Nice article Greg. It helps when someone verbalizes what has been a vague uneasiness.

Skeptic - Thanks for chiming in. The question of how much a government should function like a business is a good one. I worked for the Postal Service when it was transformed and saw first hand how priorities get screwed with when you try to run a service agency on a profit basis. In most well-run businesses there is some one (1) person who is ultimately responsible. There may be a board to report to, but operational direction and budgetary decisions rest in very few hands.

Obviously, our country "don't work that way". Bush and his budget people know that what he presented won't be what gets passed. I think people in that position count on that. So they cut things like flood insurance, knowing someone will insist that it be put back. Later, when the deficits start to show up, fingers can be pointed. It's a sad process.

I'm not sure if I agree about your concern about lieutenants who formulate policy. It happens in the private sector, too. That doesn't mean that the "man in charge" should be disengaged or serve as a rubber stamp leader. I personally believe that this may end up as Bush's undoing. How far out in front a leader should be is another major question and concern when dealing with a bureaucracy as large as the Federal government.