I can think of 4 things that he did that I approve of, with 20/20 hindsight.What did Kennedy do that you liked?
> He decreased the marginal tax rate to something that resembled sanity.
> He did stand up to the Soviets when push came to shove.
> He at least acted like a leader. He made leader-like noises, and at least attempted to rally support from all segments of the political spectrum.
> He was no socialist wannabe, like the current crop of Dems.
Add to that his support of the "Space Race" (which directly influenced me, my parents were contractors to NASA) which greatly increased technology across the board. Yes, I know that it was a massive spending project, but in the long run it paid off. Now it's time for private industry to take over.
I understand your point of view, and I understand that it was part of the "Compassionate Capitalism" platform that he initially ran on. Yes, it is true that private organizations do operate more efficiently than any .gov operation. But my agreement stops there. I oppose it on 2 ideological counts:2) I understand the faith based initiative thing. It's the idea that private organizations can tackle problems in society much more efficiently than the Federal government. It's the truth. It works. Most things are more efficient than the Federal Government.
> I think that it is unconstitutional based on the separation of church & state in the 1st Amendment. It would have been better for the money to have gone through private SECULAR organizations. I also think that it brings an unhealthy "Golden Rule" influence to religious organizations. You know -- "He who has the gold, makes the rules." Government money means government oversight. And religious organizations do NOT need government oversight. As an analogy, think about what happens with federal highway funds and the states: States are coerced into kowtowing to the federal government's wishes by the threats of withholding federal highway funds. That is fundamentally wrong when applied to states, and is even worse when applied to churches. That Bush hasn't really leaned on churches in that manner doesn't mean that his successors won't.
> I still think that the whole concept of government "charity" is wrong. It may be called charity, but it isn't -- it is income redistribution based on the monopoly of force that government is able to bring to bear. Income redistribution like that is just stealing, albeit indirectly by way of the ballot box. Davy Crockett has been credited with a concept that pretty well sums up my feelings on the matter. In short -- It isn't the government's money to give.