Confirmation Hearings for Judge Alito

Curious thing. Judge Samuel Alito's "paper trail," which is extensive, and the comments and questions of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also extensive, indicate that both Alito and Republican members of the committee tend to be on the side of government and business against the individual--even going so far as to defend strip searching a 10-year-old girl. Curious because Republicans have for decades railed against the size of government and government being "on your back" and government regulation of business, even saying government should be shrunk until it could be drowned in the bathtub.
When Republicans are in charge, however, it's okay for the president to wire-tap Americans' phone conversations, compile secret lists of war protesters, and send individuals off to Guantanamo or some remote country for "interrogation" without charge. And now we've been introduced to yet more executive privileges, referred to as "unitary executive theory" and "signing statements," of which the president is reported to have resorted to more than 500 times, notably recently when he signed the defense appropriation bill with an anti-torture amendment attached. Seems he wants to preserve his right to continue abuse of prisoners "when necessary."
Something we've been exposed to for some time, of course, is the government's in intrusiveness when it comes to contraception, the behavior of gays and lesbians, and prayer in schools and so on.
The fact is that the Republican philosophy favors government intervention in the areas just mentioned but government keeping out of business regulation. Democrats, on the other hand, want to keep the government out of our bedrooms and schools and religion but favor government regulation of public utilities, environmental pollution, and mine safety.
As for Judge Alito, the likelihood is that he will be confirmed--although I'm not at all certain of this. And if he is confirmed, it will be more difficult for individuals to get protection against violations in the mines and other hazardous venues and agaomst wire-tapping and other intrusions into private life. This is a very serious matter.
Another curious reversal is the Republican shift from fiscal restraint to enabling the biggest federal budget deficits in history. But that's a story for another time.

A Democratic Agenda

People say Democrats do a lot of criticizing but don't offer programs of their own, and there's some truth to this. My suggestion, therefore, is that when we offer a criticism we follow it up, if possible, with our own recommendation. And a propos of that, I ran across a suggestion that would be an excellent addition to our agenda, in an article Dec. 25 in The Denver Post by Neal Peirce: "a national infrastructure plan not only robust enough to make a real impact, but based on clear, performance-based targets that give us confidence that the billions we invest will be well spent and not frittered away for political expediency.
"The new idea comes from Felix Rohatyn, a New York investment banker with decades of experience in government finance reform, and Warren Rudman, former Republican senator from New Hampshire and a founder of the Concord Coalition....
"They are co-chairing a newly-formed Commission on Public Infrastructure that has an ingenious idea for a federally funded National Investment Corporation (NIC). Through it, states and local governments could obtain federal financing for a broad array of potential projects, in ground and air transportation, water systems and school buildings."