There are too many things that take on a life of their own once they are instituted, and they don't have Sarah Palin's "death panels" to pass muster over them.
There are too many laws and programs that were appropriately constructed to meet the public good at the time they were instituted, and now are out of alignment with the original objectives, current objectives, but have entrenched vested interest groups that want to perpeturate it them as they are, even if they are not meeting useful objectives for the times we live in.
The National Health Care debate is an example.
The original intent of Proposition 13 in 1978 and its current consequences is an example.
The California prison system and 3 strikes notion is an example.
The public employee compensation and retirement program for most California municipalities is an example.
I consider myself to be a middle of the road guy when it comes to political matters. I cite these examples of how I really question if people have a clear sense of purpose about what the desired outcomes are for the tax paying public and the services receiving public when choices are made.
I find two things objectionable:
--Rabid ideological positions at both extremes that compromise compromise
--Vested interests in the status quo that are almost Darwinian in the drama, survining for their own sake, not the "customer."
In this case the citizens and tax payers
Intellectually, this is much more interesting than following the 2008 Presidential campaign, or following the W White House for the last few years, which was a game of gotcha as best as I could tell.
But there is something troubling about this. I don't have a finger on it, and I will be interested in some thoughtful discourse from others.
Please folks, don't wave the usual polemics or question where I am coming from. That is not what my privilege to be a blogger on PA On Line is about.