Although only a few may originate a policy, we are all able to judge it.
In a mature democracy any proposed policy should be subjected to a close analysis of its likely benefits and costs.
I learned that you have to evaluate the effects of public policy as opposed to intentions.
The mainstream press, like the Democrats, think a government program has ‘succeeded’ when the bill is passed and the funding distributed. Rarely do we ask: is this well-managed, well-conceived? Does it actually work?
So let's see what they [Republicans] are going to do. If they're going to put together great programs, and everybody understands that they're good.
It's very easy for people to be critical of President Obama's first term, but let's face it, he didn't exactly inherit the country in the best shape.
No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition and both are necessary.
There are few things wholly evil or wholly good. Almost everything, especially of government policy, is an inseparable compound of the two, so that our best judgment of the preponderance between them is continually demanded.
A [foreign] government is to be judged by what it does for people. It is to be assisted or combatted with reference to people, and is to be approached through those people.
In reality, I don't think that many of the policies we've attempted to apply to deal with it are going to have any serious effect.
We are specialists who have something special to say. We have had no problem with working in any state interested in evaluating their policies.
Social science has been established not to set policy but to measure its results.
Any policy is a success by sufficiently low standards and a failure by sufficiently high standards.
All of our policies are based on whether it will make - enable people to improve their lives or it will make their lives worse.
We must judge a government by its general tendencies and not by its happy accidents.
