Eric is back at again. He is discussing VOX 3 decade war on govt gave us Trump.
Here are a couple of comments from there. More add since...
Here are a couple of comments from there. More add since...
"Never sure if my thoughts are being chastised or simply extended by others. Yes, Proxmire's lists were always fun and fair. In any case, I'm pretty sure Republicans are not against all government.
They certainly spend a lot of time and money pushing their products, as do Democrats their pet projects. I'm truly amazed at how much public and press denigration the Red brigade generally receives, except in those years they are overwhelmingly elected to majority rule by our nation's voters.
I've been watching a bunch of old westerns lately, perhaps hiding from the complexities of 2016. In any case, I do understand current social absolutism to be rooted in our tradition of "good guys" and "bad guys." Those 1950s plots were simplistic, as simplistic as too much 2016 rhetoric remains." Jim
"I agree with you that many folks love to see Heroes and Villains. The facts are pretty clear that government controlled less than 10% of the US GDP ~100 years ago which means that individual citizens were able to make more of their own choices with 90+% of the money.
And now thanks to actions taken by both parties over the past century, the government gets to divvy out ~35% of the GDP. Meaning that we citizens have less individual control, having only ~65% of the money. Spending History
Thoughts?
And now anyone who wants to slow or reverse this long term trend is deemed to be trying to eliminate government. They do like their villains." G2A
30 comments:
""I'm pretty sure Republicans are not against all government."
Of course not. There are a lot of government programs from which individuals may benefit, individually and collectively. There are also a number that can be milked for profit, and are therefore widely supported by elements of both parties (charter schools spring to mind in this context).
Republicans have, however, made denunciation of government a shibboleth that candidates must utter. It is a reflexive distaste/mistrust that conveniently ignores the benefits that they receive (even the non-monetary benefits). Once upon a time, Republicans understood this. Ever since the administration of Reagan (who, appropriately enough, seemed to draw a lot of his thinking from old westerns, and 1950s movies with simplistic plots), the simple "government always bad" thinking has dominated." RB
""shibboleth" Nicely noted, RB. That may be the first time ever used in these pages, unless previously by you. Well done!
There is also that prevailing political caution to never deal with intellectuals when pushing politics. All others, apparently, are deemed to live in a world of black or white contrast. Dealing with those who spend their time dissecting the grey scales is time consuming and very frustrating, don't you know.
So, as for Reagan: Maybe his popularity was directly related to his simplification of complexity. Most people are smart enough to know what they hear has shades of meaning. They just like to know exactly where their leaders stand. I learned long ago that most people just like to drink iced tea, not brew it or analyze the leaves.
These also seem to be the happiest people among us, just keeping their private lives of family, work and fun unencumbered by stuff they can't control. I've always admired such comfortably insulated citizens who just do what needs to be done. Unfortunately, I've pretty much never enjoyed that small world of social perspective, at least not since 1960.
And, that's likely a big reason for watching old westerns this week, especially those filmed in black and white.
Saw some good Glenn Ford stuff yesterday, cleanly scripted and well-acted." Jim
"Human Motivation So I'll bite, what do you think would encourage our current politicians, bureaucrats, and public employees to use the government revenues very effectively to meet well prioritized goals in order to maximize our public good and keep America a world leader?
Do you think that the politicians, bureaucrats and public employees are special kinds of humans who are not concerned about making more, working less, job security, pursuing their own passions, empire building, etc? They are somehow inherently focused on common goals, self sacrificing, natural team players, the good of the citizens and tax payers, etc?
My view of course is that they are just like us. Therefore they will spend as much as we give them, accept higher compensation/ benefits, grow their departments, seek their highest level of incompetency, etc. Fortunately our companies need to stay focused, efficient, effective and provide good products /services in order to stay in business. Therefore wages are managed, poor performers are fired, ineffective departments/ products/ services are killed, etc.
Personally I think the USA needs to stay focused, efficient, effective and provide good products /services in order to stay in business and in the lead. The problem is that there really is no incentive for government to do so, and it bodes poorly for our future." G2A
"100 Years. Industry polluted the air and water with impunity.
Roads were largely unpaved.
Health and safety laws, where they existed, were enforced poorly, at best.
Racial and sex discrimination was legal, where it wasn't mandated.
One year later, the US Army learned it was so poorly equipped that recruits for the First World War had to train with broomsticks.
But hey, people got to keep more of their money. Freedom!" RB
"I don't know of anyone who wants to go back to under 10%.
However do we really need a government that controls where 35+% of where our GDP is spent?
You know my view... We should give them 33% and demand that they improve their effectiveness and quality of performance... Unfortunately the same folks who are okay with a high cost of government are resistant to holding government and public employees accountable for achieving goals for less.
As I often ask... What percentage of our GDP are you willing to give to the politicians and bureaucrats? And how much do you want direct control over?" G2A
did you even read the Vox article? once again you seem to have completely missed the main ideas (you can look for the very large words in bold to find them.)
so do you think Trump is the guy to bring govt spending to that utopian level of 33% of GDP?
Do you mean this meaningless bit of opinion and accusation?
"The Republican Party has become an insurgent outlier in American politics — ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."
Now you do realize that the Democrats do the same exact things... They continually want to add more governmental controlled costs and are not willing to compromise.
Remember that if one group wants to decrease costs and the other wants to increase costs, the compromise should not be to increase them a little less. It should be to hold them static.
If one group wants to grow government programs / head count and the other wants to shrink government headcount/ programs, growing it a little more slowly is not compromise. It should hold them static.
For 100+ years the politicians have compromised us right into a society where the public employees control 35% of our economy... Probably not a good place to be since they are human and want money, power, comfort, etc just like the rest of us.
As for Trump, the reality is that Congress is the group that creates the laws and hopefully Paul Ryan will still be there to offer a voice of reason.
The goods news will be that Trump would be there to sign the bills...
By the way, there are 2 ways to get to 33%.
- cut government spending
- grow the GDP
"Remember that if one group wants to decrease costs and the other wants to increase costs, the compromise should not be to increase them a little less. It should be to hold them static."
So you're saying that you don't believe in inflation?
Joel
I think there is an interesting dichotomy here. When Democrats control the government, spending and regulation increase dramatically. With divided government, spending and regulation increase substantially, and when Republicans control the government spending grows only a little bit. So apparently, "compromise" is never the best solution to the problem. The ability to "get things done" with one-party control is not advantageous because the outcomes depend entirely on WHAT gets done.
"...Paul Ryan will still be there to offer a voice of reason."
You can't teach an old dog new tricks.
Joel
"As for Trump, the reality is that Congress is the group that creates the laws and hopefully Paul Ryan will still be there to offer a voice of reason."
What evidence is there that Paul Ryan is a voice of reason. The Republican Congress has never been able to produce appropriations bills that meet the Ryan budget framework -- a challenge that would only be magnified by Trump's insane tax plan.
Joel,
The cost of government has been going up faster than inflation. That is why it has consistently eaten more of our economy.
Sean,
Paul's plans are directionally correct. Hopefully more people on both sides start to see that.
The view of many Democrats that we should just give politicians, bureaucrats and public employees more money and power each time they ask for it certainly is heading us in the wrong direction.
Do you have any answers to the questions I posed to RB? I just checked... No answers on MP.
I've already answered your stupid % of GDP question dozens of times.
These aren't GOP questions... These are human nature questions.
What would motivate a welfare bureaucracy to eliminate poverty once and for all?
Talking about job insecurity...
What would motivate any government entity to do more with less? I mean rarely do they face true competition thanks to the protection of the Liberal forces.
And this bureaucrat is suing over the idea. I assume she is using tax dollars to do so.
So doctors aren't really interested in curing illnesses, then?
"And this bureaucrat is suing over the idea. I assume she is using tax dollars to do so."
Said bureaucrat is an elected official (who won her statewide race by 12 points in 2014) who claims that the legislature passed a law that violates the state Constitution. I don't know the merits of that claim, but it's a bit more complex than you would have it.
The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions.
I don't think the Politicians, Bureaucrats and Public Employees are inherently evil, anymore than I think us typical citizens are. Don't you think that CEO's are striving to improve and grow their companies for the good of their millions of shareholders and thousands of employees?
As for the Doctor, that is a good example. I agree that many Doctors do want to help people and some may be after the money/power. Fortunately most of them have to operate in the free market and therefore are held accountable to be pleasant, professional, effective and to provide good quality care. Otherwise they have NO clients / employer.
What exactly is the mechanism that pressures government to use the money we entrust to them wisely and effectively?
Why do we have so many military, law enforcement, spy, security, etc agencies? (ie NSA, CIA, FBI, Coast Guard, Navy, Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, TSA, Homeland Security, etc, etc, etc)
All the high tech tools that are available now days and the head count is similar... What are they all doing? Are they aligned or fighting each other with "good intent"???
Then throw on top of that the local, School Board, County, State and Federal overlaps...
"I don't think the Politicians, Bureaucrats and Public Employees are inherently evil"
You just said that public employees who work on welfare programs don't actually want to get people off the programs. But, no, you're not saying anything bad about them...
"As for the Doctor, that is a good example."
Must not have been that good, because you completely missed my point. Doesn't a doctor have a similar incentive (under your model) to a public employee -- after all, if the doctor makes their patient too healthy, there's nothing in it for the doctor anymore?
