Inject competition by splitting federal agencies in two
Re: “A cure for the federal debt cancer,” editorial, July 19
The plethora of federal programs is one of America’s worst problems, but Congress’ creating a duplicate of FEMA Cooperative Technical Partners actually make sense. Cutting government bureaucracies in two means better value for the taxpayer.
If there were two National Park Services, each working an equal share of the national parks, they could be readily compared with one another, giving outsiders an objective way to assess each one. Each half would be more honest and efficient, if only to look better in relation to its opposite.
One might argue that splitting agencies would mean less cooperation. Perhaps, but the different military branches work well together despite their separate organizational structures. One might also argue it would lead to reduced economies of scale, but the constant turnover in Fortune 500 rankings shows that sheer size is a very minor benefit.
Nat Kidder
Ashburn, Va.
Redefining meaning of ‘victory’ in Afghanistan
Re: “It’s Obama’s war, all right,” July 13
As I read Gene Healy’s commentary, I couldn’t help but recall a letter from a Marine in which he described the Afghan populace as essentially “cavemen with AK-47s” for whom improving the quality of life is a hopeless concept.
Which begs the question: What exactly is our mission in Afghanistan again?
Supposedly, a painful and expensive “long war” of nation building in Iraq may yet be seen as ultimately successful a generation from now. But Afghanistan, it seems, will require far more than a single generation given the crippling levels of underdevelopment and fractured tribal cultures hostile to civility. Perhaps we need to re-evaluate our terms of “victory” in Afghanistan.
David Morris
Leesburg, Va.
Stop blaming Bush for financial meltdown
It’s past time to correct the president and other uninformed people who insist that George W. Bush is responsible for the country’s economic mess. Anyone who has read Article 1 of the Constitution knows that the House of Representatives must appropriate every dollar before it is spent. The spending must be agreed to by the Senate and signed by the president (Article ll).
Democrats were in control of both the House and Senate as of Jan. 3, 2007, as a result of the November 2006 elections. After their control became effective, the economy began to tumble. There were some unwise expenditures made before 2007, but those costs were manageable. President Bush vetoed excessive spending bills, but his vetoes were overridden.
Bush cautioned in his State of the Union address that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac needed to be controlled. Democrats disagreed. Republican senators attempted to pass bills to do so, but they were thwarted by Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Joseph P. Carrigan
Fairfax
