T Nation

Streamlining Goverment

Inability to decrease the size of government, to reduce duplication of services, to reduce expenditures and to increase efficiency is a failure of the whole federal government not one party.

“Congress addressed less than 40 percent of the GAO recommendations that required congressional action (39 percent) in some way”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/building_a_21st_century_government.pdf

Any thoughts?

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
Inability to decrease the size of government, to reduce duplication of services, to reduce expenditures and to increase efficiency is a failure of the whole federal government not one party.

“Congress addressed less than 40 percent of the GAO recommendations that required congressional action (39 percent) in some way”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/building_a_21st_century_government.pdf

Any thoughts?[/quote]

It will never happen , it does make good political fodder , Romney going to cut taxes , Increase Military spending and majically the deficit will shrink

1- The government will not willingly reduce the size of itself

2- The government will never run efficiently, because there is no incentive to do so

On another note:

3- Businesses will always be more efficient than government, because there IS an incentive to do so (profit)

4- Because of this, government involvement in providing services that can be provided by the private sector should be minimalized (such as education, post office, etc)

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
1- The government will not willingly reduce the size of itself

2- The government will never run efficiently, because there is no incentive to do so

On another note:

3- Businesses will always be more efficient than government, because there IS an incentive to do so (profit)

4- Because of this, government involvement in providing services that can be provided by the private sector should be minimalized (such as education, post office, etc)[/quote]

3 and 4 are a stretch. I know the post office is like bayonets and horses but if you want to ship a letter do you call UPS or FED EX ? I do see they have a private freeway down in Texas. If free enterprise could do it all we would not have places like Somalia , Afghanistan and the like Free enterprise requires A Government to keep it free.And I do know there is no perfect Government as there is no perfect business

Great paper on the ever expanding size of government is “Parkison’s Law”

I love the Somalia argument.

[quote]StevenF wrote:
I love the Somalia argument. [/quote]

It’s a tough one to beat :slight_smile:

[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
Any thoughts?[/quote]
I had a thought once that I haven’t let go of just yet.

A free market can mimic a direct democracy.

You ‘vote with your dollars’ on what to fund and what to cut.

This wouldn’t work for everything - but the gov’t spending programs like NASA, welfare, gov’t run healthcare, etc.

Most if not all of these things really are unconstitutional in my opinion. But even deeper than that (at least in some peoples minds) I would also add that people can decide better for themselves than politicians can. I mean literally. You are in a better and more informed position to decide where your money goes than any politician from ‘up’ in Washington is*. AND it’s also a completely separate point that ‘can do better’ is not quite the same as ‘will even try’, because I’m not convinced that these politicians have all our best interests in mind.

  • I originally wrote ‘I … (and) my money’. But the basic idea being you, your best friend’s neighbor, etc. these are all in a better position for these types of decisions. A true decision should take into account way more variables than any politician from across the country could ever come to.

When I say “free market ‘vote with your dollars’ direct democracy”… I am really just putting a fancy sounding name behind the basic idea of donations. Whatever programs cannot hold up by that - then they were only ever really being held up by corruption and confusion in the first place, to state it lightly. But the big sounding terms are not just BS, they actually fit - as far as I can tell.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]StevenF wrote:
I love the Somalia argument. [/quote]

It’s a tough one to beat :slight_smile:
[/quote]

The trick is that I didn’t say wither away the state. I said let the people directly decide on “gov’t spending programs” - whatever that means.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
1- The government will not willingly reduce the size of itself

2- The government will never run efficiently, because there is no incentive to do so

On another note:

3- Businesses will always be more efficient than government, because there IS an incentive to do so (profit)

4- Because of this, government involvement in providing services that can be provided by the private sector should be minimalized (such as education, post office, etc)[/quote]

3 and 4 are a stretch. I know the post office is like bayonets and horses but if you want to ship a letter do you call UPS or FED EX ? I do see they have a private freeway down in Texas. If free enterprise could do it all we would not have places like Somalia , Afghanistan and the like Free enterprise requires A Government to keep it free.And I do know there is no perfect Government as there is no perfect business
[/quote]

Are you really using Somalia as an example of free market failing?

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
1- The government will not willingly reduce the size of itself

2- The government will never run efficiently, because there is no incentive to do so

On another note:

3- Businesses will always be more efficient than government, because there IS an incentive to do so (profit)

4- Because of this, government involvement in providing services that can be provided by the private sector should be minimalized (such as education, post office, etc)[/quote]

3 and 4 are a stretch. I know the post office is like bayonets and horses but if you want to ship a letter do you call UPS or FED EX ? I do see they have a private freeway down in Texas. If free enterprise could do it all we would not have places like Somalia , Afghanistan and the like Free enterprise requires A Government to keep it free.And I do know there is no perfect Government as there is no perfect business
[/quote]

A stretch? The post office loses millions of dollars every day, ups and fedex make profits.

The only reason people don’t use ups or fedex for general letters is bc the post office has a monopoly on first class mail. Nobody is allowed to sgip first class mail except the post office. I am 100% sure that if the post office shut down there would be no problems.

I still think the government should be responsible for public roads, military, some welfare programs, etc. But they are involved in WAY more stuff then they should be.

If you don’t think businesses are more efficient than government, I’ll give a couple examples : social security and education. Social security is an absolute clusterfuck, would you trust your money to social security or to a private retirement account? Then have a look at private vs public education. Private is pretty much always better. I take the same side as Bill Gates on public education. The government should still fund it, but the money should follow the student, not the school. All the schools are privatized, and will have to compete to get students, and therfore funding.

