> gMoney wrote: > NO NO NO. GG's letting his social liberalism overwhelm is fiscal > conservatism. >
It's about the right solution for the problem rather than a rigid adherence to a philosophical framework. So let's define the problem: Highly addictive controlled substances are responsible for taxpayers incurring outrageous costs just to maintain a minimal level of control. Further, the addicts spawn secondary costs of both crime and health care. The question is how to stop the flow of drugs and prevent and/or eliminate the secondary costs. You are adhering to a principle. Unfortunately we've tried that and it doesn't solve a thing. That's because this is a health issue, not a criminal one, so the normal policy stances don't apply. This simply comes down to this question: Which is preferable: a infinite monthly payment or a smaller monthly payment that has a plausible end in sight? I say that because your stance will require an infinite amount of money from taxpayers. Mine (or some other clever solution) allows for an end to the madness. Because I'm willing to do what it takes to eliminate the tax, I'm being fiscally conservative. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:209938 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
