Top News
Home >> In The News >> The other thing that was wrong with Jay Carney’s comment

The other thing that was wrong with Jay Carney’s comment

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “The other thing that was wrong with Jay Carney’s comment”.

Looking for more great news and commentary from a conservative perpective? Visit our homepage!

About Chad Kent


  1. Dude… you need to get your own blog.

  2. All those people who had jobs on ARPANET (DARPA) (government and corporate contract) before it became the INTERNET probably appreciated all that government subsidy before it was capable of being a profit-making private sector enterprise.

    Now, of course, securing the INTERNET because it has become so integral to America’s strategic infrastructure that, once again, government public monies will subsidize large scale programs to protect.

    There are also a lot of profitable things that fell out of the people-subsidized Space Program over decades… basically that was the public monies of the American People creating the economic environment of today (maybe starting with the transistor radio) that we all take for granted as private sector enterprise.

    The Constitution establishes government by-and-for We-The-People. The Constitution cannot protect you from anything. The original Constitution sanctioned slavery and fractional census of slaves for voting purposes.

    You protect yourself by participating in the unstable, anarchy-in-a-bottle process established by the Constitution, and by participation in social movements that align with the higher ideals stated in foundational documents like the Declaration and The Constitution of the United States.

    The Constitution talks about the role of government in forming a “more perfect union”, “(providing) defense”, “promoting general welfare”, and regulating that which affects interstate and international commerce. That rubric covers a lot of ground, and it is up to the American People, through their apparatus, called “government” to establish the particulars.

    If for example you question the function of the Federal Government to provide the Social Security program, you are not questioning Constitutional limits, but rather the wisdom of people who lived through the Great Depression, voted, and generally thought that whole thing was a good idea.

    If the Constitution establishes Government by-and-for We The People, then suggesting the Constitution limits the scope of government implies it limits the collective discretion of the American People to have government act on its behalf.

    The American People have the right to change the Constitution itself… and they have certainly in the area of Civil Rights in a number historical epochs.

    By the way, I understood completely Carney’s remarks, and if you go back and listen he said exactly this:

    Romney~Bain : Investment responsibility to private sector share-holders… profit oriented; could be long or short term profit oriented.

    Obama-POTUS : Investment (like DARPA would operate under the Executive) investment responsibility for the interests of the American People (even if they cannot be profitable within the private sector short term). Most American’s realize that while short-term (25-75 years) existing energy infrastructure will be used. However, long term investment, research and development in alternatives are necessary. That would be the realm in which Obama would be operating . Perhaps the money spent should not have gone directly to private sector for development (premature). Perhaps advanced energy R & D should be the province of Public Sector programs, until, like ARPANET, it is sufficiently mature for the private sector to operate and profit with.