If you read my post, I never said government wasn’t neccessary. Those countries you mentioned have/had tyrannical governments that stifiled their development as a nation. My argument is for smaller government, not larger, so you are actually proving my point.

[quote]Chris87 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
1- The government will not willingly reduce the size of itself

2- The government will never run efficiently, because there is no incentive to do so

On another note:

3- Businesses will always be more efficient than government, because there IS an incentive to do so (profit)

4- Because of this, government involvement in providing services that can be provided by the private sector should be minimalized (such as education, post office, etc)[/quote]

3 and 4 are a stretch. I know the post office is like bayonets and horses but if you want to ship a letter do you call UPS or FED EX ? I do see they have a private freeway down in Texas. If free enterprise could do it all we would not have places like Somalia , Afghanistan and the like Free enterprise requires A Government to keep it free.And I do know there is no perfect Government as there is no perfect business
[/quote]

A stretch? The post office loses millions of dollars every day, ups and fedex make profits.

The only reason people don’t use ups or fedex for general letters is bc the post office has a monopoly on first class mail. Nobody is allowed to sgip first class mail except the post office. I am 100% sure that if the post office shut down there would be no problems.

I still think the government should be responsible for public roads, military, some welfare programs, etc. But they are involved in WAY more stuff then they should be.

If you don’t think businesses are more efficient than government, I’ll give a couple examples : social security and education. Social security is an absolute clusterfuck, would you trust your money to social security or to a private retirement account? Then have a look at private vs public education. Private is pretty much always better. I take the same side as Bill Gates on public education. The government should still fund it, but the money should follow the student, not the school. All the schools are privatized, and will have to compete to get students, and therfore funding.

If you read my post, I never said government wasn’t neccessary. Those countries you mentioned have/had tyrannical governments that stifiled their development as a nation. My argument is for smaller government, not larger, so you are actually proving my point.[/quote]

You can have any trucking company in America deliver a letter , UPS and Fed Ex are probably best equipped to compete with USPS

I agree the gov should be responsible for what you said, but in my opinion we could throw health Care in there . It is something we will all need at some time of our life . Those that do pay their bills are presently subsidizing those that do not pay.It has the potential to be a great thing

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Chris87 wrote:
1- The government will not willingly reduce the size of itself

2- The government will never run efficiently, because there is no incentive to do so

On another note:

3- Businesses will always be more efficient than government, because there IS an incentive to do so (profit)

4- Because of this, government involvement in providing services that can be provided by the private sector should be minimalized (such as education, post office, etc)[/quote]

3 and 4 are a stretch. I know the post office is like bayonets and horses but if you want to ship a letter do you call UPS or FED EX ? I do see they have a private freeway down in Texas. If free enterprise could do it all we would not have places like Somalia , Afghanistan and the like Free enterprise requires A Government to keep it free.And I do know there is no perfect Government as there is no perfect business
[/quote]

Are you really using Somalia as an example of free market failing? [/quote]

The free market needs law (REGULATION) to be free

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

The free market needs law (REGULATION) to be free
[/quote]

Are you contradicting yourself on purpose to be ironic and make a point?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

The free market needs law (REGULATION) to be free
[/quote]

Are you contradicting yourself on purpose to be ironic and make a point?[/quote]

IMO i am stating fact

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

The free market needs law (REGULATION) to be free
[/quote]

Are you contradicting yourself on purpose to be ironic and make a point?[/quote]

IMO i am stating fact[/quote]

You are saying that in order for something to be free, it needs rules that determine how it can behave?

There’s definitely some rules that have to be in place for a free market to function within the context of our society. For example, the cheapest way of disposing waste would be to dump it in the river but that would be contrary to the public interest. There’s also regulation required in the financial sector (we can see what happens when we remove all controls). I would imagine that even yourself, Beans, would admit that there are checks and balances required even in the free market.

And those who think that the private sector is always more efficient haven’t worked at some of the large corporations that I have. Hell, GM is a great example of a less than efficient corporation.

james

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
I would imagine that even yourself, Beans, would admit that there are checks and balances required even in the free market.

[/quote]

I’d be the first to say clear, simple regulation that prevents irrational behavior becomes needed as the market becomes larger.

But, the point I was making to pitt is that, once you regulate a market it isn’t free. Regulation prevents freedom. There is a difference between what you said and what he said.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

The free market needs law (REGULATION) to be free
[/quote]

Are you contradicting yourself on purpose to be ironic and make a point?[/quote]

IMO i am stating fact[/quote]

You are saying that in order for something to be free, it needs rules that determine how it can behave?[/quote]

Yes , to a degree

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

The free market needs law (REGULATION) to be free
[/quote]

Are you contradicting yourself on purpose to be ironic and make a point?[/quote]

IMO i am stating fact[/quote]

You are saying that in order for something to be free, it needs rules that determine how it can behave?[/quote]

I am equally as confounded.

Pitt, you know Somalia is not really free right? There might not be an official government, but there is a power elite. Free enterprise doesn’t work there because those in power won’t allow it.

If Somalia was a peaceful place where they left each other alone capitalism would thrive.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
I would imagine that even yourself, Beans, would admit that there are checks and balances required even in the free market.

[/quote]

I’d be the first to say clear, simple regulation that prevents irrational behavior becomes needed as the market becomes larger.

But, the point I was making to pitt is that, once you regulate a market it isn’t free. Regulation prevents freedom. There is a difference between what you said and what he said. [/quote]

With out laws what would prevent some one from stealing ?