Comments on: Internal Improvements II http://www.wholesomereading.com/2008/12/14/internal-improvements-ii/ Musings on culture and politics by baseball writer Steven Goldman Sat, 19 May 2012 10:19:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Tony http://www.wholesomereading.com/2008/12/14/internal-improvements-ii/#comment-544 Tony Tue, 16 Dec 2008 03:41:10 +0000 http://www.wholesomereading.com/?p=375#comment-544 Looking forward to this. Give us a bibliography! This is a good chance for you to put a recommended books section up to the right, a la marginalrevolution.com Looking forward to this. Give us a bibliography! This is a good chance for you to put a recommended books section up to the right, a la marginalrevolution.com

]]> By: helno51 http://www.wholesomereading.com/2008/12/14/internal-improvements-ii/#comment-542 helno51 Mon, 15 Dec 2008 05:15:28 +0000 http://www.wholesomereading.com/?p=375#comment-542 Steve, Id like to respond since I was referenced in your post. I think you may have misunderstood my comment (or maybe I misunderstood your initial post). I am very familiar that cabinet posts were not created in the Constitution and have developed over time so if you are talking about carving something out of Commerce and making it its own specific department, thats a different story. While I may not agree that the specific task deserves its own special department, I can understand how someone might want a department to concentrate on a task that they see as vital. I was more concerned that the government, under your suggestion, would be setting up a new department while also leaving that function under Commerce as well. There are many, many examples of departments that are running programs that do the exact same thing (or nearly the exact same thing) as programs being run by other departments and that only increases the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of the government. Now, as for elevating POW (or anything else) to is own department, I think it depends on the amount of money that is going to be spent. If Obama is really going to ramp it up to near Eisenhower levels than it probably should increase in promenance within the government for many reasons such as its monetary significane and for accountibility purposes. My own thoughts on public works is that some are definitely necessary but Im not sure this is something that is going to be able to spur the economy which seems to be as big a reason for doing it as the improved infrastructure. My other concern is that it becomes a big slush fund that every local politician in the country hits up to fund their meaningless pet projects. That isnt going to accomplish anything. Also based on some of the quotes you included in your initial post, it sounds again like the government is working at cross purposes. On the one hand Obama is all gung ho about the environment and carbon and global warming, etc, etc but it sure sounds like this could involve a lot of road building and improving, which would seem to contradict his stated environmental views and would mean the government is throwing money at both sides of an issue ensuring that nothing will change and we will waste a ton of money in the process, while nothing changes. Steve, Id like to respond since I was referenced in your post. I think you may have misunderstood my comment (or maybe I misunderstood your initial post). I am very familiar that cabinet posts were not created in the Constitution and have developed over time so if you are talking about carving something out of Commerce and making it its own specific department, thats a different story. While I may not agree that the specific task deserves its own special department, I can understand how someone might want a department to concentrate on a task that they see as vital. I was more concerned that the government, under your suggestion, would be setting up a new department while also leaving that function under Commerce as well. There are many, many examples of departments that are running programs that do the exact same thing (or nearly the exact same thing) as programs being run by other departments and that only increases the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of the government.

Now, as for elevating POW (or anything else) to is own department, I think it depends on the amount of money that is going to be spent. If Obama is really going to ramp it up to near Eisenhower levels than it probably should increase in promenance within the government for many reasons such as its monetary significane and for accountibility purposes.

My own thoughts on public works is that some are definitely necessary but Im not sure this is something that is going to be able to spur the economy which seems to be as big a reason for doing it as the improved infrastructure. My other concern is that it becomes a big slush fund that every local politician in the country hits up to fund their meaningless pet projects. That isnt going to accomplish anything. Also based on some of the quotes you included in your initial post, it sounds again like the government is working at cross purposes. On the one hand Obama is all gung ho about the environment and carbon and global warming, etc, etc but it sure sounds like this could involve a lot of road building and improving, which would seem to contradict his stated environmental views and would mean the government is throwing money at both sides of an issue ensuring that nothing will change and we will waste a ton of money in the process, while nothing changes.

]]>