🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <26MAR199313552586@cc.utah.edu> djs1539@cc.utah.edu (SEGAL, DAVID JAY) writes:
>In article <SMITH.93Mar24182949@minerva.harvard.edu>, smith@minerva.harvard.edu (Steven Smith) writes...
>{ 
>{The WSJ requested help identifying these individuals, so I scanned the
>{list and present it here along with the accompanying article with the
>{hope that it will help to illuminate these proceedings whose outcome
>{could affect all Americans and their progeny, but are nevertheless
>{insulated from public inspection and debate.
>
>What's the big deal?  There are hundreds of committees in Washington.  Most
>people don't know who's on them; most people don't care.  Why don't you
>wait to see what they come up with and spend your energy evaluating that?
>Isn't the message more important than the messenger?  
>Besides,
>I don't understand why people are so focused on the publicity of this
>particular committee's meetings.  I think the only ones who really have
>a problem with it are the MD types, who stand the most to lose from 
>health care reform.  For guys like me, who have the most to gain from
>reform, I say get off their backs.  Finally somebody's actually doing
>something.  Almost anything is better than the system we've got now.
>Besides, the committee can't pass any legislation by itself anyway.
>

  Also note that these whiners were nowhere to be found when Danny's
Cabal on Competitiveness held its secret meetings to overturn
regulations which had been arrived at through the open proposal
and comment process.

-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig