patoadam: Photo of me playing guitar in the woods (Default)
[personal profile] patoadam
Here are my thoughts on the debt ceiling negotiations. All comments welcome. Feel free to agree or disagree, to say that this post is interesting and insightful, or to complain that it is didactic and boring.

I start from the premise that the government is supposed to save us money by doing things in the public interest that it can do better and cheaper than private enterprise. I bet you agree that it doesn’t always do this. It is possible for the government to waste our money in at least three ways:

• When it does something not in the public interest. I place our military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan in this category. YMMV.

• When it does something that the private sector could do better. I can’t think of a major government program in this category. Your suggestions are welcome.

• When it fails to do something in the public interest and within the limits of its constitutional authority that it could do better and cheaper than the private sector. For example, all the evidence I have seen indicates that government health insurance is less expensive than private health insurance. Since 1969, the real cost of Medicare per beneficiary has risen by a factor of five. This is terrible, but the real cost of private health insurance has risen by a factor of eight. We would save buckets of money if public health insurance were available to everyone.

If I’m right so far, the general principles of what to do about the federal budget are clear. We should eliminate government programs that waste money. We should continue, expand, and create government programs that save us money. We should happily tax ourselves enough to pay for everything, because the government would be saving us money.


In the current debt ceiling negotiations, on the other hand, it seems to me that our elected representatives are doing just about everything wrong.

First, they are worrying about the wrong problem. Our structural budget deficit is a legitimate long-term problem, but not what we should be worrying about right now. If the national debt as a percentage of GDP rises over the long term, it means that future generations will pay a portion of the cost of government benefits we receive, which I consider unfair. But it is a far more serious problem when the government wastes money for any of the three reasons I have listed above. The government can still borrow money at less than 3% interest, so how can the national debt be our most pressing concern?

Second, the rumored budget cuts currently being discussed are cuts to programs that, in my opinion, save us money: programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which are in the public interest and which the government can perform better than the private sector.

Third, the negotiators are not considering tax increases. I wouldn’t increase taxes on the poor or middle class, but I would certainly increase taxes on the wealthy. My reasoning on this issue deserves a separate post.

Finally, I think that Congress has an obligation to increase the debt ceiling with no strings attached. If they don’t authorize the government to pay the debts they have already incurred, I will consider them to be a bunch of deadbeats. One also can argue that the 14th amendment requires Congress to raise the debt ceiling. I am not a lawyer, so I don’t know if this argument is correct. In any case, I don’t think that the obligation to raise the debt ceiling is contingent on anything, so I don’t think that Congress should be negotiating about spending cuts, tax increases, or anything else.


Here is a mystery I don’t understand. I have emphasized that the government can, and often does, save us money. If I am right, why haven’t I heard anybody else saying this? Many voters want lower taxes and less government spending because they believe that the government wastes their money. Why don’t politicians explain to them that the government is at least trying to save them money?

(no subject)

Date: 2011-07-31 11:19 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] phillip2637.livejournal.com
I can think of two reasons why people believe governments waste money.

One of those is based on selfishness. In Toronto, for example, many who live in the outlying areas drive cars exclusively. Those people tend to look at any of their taxes used for public transit as a waste. Also, within the past few days we've had a movement to chop libraries, headed by people who don't read and admit to not knowing who a top Canadian author is. The list goes on.

The second is that governments, unfortunately, are very wasteful at an operational level, as opposed to the strategic ones that you mention. Over-specified purchases, ridiculous contracts, under-utilized employees, excess consultant fees, and a host of other things give the impression that the whole spending process is out of control. If they could clean up that image (and practice!) they would give a lot less ammunition to the hack and slash crowd.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-07-31 04:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] branna.livejournal.com
I agree with these points---the US debates over school vouchers is another good illustration of point #1. I suppose "selfishness" is one way to describe the idea that only those directly benefited by a service should pay for it. It's also shortsighted, as those not directly benefited by that service benefit in indirect ways.

As far as operational waste goes, are most large private companies really any less wasteful at an operational level, or does the government get unfairly slammed for the problems endemic to any large organization? Certainly my personal impression of the private medical sector in the US is not one of operational efficiency. I'd love to see a statistical study on this.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-07-31 05:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] phillip2637.livejournal.com
Having worked in both environments, my strictly anecdotal evidence says that operational inefficiencies are worse. Any competitive pressure that anyone feels is not nearly so immediate and there's a strong motivation to overdo everything, based on fear of public blame for failure.

I don't think it's a product of government as government, but would likely be found in any organization holding a monopoly within its sector, with a massive procedural history, and dominated by an eye to public relations.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-08-02 02:29 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dglenn.livejournal.com
AFAICT from anecdotal evidence, the larger the corporation, the less efficient it is at that level ... with the largest corporations being worse than government and some smaller ones being better.

I too would like to see proper statistics.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-08-02 09:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] subnumine.livejournal.com
Most of these wasteful practices were originally efforts to cut waste and graft.

Purchases are over-specified to avoid under-the-counter deals and bait-and-switch; employees are under-utilized because a civil service must staff to what it needs at peak demands, or it will collapse when the peak comes (informal hiring has often been graft, so it's forbidden); and consultants are privatization (catnip to certain Congressidiots).

(no subject)

Date: 2011-07-31 03:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jhayman.livejournal.com
Liked what Phil said and will expand: Governments are often the only option for programs that are, in the LONG run, proven to be good for citizens overall. The example about libraries is a good one (dropping libraries!!!, but public education (which was vigorously opposed at one time) would be another, as is universal health care. And so is care of the poor, the disadvantaged, the elderly and the disabled. Damn it, SOME people do the right thing, but most do the most expedient and or cheapest thing. Government programs sometimes help us do right. This is not to say Governments don't do the right thing in a totally hopeless fashion sometimes. Or to say that they are always cost effective, or even always right. Cynic here, not hopeless romantic. Still, which part of "for profit" and "not for profit" don't US legislators understand?

As to the current debt crisis, it seems tailor made for grandstanding, waving the flag, and making everyone's hair a little greyer. The reality is that the debt ceiling HAS to be raised or we have global economic collapse. Oh, but those opposed don't really care about anyone but the USA, or their own state, right?

Once again glad to be north of the border.



(no subject)

Date: 2011-07-31 04:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] capplor.livejournal.com
Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.

Reportedly said by Oliver Wendell Holmes, jr. in a speech in 1904. Alternately phrased as "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society, including the chance to insure", Compania General De Tabacos De Filipinas v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 275 U.S. 87, 100, dissenting; opinion (21 November 1927). The first variation is quoted by the IRS above the entrance to their headquarters at 1111 Constitution Avenue.

In the US we pay more for our military than the 10 closest competitors, combined. If we should cut it back to merely the 5 closest competitors I feel that the savings would more than equal the current deficit. Having such an expensive military is generally not conducive to the civilized society which Holmes was praising in the above quote.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-07-31 11:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lemmozine.livejournal.com
I'd like to know your opinion on entitlement cuts to veteran's benefits. If cuts need to be made to entitlements, my thought is these cuts should hit those who are able to handle them, including able-bodied veterans, Medicare recipients with annual income over 100K, and so on. Personally, I see the Republican view on entitlement cuts as symptomatic of their racism and bigotry, since those targeted for the biggest cuts are primarily ethnic minorities and individuals with mental and physical disabilities. Coincidence? I don't think so.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-08-01 05:07 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] capplor.livejournal.com
I think that there is no disagreement on this issue. Soldiers who have given their health & well-being for this country deserve the best care we can give them. The poor & underprivileged who are only asking for a chance deserve what help we can offer. The land which does not take care of all it's people is simply wasting wealth.

Bahá'u'lláh said that the poor in our midst are God's trust, one that we should safeguard lest we be found lacking. I know that you do not accept the concept of a deity, but I suspect that you can accept the general tone of the above reference.

(no subject)

Date: 2011-07-31 11:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lemmozine.livejournal.com
Sir, you are absolutely correct on all counts. That and 10 dimes will get you what you used to be able to get for one dime. My suggestion is that those of us who are alarmed need to join campaigns and work to defeat the most misguided, even if it means supporting the lesser evil. Otherwise, I see our country headed toward massive internal armed conflict in the next 10-25 years.

Profile

patoadam: Photo of me playing guitar in the woods (Default)patoadam

July 2020

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
192021 22232425
262728293031 

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 23rd, 2026 11:37 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios