Mitt Romney may have pleased ideological conservatives with his selection of Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as his Vice Presidential running mate, but he has effectively ceded whole groups of voters by so doing.
Since Ryan’s budget plan called for the end of Medicare and creation of a voucher system instead, it is hard to imagine a majority of senior citizens being naive enough to vote for Romney.
Since Ryan has voted for a fence along the Mexican border and voted against the DREAM Act, how can it be assumed that the majority of Hispanic voters, particularly the two thirds who are of Mexican heritage, are going to vote for Romney?
SInce Ryan is a devout Catholic, who believes in preventing abortion rights and is for restrictions on contraceptives and other matters that concern women, it is difficult to imagine a majority of women, except for very devout women who are Catholic, evangelical Christian, or Orthodox Jewish, voting for Romney.
Beyond that, young people will come to realize that the Ryan budget plan in the House of Representatives would cut Pell Grants for their education, and that Ryan was against any action to keep interest rates on student loans at the present rate. So why would young people, particularly those who are college educated, and who will also find Republican governed states making it harder for them to vote in their college communities, vote in majorities for Romney?
In many respects, Mitt Romney has committed political suicide by his choice of Paul Ryan!
Hahahaha! What a pathetic and completely dishonest post. It’s hilarious the way you liberals simply can’t tell the truth.
You must be one of those liberals who supports the $716 BILLION that President Obama and the Democrat Party stole from Medicare to pay for their disastrous and ill-conceived Obamacare. That is the ONLY plan that destroys Medicare as seniors now have it.
The truth about the Ryan Plan is that it changes NOTHING for those seniors you seem to think are too stupid to understand facts. Nobody over 55 would have any changes made to their Medicare.
It’s only when liberals like you continue to repeat the lies of President Obama and the Democrat demagoguery that people begin to worry.
Nice how liberals are willing to terrify little old ladies and men by lying to them–just to win an election. What wonderful “compassion” liberals have, frightening seniors solely for political gain.
The most pathetic thing is that a university actually pays a sophomoric liar like you to “educate” our youths.
Bet you won’t leave this comment up.
As you can see, I left your comment on the blog, but you are totally wrong in what you wrote, and it is YOU who is propagandizing.
And to tell someone in his late 40s or early 50s that a voucher will satisfy his health needs when he is a senior citizen demonstrates that you do not care about what happens to our fellow citizens when they age.
And you have not dealt with the other issues of this entry.
Ryan is a right wing extremist, and he is dangerous for the future of the 98 percent of the nation which is not wealthy, and he will NOT be able to help Romney win this election, UNLESS it is through breaking the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and taking the money of the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and the small number of other billionaires who are trying to “buy” the election, so that they can prevent any regulation, the lack of which caused the Great Recession.
If the Ryan budget plan is so extreme, why is it actually called the Ryan/Wyden budget plan, co-sponsored and co-written by one of the most liberal members of the Democrat Party caucus?
Are you saying that Senator Wyden is now a “right-wing extremist?” After all, it is as much his bill as it is Ryan’s.
BTW, telling a man 55 years old, that he will be somewhat more responsible for his own future welfare is no bad thing in my book. Far better than increasing the tax burden on American citizens and businesses and/or loading up tax-payers with more debt.
A 40 or 55 year old man is still young enough and well established enough to prepare for that increased responsibility.
You tell me, what is worse–asking each citizen to do a little more for their own retirement security, or watching the whole house of cards collapse about the time they get ready to retire?????
The great welfare state programs brought nothing but dependency and tremendous debt. Poverty is as high today as it was when LBJ and Congress created the “Great Society.” What a total disaster–but I know, you liberals like to be judged on your intent, not on what you actually achieve.
Oh, and to answer your final query, young people–if as you say they are college educated–are the most interested in finding good jobs and establishing good careers.
Who do you think has a better chance at success in rebuilding the economy and increasing employment:
1 – A President who has repeatedly asserted that jobs were his number one priority and who subsequently (and again repeatedly) immediately turned his attention to his extreme left-wing agenda. A man whose only experience was as a community organizer, state senator and two years as United States Senator and who had and still has absolutely no concept of what is involved in meeting a payroll, of turning a profit, of hiring and firing employees and of the burden regulations and government bureaucracies place on private enterprise . . .