That whole notion is silly, of course. Doctors want their patients to be healthy, and people who work to help folks on welfare are actually interested in helping folks on welfare.
"What exactly is the mechanism that pressures government to use the money we entrust to them wisely and effectively?"
Elections.
"Why do we have so many military, law enforcement, spy, security, etc agencies?"
Do you have a suggestion for reform?
non-defense-discretionary-spending-falling-to-historic-lows
Laurie,
Excellent timing... That is exactly how one forces organizations to do more with less....
You give them the same amount or less funding, and demand more productivity and quality from them. You open up as many contracts for renegotiation as early as possible. If possible you work to reduce what you pay employees and suppliers to what the market pays for similar positions. You fire questionable or poor employees or suppliers as soon as possible.
You focus on the vision, mission and goals of the organization, and the good of the stakeholders / owners.
What you do not do is constantly make excuses for the organization, employee and supplier failures, and demand more money to pay them more.
How far do you think Apple would get providing defective products and services.
And then complaining to their customers and saying that they are not paying enough for the product /service?
And yet this what many government politicians, bureaucrats, employees, citizens, etc do every day..
"If only we give them more funding... Then they will succeed..."
It is amazing...
Another good example of politicians and bureaucrats padding their nests. Obama is right in there with them.
So apparently the House and Senate did agree on some cost cutting... Just to have it vetoed.
And look at the lame rationale. "Unfortunately, this bill as written would immediately terminate salaries and all benefits to staffers carrying out the official duties of former Presidents – leaving no time or mechanism for them to transition to another payroll,"
I mean all of the existing living Presidents are rich from inheritance, book deals, speaking fees, etc and yet we are apparently paying ~$800,000 /yr per President to provide them office staff.
And Liberals think CEO's have it cushy...
On a related note, one of my friends is now dating a retired Federal Employee who worked ~21 years with a Senator. He was telling me about their nice new house and it was mentioned that she is making almost as much as when she was working thanks to the very generous Federal Pension that we tax payers are funding.
I thought that can not be true... However this article explains it in some detail.
Fed Pension Summary
Well RB answered one of my questions with the usual Liberal answer...
"Enough...
And my answer to your oft-asked question is: Enough.
I don't have a number. Any number that is picked in advance of a given time is necessarily arbitrary. You say 33%? Okay, but why is that necessarily better than any other number? Does it increase in wartime? Recession/depression?
In a representative democracy, we still have indirect control over the public fisc. "Politicians and bureaucrats" don't come out of the ether, they are put there as representatives of the popular will, however convoluted that path may seem.
"I don't know of anyone who wants to go back to under 10%." I could introduce you to a few of my hard-core libertarian friends, if you like. Yes, it's hard to take some of their ideas seriously." RB
To which I answered.
"I am okay with running on a 4 year average and making exceptions in times of war. That should pretty much take care of fluctuations. Of course it means we would vary between ~28% and 38% depending on the state of the economy.
We are discussing the topic elsewhere and I am anxiously awaiting an answer to my questions noted below. The unfortunate reality that large organizations with fuzzy goals can spend as much money as you give them. (until they go bankrupt) There are always hobbies to pursue, departments to form, raises to give, bonus to give, etc. What controls does this organization have to encourage politicians, bureaucrats and public employees, etc to "do more with less"?
There is never "enough". I just did a little research regarding Federal pensions and retirement benefits... It is incredible what they get... And Obama just vetoed a bill that would have limited the federally reimbursed office expenses of past living Presidents to $200,000 per year. Of course since he is going to become one of them, there is a HUGE Conflict of Interest here.
Now all of our retired Presidents are Rich due to inheritance, book deals, speaking deals, etc... Don't you think $200,000 for an office would be "Enough"..." G2A
"You just said that public employees who work on welfare programs don't actually want to get people off the programs. But, no, you're not saying anything bad about them..." -- Sean
Sean, you are correct, and there is a great analogy here to education. It is as I always say, "good people in a bad system produce bad results." Individual welfare workers want to do good things for the poor, by and large, but the rules of the system prevent them from doing so. Teachers, the vast majority, went into the profession because they really cared about kids, but "the system"-- the hidebound rules, fear of discipline, lack of effective methods, prevents them from doing so.
On the other hand, doctors set their own rules, unless they have to deal with government programs that tell them what they get paid for certain services. Because they must make ends meet, they will do what pays the best, not what best serves the patient. Oh, they won't let the patient stay sick or even get sick, but they will order unnecessary tests to get the total income up to what it needs to be to break even. As a result, costs go up and quality of care does not-- just like education, just like welfare. Government programs create no or even counter-incentives. If everything was up for private enterprise competition except for those things government is constitutionally obligated and best equipped to do, that "magic 33%" would be far less. I still believe we could provide better government services, in most cases, for half what it now costs.
Post a Comment