<Likewise, it is not the intention of General Motors to create quality vehicles for the American public. Cars are just a byproduct of General Motors' desire to collect money from the American public...

I do NOT interpret this as a slam. You are absolutely right, and it is very perceptive of you. The secret of the competitive free-market system is that for GM to collect the maximum amount of money, they are FORCED to produce quality vehicles!

It is certainly true that at the politician-level spending is often used to buy votes. Heck, one of the main ways a politician is evaluated by the voter at election time (both sides of the aisle), is by how much Federal $ he has brought back to his locality [Texas is looking to be a pretty good place to set up shop, these days].

Also perfectly true, and, as you say, both political parties are equally proficient at this.

It is not true that everything is driven by $. Some people vote their principles. Some politicians do too. Some people actually believe that social security recipients deserve their benefits and should be supported [please let's not get into an argument about social security]. I'm just saying that not every vote for [or against] social security - or anything else - can be attributed to a desire for power/votes. Ideals - and hopefully common sense - do and should play a part in government.

I'd like to think this is true, but I see very few examples of this. The key proof would be a politician who voted in a way that would be consistent with his principles, but would be certain to alienate his constituency. I am racking my brain, but can think of no examples right off hand of this occurring. Maybe you can?

As far as the space program is concerned, I feel that it is a worthwhile investment. I want some of my taxes to go towards it. I think it should be a higher priority than it currently is...I think it is one of the most important things our government can do. And, compared to the rest of the federal budget, it costs peanuts.



I appreciate your love for free enterprise, and I share it. I do not believe that it meets all of a country's needs, and it never will. Some needs are better met by government.



All but the most rabid anarcho-libertarians believe that there is a proper role to be played by government in a society. Ayn Rand's take on it is probably best.

(For the record, Ayn Rand, who was no advocate of government funding of science, said of the U.S. space program: "of all our government programs, the space program is the cleanest and the best: it at least has brought the American citizen a return on their forced investment, it has worked for its money, it has earned its keep; which cannot be said about any other program of the government."*)

Do you think that meteorology (satellite-based and otherwise)would be anywhere near where it is, if not for government spending?...

The short answer is yes. I believe such a valuable service would prove to be very profitable, and that the private sector (which funds communications satellites after all) could easily have developed and operated a weathersat system without additional government funding.

*From "Apollo 11," written in 1969.