OR
A man who has served 4 years as a very successful Republican Governor of a very “blue” state, came to the rescue of the US Olympic games and was so successful that he was lauded across the nation even by the MSM, and who built and ran a successful business and in the process amassed a sizable estate?
Youths will vote for Romney if they want a future which includes employment sometime in the next decade. They will vote for Obama if they look forward to a lifetime of unemployment compensation, welfare, and food stamps.
Since we both agree that college kids are generally smart, I suspect that–with the novelty and fascination surrounding Obama’s candidacy in 2008 no longer in play–they will vote for Romney . . . for the sake of their own futures and the sake of fiscal sanity (something entirely absent in President Obama).
It is obvious you are very articulate, and I commend you on that.
However, you have distorted Obama’s background in a negative way, and overly praised Romney’s record in office and in business.
As Rick Perry called it, Romney was a “vulture” capitalist, who caused the loss of jobs and the destruction of businesses in his mad search to become extremely rich. He did not produce anything useful in technology, or any important product, unless you call Staples a great accomplishment.
You also fail to recognize that the economic mess we are in was NOT due to Obama, but to supply side economics of Reagan and Bush II, and being engaged in wars that added trillions to the national debt.
Most of our national debt is due to our interventionist foreign policy since the Cold War began, not social welfare programs.
I am not saying that we should not have spent on foreign involvement at all, but under Bush we went berserk with TWO foreign wars, neither of which has worked out satisfactorily, along with an unpaid prescription drug plan, added to tremendous decreases in taxes on the wealthy, after taxes raised on them led to the economic prosperity of the 1990s.
Lack of regulation of capitalism, which is what progressives and liberals have always wanted, is what led to the Great Recession. The New Deal and Great Society are liberal and progressive attempts to promote a social safety net, but they are not Socialist.
If you studied Socialism, you would know using that term for America is pure propaganda by conservatives, who seem not to realize that if the social safety net is destroyed, we will have social and economic turmoil that could lead to violence and bloodshed, as allowing the top two percent to victimize the middle class and the poor is asking for social uprising, which would be disastrous.
I appreciate your intelligent discussion!
And finally, remember that the Electoral College will decide the election, and Obama needs only a few of the “battleground states” to reach 270 electoral votes, and he won ALL nine such states last time, and is ahead in all but North Carolina at the moment. If he wins just two or three, he has the Presidency for a second term. I think many people forget, even if one loses the popular vote, as George W. Bush did in 2000, one can still win the election, so the odds of Obama losing ALL NINE “battleground states” is inconceivable!
Why do you mislead so much? You write “Ryan’s budget plan called for the end of Medicare and creation of a voucher system.” Let’s see, according to Ron Wyden, you know the progressive Democrat who work with Ryan on the voucher “OPTION” for those UNDER 55, wrote, “Wyden-Ryan doesn’t eliminate the traditional Medicare plan, instead it guarantees that seniors who want to enroll in Medicare’s traditional fee for service plan will always have that option. ” And he goes on as we can see here on the Huffington Post, not exactly a conservative outlet you would agree. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-ron-wyden/preserving-the-medicare-g_b_1365237.html
You say :” Ryan has voted for a fence along the Mexican border and voted against the DREAM Act, how can it be assumed that the majority of Hispanic voters, particularly the two thirds who are of Mexican heritage, are going to vote for Romney?” How can protecting our borders from a steady or increasing flow of illegal immigrants mean that I as an american of hispanic descent will not vote for Romney. Do you mean to say that as an american/hispanic I have to be automatically in favor of those people that violate the immigration laws of my country, simply on account of their race? Is it because they are hispanics, I must turn a blind eye to their illegal act? Must I ,because I am of hispanic descent favor those who violate and cheat the law and the system againts those immigrants ( a million per year) who every year immigrate to the US legally? I find your comment absolutely racist and prejudiced.
Gustavo, Ron Wyden DID work with Paul Ryan, but now separates himself from Mitt Romney claiming that Wyden agrees with Ryan on all particulars of the plan. There has been a falling out between Ryan and Wyden, as Ryan’s plan was not backed by Wyden in its later, more extreme formulation. So what you say is somewhat true, but not totally the case!
Gustavo, no one ever said that ALL people of Hispanic ancestry would support the Democrats. But considering the harsh laws passed in Arizona and Alabama, and the push to throw out young Hispanics of college age who are here through no fault of their own, and would be given an opportunity under the DREAM Act to contribute to America through serving in the military or going to college or both, it is highly likely that MOST will vote Democratic. It is not racist or prejudiced to make such a statement. And building a fence to keep people from Mexico entering is preposterous on its face and would not work. And to top it off, illegal immigration has declined rapidly!
Again you post,” Ryan is a devout Catholic, who believes in preventing abortion rights and is for restrictions on contraceptives and other matters that concern women”. Question, so? It’s his personal belief, but he alone cannot change the law. You know as well as I that abortion was created as a Constitutional right out of thin air by the SCOTUS, specifically by Justice Blackmun disatrous opinion in Roe v Wade. So you know a VP cannot change that. Second, concerning “conctraceptives” , I really never heard Ryan say anything on the issue, but if he had the same abortion analysis applies. Also, where in the platform or speeches have you ever heard about a ban on contraceptives? Which candidate is specifically promoting it? You know sas well as I, who made up the issue and I’m not going to insult your intelligence by reminding you which reported come up with it.
I would really appreciate it if you could single out which Section, art. of the proposed Ryan plan changes Medicare for current seniors. I read the plan and find it nowhere.
I do not know which portion specifically, but the point is that if one is under 55, the idea of losing Medicare as we know it, when one has paid into the system on all income earned, is alarming. And one can be sure that if the GOP gains control of the White House and both houses of Congress, Medicare will be more extremely changed so that all senior citizens would face this crisis in ten years. It is unconscionable to do that.
One knows that legislation constantly changes, and Ryan has made it clear that he is against the social safety net!
Its amazing, but progressives have cliches that thay use all over the world, like “through no fault of their own”… You know as well as I do that the problem with the Dream Act was that it not only gave an opportunity to those young students, which we might agree on, but was it absolutely neccesary to leave open the possibility for all their family and relatives to be able to immigrate legally afterwards? Seriously? Personally I would solve this issue very simple. But I’m sure the progressive would not agree at all.If the issue is for those who immgrated ILLEGALLY, to “come out of the shadows” , to be able to live without fear of deportation, well I would give them all legal residency, but they would never be able to become citizens (unless they serve in the military) and thus never be able to vote. How about that. Seems fair, if they imposed their presence in our civil society, well ok for “humanitarian reasons”, let them stay legally, but not participate in our political body. Otherwise they would be imposing their will over the will of the governed, that is the US citizen. And progressives should be happy, no more living in fear, no more hiding, and they would be able to live their american dream.
Ron Wyden has made it clear that he does not agree with the Ryan Plan in all its particulars, and is disturbed that he is being misused in campaign rhetoric by Mitt Romney.
Wyden NEVER agreed with the Ryan Plan in all its particulars, and voted against it in the Senate!
But for those under 55 it would be optional. Also their will be no safety net for us under 55 by the time we retire! Now what I don’t understand is , if our congressmen once they retire have the option of either Medicare or for the government to pay them a private insurance, why can’t we have the same option? Why is that extemist? What is so radical about that? Is it radical because the common citizen might have the same rights as a congressman? By they way, all the money we paid into the system is gone, its not there. Same for SS. Why even Obama said that if he couldn’t borrow more money he would not be able to pay SS. ( A lie because by law he has to pay that first, but anyway just makes the point that there is no money there). The problem is that you have no seen the end of the movie, when Medicare and SS go bankrupt. I have, I lived it. Same thing happened in Argentina and believe you would not want to live through that. No one would, if they knew.
The Republican run state governments have pushed for restrictions on contraceptives, and Ryan is infamous for wishing to limit women’s rights, including voting against extension of the Violence Against Women Act.
The Social Security and Medicare laws need not go bankrupt IF we mandated all income be taxed, including capital gains, for those who do not have wage income, such as Mitt Romney! There is no reason why Social Security should not be taxing those who earn over $110,000, and those who live off investment income!
What you propose on illegal immigrants actually sounds worthy of discussion, and I commend you for that idea, and it requires further thought and analysis!
Are you talking about eliminating the payroll tax income? By the way those who invest in stock, where first taxed on the money they earned which they are investing, then if there is a profit, the corporation is taxed, that is the investor is also taxed, then after that when the investor collect capital gains he is taxed again. So how much more taxes should an investor pay? Mind you an investor can also be a mutual fund. Finally the cap on taxable earnings has existed since Social Security’s creation in 1937. The wage cap reflects the original intent of Social Security that the program be a pay-related “safety net” for retirees and that benefits be linked to taxes paid while in the workforce. It was not intended to a redistribution vehicle.
I meant payroll tax income CAP.
I am saying that ALL income earned on a payroll, or wages,should be taxed, as it is on Medicare.There should be no CAP, as there is not on Medicare.
And all unearned income through investments, any profit, should be taxed at the same rate, as otherwise, the very rich who don’t work for a living as we do can avoid paying, while the average “Joe” gets socked, and even the rich get Social Security and Medicare!
But all income is taxed, if you earn 250k you still get taxed on the 106K cap. As a matter of fact you must know that the top 1% of income earners pay 38% of all federal income taxes.The top 5% pays 60% and the top 10% pays 71%. Should their share be more? Should they still contribute more to the pie?
If they earn over 250 K, YES,on the income OVER 250K, and payroll taxes for Social Security should be unlimited at same tax rate as now, just as with Medicare!
Removing the cap would do more harm than good.
•Removing the cap would not eliminate the program’s deficits: the system’s insolvency date would only be delayed seven years to 2024.
•Even without a cap, by 2035 Social Security would only raise enough money each year to pay 87 percent of promised retirement benefits.
•It would raise taxes $505 billion over five years and $1.2 trillion over 10 years — the largest tax increase in U.S. history:.
•The top marginal tax rate would be almost 52.5 percent, the highest level since the 1970s.
•In the first year alone, the take-home pay of 10.4 million workers would be reduced an average of $4,907.
•The weaker economy would produce fewer job opportunities and generate less savings still.
If we want to find a solution I believe we have to start by doing away with myths that lead to false solutions in the first place. One of them is that the top 1% don’t pay thier fair share. Well in 2009 for example, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 36.7 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 16.9 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI), compared to 2008 when those figures were 38.0 percent and 20.0 percent, respectively. Both of those figures-share of income and share of taxes paid-were their lowest since 2003 when the top 1 percent earned 16.7 percent of adjusted gross income and paid 34.3 percent of federal individual income taxes. The source is the Internal Revenue Service, http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html (See “Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Returns Classified by Tax Percentile – Early Release”). And if you take the top 5% they paid almost 70% of all federal income tax. So my goal is for those who earn more to be the ones who pick up most the tab, and that I believe is happening now. We now have the most progressive income tax rate worlwide. So what good is it to me to put a top rate of 50%/ 70% instead of the current 35% if with a 70% rate thier burden drops to 20%? And tacking it to 39% like Obama does won’t make a dent in the deficit and only will discourage investment.It has been proven time and time again that people are not stupid and neither would you or I be, none of us would let the government take 50%/70%/90% of our income! They take the money abroad to a tax haven , declare less income and what do we get, they end up paying a lesser share of the pie. So in the end we need more revenue, but we get that with more business and more growth. Finally even if we tax all the rich millionaires and billionaires at 100% and confiscated all their wealth it still would not be enought to cover our current government expenses, which overwhelmingly is waste. So besides increasing revenue, something has to be done with spending. I suppose you know what baseline budgeting is.
Yes, we need to deal with spending, but that includes cuts in defense spending, stop giving subsidies to agriculture, oil, and every other industry, and closing loopholes that allow wealthy people to avoid taxation, while the average person pays a higher tax rate than Mitt Romney! And over time, there is a need to change Social Security and Medicare for the long term by gradual rise in age, but only for those under 45 now, as happened when I was young with Social Security changes in 1983 between Ronald Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neill which raised the age for retirement slowly over time!
May I ask again, do you know what baseline budgeting is? Also you realize for example that the entire sum of all the yearly oil subsidies is the equivalent of 2 day of federal spending? In other words, even if we cut the oil subsidies, which maybe we should, that will only cover 2 days of spending. Also Defense spending is less that 4% og GDP , while our overall spending is almos 26% of GDP, 60% of which goes to welfare programs. So if you reduce Defense to 0, you still didn’t solve the issue. Of every $10 the federal government spends, with $4 the government covers all its operational spending, from Defense, Justice, all the burocracies, federal agencies, all the federal employee salaries, in other words everything except the welfare state, SS, Medicare and Medicaid. (not counting the [unconstitutional if you use the old one, you know the one that was written, not the Judges constitution] Affordable Health Care Act) And that’s not taking into account the federal government future unfunded liabilities which top $100 trillion. Finally if you add all the taxes Romney or any other investor Warren Buffet included, they pay as a % , capital gains and corporate tax, much more that the average person.
I understand what baseline budgeting is, but the answer is to cut defense spending dramatically and get out of the expenditure that added two trillion to the national debt fighting wars that were and are unwinnable.
And we will have to tax more to cover the needs of the disabled and elderly, as a society that would dispose of those groups is not the kind of society I would want to live in.
We still pay, overall, far lower taxes than any other democracy in this world, so we will have to pay the piper to remain a humane society, and stop complaining about it!
Again, how much more? How much of anyones income, lets say those evil billionaire that earn 250K per yr., how much should they be allowed to keep? Also I understand perfectly the society you wish for, I see it in Europe, lived it abroad, high taxes to support the …. , here is where I digress, do we really spend 70% of an over $ 3 trillion budget , with a $1.6 trillion on the elderly and disabled?? Serioulsy? Anyway, that type of society lives with a normal long term unemployment rate of no less than 10%, and that is before the crisis! Is that what you want? Seriously? Is that a humane society? Just look at the data from years ago..http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.LTRM.ZS/countries?page=3 Is that humane? But you know that the bottom 50% of income earners pay less than 3% of all federal income tax. Is that a fair share? Does other other 50% paying 97% of the pie seem fair to you?
Life is not fair, and certainly is not to the poor, who make so little and have to be concerned about having a place to lie their head, and to have food daily and to have a future for their kids.
We have allowed this poverty to grow by leaps and bounds because of greed and selfishness, and it all started with the Reagan Administration and has continued under Bush II, allowing maldistribution of wealth and lack of regulation of business and banking, and constant tax cuts to the rich.
The poor still pay all other taxes, including Social Security, Medicare, state income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, etc. You would not wish to live like them, and therefore, more taxation of those who have is required, and many wealthy people have no problem with that.
There is no need for vast acquisition of wealth, since we all die, and children should not expect vast assets to be inherited, as that makes them lazy. We all need to work, and leave some funding behind for our children, but the wealthy do not need the vast assets they have, and need to be appreciative that this country gave them the opportunity to succeed, and stop complaining when most of their assets are not needed or ever spent in their lifetime, as long as they are able to leave an adequate amount behind for descendants.
Wow!! I just read your reply. Well what a way to rationalize your envy, typical leftist. Also you are really authoritarian (well if you are a progressive you really have no choice), may I ask who are you, or anyone in this case, to determine how much mony people should make? Why this hatred and envy towards the wealthy? Also , and I repeat, the government is proposing attacking those that earn more than 250k per year. Are those also wealthy rich bastards that government should take away a chunk of their earnings to redistriubute? You just confirm what all leftist, progressive or as I prefer to say statist (just like the fascist) , believe and promote all over the world. You would rather have a constant normal 10% unemployment as long as you utopian government programs not only remain in place , but expand. Now that is really compassionate. What a way to hate liberty, and the economic consequences of freedom; capitalism.
You show, sadly, confusion, when you use the term statist, leftist, progressive, and then say fascism, since fascism is not of the left, but the right, closer to what Ryan and the GOP represent–to have corporations and the rich control everything, while the middle class and the poor suffer, and lose their freedom. Freedom is not only acquisition of wealth, but realizing the suffering of others less fortunate. That is true compassion, not unregulated capitalism, which exploits workers and consumers and is allowed to control politics through SuperPacs, such as Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers. That is NOT democracy! They are authoritarian oriented and Fascist, not progressives!
