Thursday, November 04, 2004

A good start

Our friends at Q and O blog have some interesting stuff today, and the best of the bunch is probably resident grump McQ's Open Letter to the Bush Administration (click title to this post). Not much to disagree with here on McQ's shopping list:

Less government. In fact, a lot less government. And by that I also mean government that stays out of the bedroom as well as out of the boardroom. So back off the marriage amendment nonsense. That’s something the people should decide at a much lower level. And they are.

Want to cut taxes? Me too. But with that wish goes an obligation. That obligation is to cut spending. You’re a lame duck now, and you’re known to be a person who’ll make hard and unpopular decisions. How about making a promise to radically cut spending and fund programs in place through ruthless cuts in bureaucracy and waste? I mean why in the world are we still paying a mohair subsidy? Isn’t that the poster boy program for government waste? That and just about every other subsidy being paid could be eliminated. Why not do so?

* * *
I like your concept of an ownership society . . . Want a government role in retirement? Find a way to facilitate it instead of a way to run it. You’re private investment idea is a step in the right direction.

Health care? Get the heck out of it. Again, a government role should be in facilitation, not provision. Want to cut the number of people without health insurance? Easy. Get it out of the realm of employers and in the realm of associations with large pools . . . Buying our insurance through large associations (such as AARP to name one) we belong to would do three things immediately. First it would spread the risk over the number of association members and thereby lower the cost. Secondly, health insurance [ ] now [would be] portable. It doesn’t matter if you take 5 different jobs in a year, the moves don’t effect your health insurance at all. And third, you’ve just eliminated the problem of "pre-existing conditions" that come with job changes and therefore insurance changes.

Add some judges who refrain from legislating from the bench and realize that judicial restraint is not some sick S&M game judges play with their attractive clerks and McQ's onto a decent domestic agenda.

No comments: