One of America's biggest blessings has been its impartial Civil Service: the Hatch Act has kept our federal government employees out of the political fray, and far less scandal–ridden than is true of most countries around the world. Over the past three decades, in the administrations of both Republicans and Democrats alike, people have been falling all over each other preaching the virtues of privatization. The results have been mixed, with, in my opinion, the net being negative. First of all, the contractors (and I have been a government contractor) are not subject to the restrictions of the Hatch Act. Further, when the contractors are non-profit university-owned corporations (and most federal contracts, by Carter-Era Federal Regulations, are improperly set–aside for non–profits) egregious conflict-of-interest situations arise in which academics "wearing three hats" manage proposals for the government (review proposals submitted, in utter anonymity), submit proposals on behalf of their university (with knowledge of competing bids), and sub-contract the proposals granted to the university labs to entities managed by themselves for profit. These conflicts-of-interest have been well-documented by several independent authors and involve many of America's best-known universities. Further, politicians of both parties have delighted in transferring the operations of Federal facilities to universities in their districts: usually this has entailed the construction of magnificent (expensive) "research" facilities on campuses (managed by "Entrepreneurial Professors" who do not teach: students teach students, in consequence) and the firing of many dedicated, impartial Civil Servants. The claims of cost-effectiveness go unchallenged, even though it is obvious that the millions of dollars in new facilities, and the existing (empty) older facilities would have paid for many years of continued federal operations. At the very least, new contractors should be impartial and work under the same firm ethical guidelines as embodied in the Hatch Act and various Federal Employment Regulations. The outrageous conflict–of–interest of "taking off my government hat and putting on my university hat" should not be allowed.

In deviation from the above, the various recent Democratic administrations have egregiously abused the Federal Civil Service for their own political ends (often for "Environmentalist Agendas"). Under Clinton, for example, there was a big push in Congress to revise legal statutes to conform with the actual federal regulations implemented by their appointees (and their favored, promoted, bureaucrats). It is my firm belief that any Federal Employee who implements or enforces a regulation in violation of statute should be dismissed, forthwith. It is not the place of bureaucrats to write regulations with the effect of law that are, themselves, in violation of legal statute. Many of Clinton's last-minute declarations are based upon this type of "politically-correct" but illegal recommendations: you are as correct in repudiating them as in bringing attention to his shameful pardons of criminals who bribed him.

Insofar as illegal drugs are concerned, the best way to fight them is with natural agents. Just as the boll weevil devastated the cotton industry and the mosaic virus could have destroyed the tobacco industry, there are natural insects, bacteria, viruses, etc., that can (and would) do the same thing to marijuana, cocaine, poppies, etc. A coca plant, for example, eaten by a caterpillar will never be used to make cocaine. Natural agents are self-replicating, do not care about political boundaries, do not require the (often illusory) cooperation of foreign governments and do not place at risk any of our law-enforcement officers. Natural agents cannot be bribed, and do not contribute to the spread of corrupt governments. Etc. Our government has been quietly researching (near Beltsville, MD) such applications of natural agents to eradicate illegal drugs at their source, but Clinton kept such options on the back–burner. Why should we continue to risk the lives of our law–enforcement officers and possibly obligate our military to foreign eradication efforts when we have an alternative that would be far more effective and far less costly, in both lives and dollars?

The internet has been a great blessing to the world, and can become even more beneficial. First, as an agent of open government, the internet is without equal, especially if the financial records of government (and non-profit corporations that are government contractors) are made available over the internet. Reasonable exceptions would be made for police, medical and national security agencies. Second, those who abuse the internet for criminal purposes (e.g. thieves, "hacktivists," etc.) are criminals. Neither the newness of the tool nor its technological nature detract from, or excuse, criminal use. Requiring the identification of E-Mail users (suppressing anonymity) would eliminate most E-Mail criminality.

Our government, by enabling easy counterfeiting of US currency, is directly subsidizing (yearly, in the billions of dollars!) criminal and terrorist organizations around the globe: most are our self–sworn, implacable, enemies. The recent changes in our printed currency are a substantial step in the right direction, but do not go far enough. It would be advisable for us to do as most developed countries do by systematically and periodically (e.g., every five years) revising both our coinage and printed currency. This would enable both routine improvements to make counterfeiting more difficult and the ongoing withdrawal of outmoded currency. New coins in $1, $5, $10 and $20 denominations should be minted. To encourage confidence and acceptance, they should be small (larger than a dime and smaller than a nickel), thin (thickness of a dime), of variable shapes (oval, square, rectangle, and hexagon) and made of silver. All the new coins and bills should emphasize a reason for our national pride: our freedoms (religion, press, speech, etc.), our history (Give me Liberty or Give me Death!; Millions for Defense but Not One Cent for Tribute!, etc.); our scientific advances (many!); and our greatest heroes (many!).

Signed: