Laura Ingraham Quotes

Hope is not the basis for policy. Wise policymakers analyze major issues such as immigration carefully and look at facts and probabilities instead of just hoping for the best.

I want to be an independent and responsible voice for Arizonans, and it would be unwise to endorse a specific approach before the costs and benefits of these options can be evaluated.

You cannot build public policies on sentiment, on panic and fear.

If you talk about preemption you better know things rather than think things.

All policies should be guided by science, not just whose voice is the loudest.

Informed decision-making comes from a long tradition of guessing and then blaming others for inadequate results.

Rational beliefs bring us closer to getting good results in the real world.

All policy is a matter of gains and losses, upsides and downsides.

Sound science must be our guide in choosing which problems to tackle and how to approach them.

No political cliche can stand up to reality.

Good policy analysis recognizes that physical truth may be poorly or incompletely known. Its objective is to evaluate, order, and structure incomplete knowledge so as to allow decisions to be made with as complete an understanding as possible of the current state of knowledge, its limitations, and its implications.

If you get all the facts, your judgment can be right. If you don't get all the facts, it can't be right.

When a government faces an evil that might be avoided, the usual pattern is to first debate whether or not the evil is real or imagined; then determine how evil it really is; then is it an appropriate function of government to avoid it? Then what are the alternative ways to avoid it? Then what are the costs to avoid it? And finally, is the benefit of avoiding the evil worth the cost? In those cases where it is, it is by this time too late to avoid the evil and discussions shift to ameliorating the evil.

Careful economic analysis does have one important benefit, which is that it can help kill ideas that are completely logically inconsistent or wildly at variance with the data. This insight covers at least 90 percent of proposed economic policies

Go with the science!.

As an intelligence analyst you have to tell the president what you know, what you think you know and what you don’t know.

I have been a professor, and I have been a policymaker, and as a professor, you think in terms of truth or absolutes.

Every good businessman or woman carefully analyzes all the available facts before making a decision.

I can't ever remember being struck by lightning when making a big decision. It's always about taking in more and more data points and making tack adjustments as you figure it out. I call customers, suppliers, industry analysts and try to get as much information as possible.

I consider myself a pretty progressive person, and I think I have a track record that shows that. But I'm also not just going to do a policy because it's the liberal thing to do.

It's a question of evidence-based politics. If you know that something does not work, you should not keep doing it.

One of the big concerns is the increasing disrespect for the scientific method and for policies that aren't based on facts and evidence.

You must build public policies on reason, on facts.

All I am saying is that if you want to answer a question, then we need to examine and weigh up the evidence. To me, that's not dogmatic that's just... what else would you do?

I will never speculate on data. I always need to see data.