No confusion whatosever, fascist, leftist , progressives, communist ,socialist all have in common that they are statist.That is government is more important than the individual, and their ethical premise is that the pursuit of individual interests are ALWAYS NECESARILY CONTRARY to the common interests. When you say fascism is the right you are only repeating the Second International caracterization on Mussolini as the right after he betrayed internationalism for nationalism. I believe you know Mussolini was the leader of the Italian socialist and was very much admired by Lenin, until his “betrayal”, and before dying he stated that he is and always was a “socialist”. Anyway, what does fascism have anything to do with limited government constitucionalism beats me. What does fascism have anything to do with classic John Locke, Edmund Burke, Jame Madison liberalism (or conservatism as it is called today in the US) is truly a mystery. Only the left in its feverish mindset can make that connection. You talk about the suffering of the less fortunate, you blame unregulated capitalism and I ask what unregulated capitalism are you talking about. I find it curious that modern day liberals act as if the 20th century never happened, as if we are living in the 19th century Victorian London.When was the last time we had unregulated capitalism, and who does regulated capitalism favor? Big Corporations or the small/middle business? And what is your and the lefts problem with the Koch brothers?
Gustavo, the battle throughout the 20th century and into the 21st has been the struggle to regulate capitalism in the public interest, and conservatives have always been on the side of fighting regulation as vigorously as they can. So we have peaks and valleys in regulation, and when regulation was less under Republican Presidents, as in the 1920s and the Bush II era, look what it led to–the Great Depression and the Great Recession!
If it was left up to the Right, the New Deal and Great Society and even the reforms under Richard Nixon, such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration would be repealed, and they would love to bring us back to the Gilded Age and the 1920s, when labor was exploited, and minorities and immigrants and women were exploited horribly!
The problem with the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson and other billionaires is that they are attempting to buy the election, and repeal all of the reforms of the past century, and they have no limits, no ethics, in what they are doing. They do not give a damn for the average American, and are also socially reactionary to the extreme, wanting to put workers, minorities, immigrants, and women “in their place”, saying YES SIR!
This is not democracy, and just because a right wing Supreme Court said what the billionaires are doing, in the Citizens United case, is alright, does not make it so! Democracy is much more important than the outdated idea of limited government! Government is NOT the evil, but rather unbridled capitalism! We have not come this far in the past century to see it all negated and repealed!
Of course Democracy in its origin us unlimited, thats why the Founders specifically did not put create a Democracy but a Republic. Unlimited democracy is just as evil as any other tyranny. When government is not limited by the fundamental law, the Constitution, when it violates the individual rights, then all bets are off. You know , history, and you know that Democracy in its pure original form eventually leads to tryanny of the majority ,that ends up in anarchy which is replaced by an oligarchical authoritarian regime. History shows this. So its not that government per se is evil, it unlimited government in its powers that is evil. Finally please informe me of the specific deregulation under Bush. I believe you must of heard of SOX regulations, have you not?
Oh an by the way, the state as an entity has been responsible for over a 100 millon death in the 20th century alone. I don’t believe freedom was responsible for that.
Yes, you are correct on unlimited democracy, but we are on the road now to oligarchic authoritarianism by the corporations and the billionaires, with the concentration of wealth now greater than even in the Gilded Age or 1920s, and greater than even Great Britain, which used to be number one.
As far as the loss of life, that is under dictatorships of the LEFT and the RIGHT, and we are neither, and I want to prevent that from happening here!
I am well aware of SOX regulations, but they were not enforced by the Bush Administration, as it is not uncommon under all GOP Presidents to be lax in enforcement, even of what is on the books, and to stack government agencies with conservatives who do not wish to enforce regulations, agencies such as the FTC, for example!
You gotta be kidding not enforced? Now where have I been living and working those years??? what do you mean not enforce? We sure never found out about that, nor did the Bush administration let us know about it! Why, where I worked we always had the DOJ, the SEC and all the DOT agencies, all the alfabet soup practically living with us. Not only in one corporation I worked but in several. Where do you actually come up with this. Its not the real world I deal with, its not with the government I , we always dealt with. Amazing..
Yes, you had the agencies, but the people running those agencies were lax on enforcement, and there were plenty of violations of the laws and loads of fraud, waste and abuse, and sweetheart deals made!