Thoughts on politics...

[whymc]

I'm not thrilled, obviously, with the results of this election.  One of the two people in the Senate that I've genuinely looked up to as something of a personal hero is no longer going to be there.  The house has flipped.  The Senate will be deadlocked

Comments

[whymc]

I do, actually, agree with you on this - I use the example of the postwar US when I teach the economic portion of the history of the cold war. I guess that, if I had to list the reforms that I'd like to see, they'd run in this order:
1 - end *stupid* government spending (seriously cut back defense spending, reduce the number of crimes that lead to jail time - replace some jail time with fines, perhaps
2 - clarify the tax code to make it far simpler and more transparent and remove all the silly tax incentives that have built up over the years and add up to nothing useful (I'd also eliminate the payroll tax and slightly raise corporate income tax - to promote risk-taking and growth)
3 - trim most of the pork/ corporate welfare from the budget
4 - consider modifications to health care to make it more efficient, and save money on medicare
5 - consider tax increases, but modest ones, and ones targeted first at people who have money, but aren't spending it (perhaps a wealth tax)
6 - re-configure the structure of government - I agree with most of the *functions* of government, but do we really need dozens of agencies handling intelligence, and that's just the example that comes to mind first.

[voland]

Everything you state makes sense except 5, you really should abandon the class envy/hate of the left.

Now what prevents this from happening. IMHO it is the government itself. If you do (1) the .gov employed prison workers union will un elect you. (2) As soon as you try to do that everyone and their mom will bitch and moan... my prius is no longer subsidized think of the polar bears... (3) Then the corporation will lobby against you. (4) But what about jobs. (5) What we need is flat one rate tax on all income, your point five will result in all the problems you try to fix in (2) getting worse. (6) Not going to happen, way to many voters that work for all the agencies. You

This is the bomb obama and the left have planted in our republic. The more people work for the .gov, the less likely you are to ever fix the .gov. Simply put it, why would a unionized .gov worker vote for a guy that would fire him from his cushy job?

[whymc]

Seriously dude, what's your beef with a modestly progressive income tax? I'm not talking about maximum rates of 90% again, or something like that - I'm talking no tax up to the poverty line, 20% from there to 100k, and 35% from there on up. That's not such a high rate that people will actually stop trying to earn more, and it's not punishing people who achieve, or any of that bs - it's asking people who have done better in the country, and therefore derived more of a benefit from things like collective security, education, and infrastructure spending, to chip in a bit more.

Sadly, I do agree that these changes are unlikely - I'm coming more and more to believe that we're stuck in a wost-case scenario, where we have a bad hybrid of left and right, that features large government spending, but with most of that spending being siphoned off by insider deals with corporations. (If this were 30 years ago, I'd say unions, too... but unions are all-but-dead in the US right now).

[voland]

California is a good example of the paradox I present in my comment. So much of the population is either employed by or supported by the government, that any reform is impossible. The public sector unions in CA know that the state is bankrupt, they know that its unsustainable. But still they resist (in their own self interest) any reform, that might jeperdizes the high paying .gov jobs that they have.

[whymc]

I'll agree with you on the prison unions - that's one union I would dearly love to see busted - I still don't agree that the other government employees are getting some sort of super-cushy ride. A typical government worker makes about what I make, adjusted for regional cost of living... and most of them do useful things. I don't want to cut the dnr or the dmv, or apparently, anything that begins with 'd'.

[voland]

But we must cut the DMV, the DNR, the FBI, ATF, CIA, NIH, NSF ect.... There i no choice. Your comment is a picture perfect illustration of the problem with the country.

Let me elaborate.

We can probably gut much of the DMV, through automation, and more it will be more convenient for users. But this will not happen because... public sector unions are not interested in their clients, only themselves.

MATC just rammed through a huge tax hike, to build more building and parking lots. The left in Madison is all jizzed up about this. It does no even occur to them that for a fraction of the money we could have put all the extra classes online. Same with the stupid new library, and the stupid train to Milwaukee. Inefficient 18th century solution. It all comes down to cash. It MATC would go modern, the local builders union would lose work, and we can't have that (since you know the state and fed has to hire union).

This is why we must must must grant government power very carefully. IF the .gov workers can elect their supervises, and vote themselves raises, whom are they accountable to? No one, so they just raid and pillage funds.

Try to mention school reform or merit pay around a .gov worker, and they will blow a headgasket in rage.

[whymc]

We're going to run up against a certain fundamental point of disagreement here. I do agree that a certain extra degree of modernization and efficiency needs to be part of the process of change - I'll agree 100% about the automation of many things at the dmv. Bender could renew my plates. As for the rest - you're dead wrong about the online classes issue. Online education - trust me on this, it's what I do for a living - is 10 years away, at a minimum, from being as good as classroom education, and it might take even longer. As for the others - most Americans agree that government services are valuable - and so we should try to keep them, while making them more efficient. I'll agree that unions need to be a little more flexible about issues of discipline and merit-based evaluation - but management has, historically, used both of those as tools for union-busting, so why would unions give an inch, without solid promises that merit review will be used for merit review? They'd be crazy to.

The question we need to be asking is not 'how can we make sure that those union bastards don't make so much money' - instead, the question should be 'how can we ensure that most people make a good, solid, American middle-class wage'. You're a pessimist - I get that - I don't agree. I don't buy the idea that we can't do better than lifting regulations and hoping for the best. That's not economics - that's religion, and I don't buy it.

[voland]

If the same exact services were offender by private institutions would they be less valuable?

Again I will respectfully disagree with you on education. For what MATC does, an online curriculum with some in person classes would be a very effective remedy against unnecessary wasteful expansion. More importantly it would offer a very important advantage to consumer (students) flexible scheduling.

Same with the idiotic train between two backwater rural towns. If you want green transportation, by a fleet of priuses to circulate back and forth between towns. Hire some drives. Mission accomplished, total cost will be less then a million me thinks, upkeep will be negligible, and we will create the same number of jobs.

I would perhaps like to draw a distinction for you. I am all for market based .gov solutions. I am against anti-market .gov tyranny. You can not fool the free market, every time the .gov tries it fails. Such government institutions as NIH and NSF are successful because they operate on free market principles. Public education in Europe is cheaper and better then in the US, because while being publicly funded it is market run (I.E. consumer decide what they want).

You believe in government. I hope you understand that government exists to serve the people. So tell me, how do we the people benefit from inefficient overpriced governmental services?

[whymc]

You can't fool the market? Really? Markets are fooled or distorted in a million ways, from advertising to monopolies.

I'm not opposed to online education - but the results are, at best, disappointing - even the market feels this way, as online degrees are less useful in obtaining employment. This *will* change, as online methodologies improve, but we're years away from that point.

I believe that certain tasks require collective action. In some cases (consumer goods are the easiest, but far from the only, example) that collective decision-making is best handled by markets. In other cases, such as areas of natural monopoly, I believe that collective action through government agencies is appropriate. I'd not agree that government action is naturally less efficient, or that market action is more efficient. Markets and private enterprise give good value when there is strong and transparent competition. When these are lacking, as they often are, private enterprise provides very poor value, as consumers are over-charged for artificial monopolistic profits, and environmental and labor costs have their effective prices mis-represented, and thus not factored into the final cost of goods and services delivered by the market. Markets are sometimes the answer, but not always.

Let me give you an example of what I most worry about when it comes to privatization. Parking in chicago was run by the city. It paid for itself, and provided revenue. Parking has been privatized. Parking prices have increased substantially. Does street parking in the city now come with complementary relaxing foot massage? No. Has privatization in any way provided better value for city residents? No.