🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <30p699$mm4@crl.crl.com> dk@crl.com (David A. Kaye) writes:
>Russ Vreeland (russ@.etdesg.trw.com) wrote:
>
>: If laying off all government workers could cause an unemployment rate of 25%,
>: then our government is far, far, too big already.
>
>The unemployment rate is 8% currently.  Laying off all government workers 
>would realistically raise it by 17% to 25%.  Of course a lot of people 
>work for the government.  Look at how many services you get from the 
>government: water, sewer, local streets, highways, schools, transit, 
>mediating disputes over property claims (survey work in this case), the 
>entire court system, the DMV, police, fire protection, administration of 
>welfare plans such as Social Security (the biggest welfare bite of all), 
>and on and on.  You're bitching for the sake of bitching.  Government is 
>not "far, far too big"; by the condition of streets, our libraries, and 
>schools, it's obvious that it's not big enough.

How is size of the government corelated to the level of service provided?
If anything, David Kaye's remark points out that the government,
be it federal, state, county, city, or other IS NOT serving the needs
of the people.

I happen to disagree with your last statement.  Government is too big, period.
That it happens to be mis-spending money on other things, use you imagination
here, and not spending it on things I consider important, your idea may
be different, IS NOT an indication that it is too small.  If anything it
is too big, or trying to do too many things, or it has no idea what it 
is trying to do.  Take you pick.

JGT
-- 
John G. Thompson        jgthomps@us.oracle.com       Oracle Secure Systems