The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The Largest Selection of Liberal-baiting Merchandise on the Net!
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Reader Mail
Print Email

Reader Mail

Chao's Labors

CONSERVATIVE PERFORMANCE
Re: W. James Antle III's Rewarding Labor:

Some short observations on this article, which you may or may not agree with.

The profile of the Labor Dept. under Elaine Chao was very interesting and informative, but also encouraging in a larger sense. Many observers have been highly critical of Donald Rumsfeld. Colin Powell was to some extent a disappointment, and Condoleezza Rice has been criticized for naivete or "going native" at the State Department with regard to the "Middle East Peace Process," "consultation" with North Korea and Iran, and other matters. The issue might more accurately be stated: has anybody better been available for their slots, from 2001 until now?

The personal opinion of one of your readers (of no particular wisdom or distinction) is that in historical terms, the team of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, Ashcroft, and (as it turns out) Chao has been as good as any assembled by any President since Lincoln. Moreover, it's hard to think of anyone else in public life who could have equaled the work of any of these people under the conditions in which we now live. But who can the next president draw on, of equal experience or stature or gravitas? Rice is still young, and might yet have some "star quality" at the beginning of 2009. The rest are history.

Mr. Antle referred to the Weekly Standard reference to Chao, and about a year ago the National Review had a full-page article on her. The Republican "bench" of statesmen is apparently a bit deeper than it might seem.
-- Thomas Paulick

Do we really need a gushy article about the head bureaucrat of a massive agency that directs local and state labor issues, pension plans, health and welfare funds, etc One need only review the agency website to get a quick realization of how out of control, overarching and incomprehensibly Kafka-esque federal agencies have become. The Department of Labor oversees employer-based health insurance, and yet patients caught in the outright defiance of insurance companies that fail to adhere to Department of Labor regulations have no recourse. Regulations issued by the Department of Labor regarding insurance response to and payment of claims is routinely ignored, and there are no penalties. This agency is yet another example of an overgrown bureaucracy that Republicans have no desire to address or reduce. Rather than self-congratulatory adulation, the heads of these bureaucracies should be talking to the American people victimized by the government agencies that, by their nature, have little interest in the individual. It appears the writer of this article did not address any of the major issues Republicans formerly would have raised: federalizing issues and laws that should be in the purview of local government, depriving individuals of their rights to sue in state courts and to instead be forced into cumbersome federal remedies and courts, and the outright defiance of health and welfare entities to obey the rules, even as their executives get hundreds of millions of dollars in stock options.
-- Caroline Miranda, Attorney at Law
North Hollywood, California

W. James Antle III replies:
So which way does Ms. Miranda want to argue this -- is the Department of Labor a massive, imperious bureaucracy or does it regulate too little? I make perfectly clear that the Labor Department is even now too big. If I had my way, it would not exist at all. But if the Labor Department isn't going anywhere in the foreseeable future, it would be better to have it well run, with restraint in its annual budget growth while still effectively addressing many of the concerns it is supposed to deal with. Under the current labor secretary it has, and at a time when swing voters question conservatives' ability to govern this fact is well worth pointing out.

WRONG NUMBER
Re: The Washington Prowler's "Marginal Call" item under Up to His Ankles:

I think the "unexpected" phone calls are childish. Come on, does Giuliani really think voters are going to vote for someone that does not have the sense to turn off his phone during a speech? Funny and kind of cute it is not.
-- Elaine Kyle

FOOD VALUE
Re: Ben Stein's A Taste of Summer:

How much is Ben willing to wager on the results of a poll of Americans on which meal they prefer, a McDonald's cheeseburger or their preferred choice of a meal costing up to $100? Inquiring minds want to know.
-- Jim Drake
Papillion, Nebraska

HONORARY DEGREES
Re: Clinton W. Taylor's Yale, Columbia:

I whole-heartedly agree with your editorial.

You put in words exactly what I wanted to express. Thanks.
-- Ann Carmichael
Sterling, Virginia

Let me see if I understand this.

Page: 1 2 3  

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Television, Hollywood, Law, Military, Iran, North Korea

Comments

Leave a Comment

Related Articles

ADVERTISEMENT

In Sum, IPCC Discredited

Paul Chesser

* * * *

That Dangerous Radical . . . Marvin Olasky?

Robert Stacy McCain

* * * *

Forget the Committees

Greg Scandlen

* * * *

Reid Disses David Broder

Philip Klein

* * * *

Moment of Truth

W. James Antle, III

* * * *

No Sales Days in the Afghan War

George H. Wittman

* * * *

Bureaucrats With Badges

Mark Hyman

* * * *

Obama in Wonderland

Ken Blackwell

* * * *

A Writer Speaks

William Tucker

* * * *

What Has Changed?

Robert P. Kirchhoefer

* * * *

High Stakes

Manon McKinnon

* * * *
ADVERTISEMENT