lot easier to control them.
Genie: So you don't think that people left to themselves can
co-operate and work to each other's mutual
satisfaction?
Engels: No, and it's up to us to protect the weak and
downtrodden and ensure that they get their fair share.
Obviously, for the service we provide, we deserve some
reward, too.
Genie: I'm beginning to get a glimmer of what you are talking
about. But before I leave let me ask one further
question: How do you keep up the demand for products
in your kingdom?
Engels: Good question. First, understand that the secret to
success for any economy is that demand be kept high.
For this reason, we make sure that all our citizens
have a good supply of paper money. That way if
anything shows up at one of the stores, whoever is on
the spot will have the means to buy it. Of course,
things don't show up too often.
Genie: I'm beginning to understand. Thank you and Good Day.
Our genie had by now gotten a pretty good understanding of
the differences between the two kingdoms. But it was mostly a
theoretical understanding. He felt that before he could really
understand, he would have to go see the people themselves and see
how they behaved. After all, actions speak louder than words.
So the genie headed back to the Land of Saye with an idea
that he was sure would give him the ultimate truth he was looking
for.
He stopped at the first farm he came to. The farmer was
just applying the suction devices to his 100 cows for the nightly
milking in his modern, sanitary milking parlor. The genie
approached him.
"Mr. Farmer," the genie said. "I am a genie with magical
powers. I would like to make you a proposition. I will give you
anything you want--BUT whatever I give you, I am going to give
your neighbor twice as much."
The farmer was surprised at this offer, and sat down. He
soon whipped out his financial calculator which he carried in his
shirt pocket. For 20 straight minutes he ran calculations.
Finally he stopped. "Okay," said he. "Give me 100 more cows."
The genie replied, "You shall have your 100 cows and your
neighbor over yon shall have 200 cows. But first I would like to
ask you what prompted your decision. Aren't you afraid that you
will glut the market?"
"No," said the farmer. "With 300 more cows in this valley,
we will have enough production to justify setting up a cheese
factory. And, though it's true that there will be more cheese
than our town can use, there is a good export market out there.
"Aren't you afraid your neighbor will get ahead of you?"
asked the genie.
"No," said the farmer. "We will all benefit from the
co-operative cheese factory. And, besides there is a pretty good
chance that the other farmers will elect me president of it when
it goes into production."
At this, the genie produced the promised cows and then went
on his way back to the Kingdom of Socialism, Again, he stopped
at the first farm he came to. He approached the farmer who was
sitting in front of his dirty little hut, milking by hand his one
emaciated cow--the milk spraying into a dented and rusty bucket.
"Mr. Farmer," the genie said. "I am a genie with magical
powers. I would like to make you a proposition. I will give you
anything you want--BUT whatever I give you, I am going to give
your neighbor twice as much."
The farmer was very surprised at this offer and stopped
milking and sat pondering for a long time. Finally he looked
over at his neighbor's tiny paddock and an evil grin crept over
his face. "Let my cow die," he whispered.
Suddenly our genie realized that despite all his efforts he
had not completely understood the success of the Land of Saye
until that moment. And he said to himself: "Now, at last, I
really understand the difference between the Land of Saye and the
Kingdom of Socialism." Do you?
Jean Baptiste Saye(1762 to 1832)--French economist who first
enunciated what was later known as Saye's Law of Markets. A
simplified version of it: "supply creates its own demand". But
there is really much more.
In the Land of Saye DATE 03/17/95 B.V.
Andy Borsa
>
I'd say this parable succinctly illustrates the growing battle over the soul
and foundations of the USA. Will we strive for freedom and success for all
as in the Land of Saye, or will we opt for control and equal poverty for all
as in the Land of Socialism?
The results of this battle will dictate our success or failure for decades to
come.
--
Andy Borsa -- !!!The Universe is discretely analog!!!
Travis J.I. Corcoran
In article <4go0al$c...@upsun21.up.edu> ja...@up.edu (Jack Worthington) writes:
> From: ja...@up.edu (Jack Worthington)
> Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.economics,ne.politics
> Date: 24 Feb 1996 13:35:17 -0800
>
> In article <TJIC.96Fe...@alta.openmarket.com>,
> Travis J.I. Corcoran <tj...@alta.openmarket.com> wrote:
> >
> >In article <Dn41w...@world.std.com> ben...@world.std.com (bender) writes:
> >
> >> Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.economics,ne.politics
> >> From: ben...@world.std.com (bender)
> >> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 05:29:19 GMT
> >>
> >> Government is not inherently evil, the people who vote for bitter,
> >> hateful, rhetoric spouting politicians are inherently evil.
> >
> >Ah. Argument by assertion and slandering.
> >
> >Wonderfully convincing rhetoric.
> >
> The parable below was written by a friend and reviewed by another
> friend(JPM). Your reasoned opinions are sought. Thanks.
>
>
> In the Land of Saye
Very good parable.
Of course, the people most in need of it will refuse to listen...
Jeffrey N Woodford
-Jeff
--
Jeffrey N. Woodford || Email: jwoo...@unlgrad1.unl.edu || Physical Chemistry
Homepage: http://wildcat.dementia.org/jeffw/index.html || Graduate Student
"The devils of truth steal the souls of the free" --NIN || (2nd Year) at UN-L
A T Furman
>In this election season here in the U.S., it is fashionable to talk about
>how we need an "inspiring" presidential candidate, how "we" should address
>the supposedly huge economic and social insecurities faced by many
>Americans, etc. etc. The fact of the matter is, whether we like it or
>not, that there is little that government can do, and where it has
>tried, it has not only failed miserably but made us much worse off
>than originally.
>
>[...]
>
>It is time to stop looking around for the "inspiring" politician. At
>this stage of the game, the best possible politician we can get is an
>honest person who will conscientiously make sure government doesn't
>do more harm than it already has, and that our public finances will
>not pay too dearly for its excesses of the past. For inspiration and
>hope, we have no choice but to look in the mirror. The next time you
>hear a politician pandering to you, it really is too good to be true.
This is precisely the point of Harry Browne's new book _Why Government
Doesn't Work_ (St. Martin's Press). Government CAN'T be fixed because
it IS the problem. The only way out is to reduce it -- not in the
piddling way the Republicans promised to do, but DRASTICALLY (i.e.,
reduce it to what was originally intended in the Constitution).
The book very patiently explains why this is so, and gives a plan
for immediately cutting back the State, invigorating the economy, and
restoring lost individual liberty. It is aimed at the general reader.
Check it out. Buy it and give it to others. It will be a very effective
tool in bringing them over to your side on this issue.
Also, Browne expects to be running for president on the Libertarian
ticket so that he can put his plan into practice.