On 15/11/2008, at 5:56 AM, Dave Land wrote: > On Nov 14, 2008, at 8:26 AM, John Williams wrote: > >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/12/AR2008111202846_pf.html >> >> "Considering how taxpayers' money around Washington isn't >> respected, a >> day shouldn't go by without having an inspector general checking on >> it," >> said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member on the >> Finance Committee. > > I'm in agreement with Sen. Grassley and the underlying idea that our > money must be spent responsibly. I think anybody would be.
Absolutely, and this is where the checks and balances in the US Constitution were so revolutionary (as was the Magna Carta before it, in its day). Accountability is the most important thing in governance in my view, whether it be a national government or a local authority, a multinational corporation or mom-and-pop-shop, an international charity or a locolly run charitable trust. > I don't want to start a proof-text war here: let's not begin Googling > for every possible example of fiscal profligacy and responsibility and > mail-bombing Brin-L with it. I just want us to be aware that these two > straw-man twins are out there and they are just straw-men. Indeed. As I have pointed out, the only substantive difference between viewpoints on this List is the degree to which we view goverment control as acceptable. It's not an all or nothing. Some of us regard government responsibility for public services as essential, some do not. But it's only a difference in where we draw the line of "how-much- is-too-much". Personally I think utilities and transport should be publically owned but run as private concerns - IOW the taxpayers are the shareholders, but the responsibility is down to an appointed board, as with any other big company... It works for, for example, Australia Post. Charlie. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
