
       If you happen to know a political position which does not
have people advocating it who do more harm than good, please point it
out.
       

       One of the advantages and draw-backs of requiring proof
on the part of the government before they may take action against
citizens.  (and part of the reason some of us believe weapons should
be available.)


       We are not arguing the absolute sanctity of the U.S.
Constitution.  In fact, the fillibuster we're talking about isn't
*in* the Constitution.  I objected to your suggestion that the Senate
wasn't intended to exercise the power it was clearly given.


       I'll point out again that Reagan only had a Republican Majority
in the Senate during his first term, and his coalition in the House
came apart at about the same time.  Bush never had any real support in
Congress.

       The real point is that everybody, *everywhere* got their pork,
from the big corporations to the guy I saw last night leaving a
convenience store with an armful of junk-food he'd bought with
food stamps.  (He spent more in food stamps on junk than I *make* in a week
and I'm not on government assitance.)


       Lessee, let's pull out the old Almanac.

       In 1980, total U.S. government budget outlays were 590.9 billion
dollars.  In 1992 (est) they were 1.4754 trillion dollars, an increase of
approx. 884 billion dollars.

       In 1980, National Defense cost 133.9 billion dollars.  In
192 it was 307 billion dollars, and increase of 174 billion dollars.
That leaves an increase of 710 billion dollars unaccounted
for.  (This represented an increase of 230%)

       In 1980, Income Security (which includes retirement programs,
Housing Assitance, and unemployment benefits, and I believe welfare)
cost 86.5 billion dollars.  In 1992 it was 198 billion dollars, or
more than national defense started.  (This represented an increase
of 230%)

       In 1980, the Federal Government spent 32 billion dollars on
Medicare.  In 1992 they spent 118 billion dollars.  (an increase of
368%)

       In 1980, the Feds spent 9 billion dollars on housing
credits and subsidies of that like.  In 1992 it was 87 billion.

       In 1980, Health care services and research was 23 billion
dollars.  In 1992, it was 94 billion dollars.

       Agriculture, up 9 billion to 17 billion.

       Science, up 11 billion to 16 billion.

       Resource conservation up 7 billion to 20 billion.

       Education up 14 billion to 45 billion.

       Veteran benefits up 12 billion to 33 billion.

       Trasnportation up 13 billion to 34 billion.
     
       About the only things I see which was seriously decreased was under 
the Energy category, primarily under "Supply," and "Community Development,"
in the area of "disaster relief," and between the two of them
represent a loss of less than 11 billion dollars.

       Where *was* this huge diversion?


       Not that's a stretch.  If the current government was pushed by
the President to create this mess, wouldn't one expect it to begin to
equalize once the pressure is gone?


       Only assuming that the new role is a positive role we want
to continue. I see very little positive about it.


       The Constitution was *designed* to frustrate the democratic
process, so that the voters could be absolutely sure they were getting
what they wanted by the time it happened.  Nor do I see putting the
brakes on the "democratic process" an inherently bad thing.  Califronia's
riding the edge and every time they pull their ballot initiative nonsense
it gets worse.


       Sometimes, or perhaps most of the time, the people should be
told, "no," and pointed to their local government.       


       Phill, would you do me the very great favor of repeating that
in talk.politics.guns?


       Cute.  We can eliminate violations of the law by eliminating
the law.


       Free speech alone is dangerous, Phill.


       OK, Phill.  All you gotta show me is a clear pattern of
*reduction* in homicide rates across several countries and that'll
be it.  (Not current, mind, you, reduction.)



        Who's chaining anything to freedom of speech?  By *calling*
it a freedom?  


       Phill, you're a master of subtly changing the subject.  I haven't
*based* my argument against raw democracy on the Constitution.  I've
tried to explain why it isn't a good idea.  The only time I've referred
to the Constitution is to point out it doesn't contain the restrictions
on the veto and the Senate you appear to believe were "meant," but
just didn't make it in there.
     
       The Constitution doesn't *contain* the 41% fillibuster rule.
I only believe that the rule is a good idea.  You cn't dismiss that
as venerating the Constitution because it isn't *in* the Constitution.