"Tarr, Kevin" wrote:
> First thanks about the numbers. Right off I see Gore was wrong again because
> the 1998 numbers are the same as the 1966 numbers which would have been the
> Johnson, not the Kennedy, administration. (hehe)
I know you're teasing a bit here but (in light of the fact that Gore is
constantly being accused of inaccuracies and of exaggerating) I want to point
out that Gore said the _number of Gov. employees_ was at its lowest point
since JFK, not the employee per citizen ratio (stats Dan posted). I did see
at least one post debate analysis that said his numbers were accurate.
All the hype about gov. being too large and too intrusive seems to me to be
just that: hype. Reagan/Bush made _no_ concerted effort to eliminate the
departments you mention or reduce gov. in any significant way when they had
the chance. What is W's plan? I haven't heard anything substantive. The
conclusion has to be that the Republicans are all talk, no action.
> The last part was what I was worried about. I was more making the point that
> the first poster was charging that Clinton's cabinet did and Gore's cabinet
> would 'look like America' while for Bush it would be full of old white men,
> maybe 'looking for America'. Yes I can see that the cabinet should have 50%
> women and 11% black and all the rest, but I can't help it if there aren't,
> yet, experienced people for the job who fit the profiles that others would
> like.
>
But there are enough experienced people in those sub-groups and Clinton has
proved that. Not only has he proved it, he's forced the Republicans to at
least try to look like they are doing the same thing. But to any but the most
casual observer, the minorities that they proudly parade around are little but
window dressing. And even the window dressing has substantial differences of
opinion with mainstream Republicans. Colin Powell, for instance, is pro life
and pro affirmative action.
> I know there are inequities all around. In fact I would have a challenge to
> Clinton's 'looks like America' cabinet. How many were single parents? How
> many were the 'working poor'? How many had no health insurance? How many
> were fearful that they could lose their job and all benefits that day?
Now you're being disingenuous. Should we ask how many are crack cocaine
addicts? How many are car thieves? Of course not. We ask that successful
people from all walks of life fill important government jobs. We ask for
diversity not for it's own sake but because we need our government to
understand problems from every perspective in order to arrive at an equitable
and sustainable solutions. And because people should be able to look at their
government and say with pride that they are deservedly included.
We don't need bigger government and we don't need smaller government, we need
_better_ government, regardless of size.
Doug
