> From: Nathan Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [PEN-L:11855] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap > Any other thoughts on how risk theory plays an implicit or explicit role > in social policy debates? Social policy debates have gotten so stupid it is hard to see them as informed by any kind of theory, liberal or conservative, much less anything as high-falutin as risk theory. You have to analyze it instead as the transmission of folklore into the political arena. Imbeciles like Charles Murray and the journalist who wrote "The Death of Compassion" (his name escapes me at the moment) are the reigning conservative authorities. The liberal side is not without academic expertise; the politicians merely refuse to acknowledge it. This was typified by the resignation of Wendell Primus from HHS upon passage of the welfare reform. His shop's research, very much in the mainstream of liberal study of poverty and welfare, was simply ignored by the politicos in the White House, including the top one. HHS Secretary Shalala has been completely ineffectual in making a reasoned case. If she had any shame she would have resigned as well. Another good example of the divorce between politicians and mainstream research is the recent tax bill, which violated every principle of tax design ever enunciated by the economics profession. Max =================================================== Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 http://epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===================================================
