4 ms·

This piece does a fairly good job of presenting the conservative point of view: that there are mountains of waste in government to cut rather than hike taxes.

This piece does a fairly good job of presenting the conservative point of view: that there are mountains of waste in government to cut rather than hike taxes. I agree with that perspective. Unfortunately, as we've seen from Republican-led governments operating under this Grover Norquist-esque model for thirty years, the beast never starves. In Washington DC they print money to offset deficits. Instead of cutting waste, the libraries and the parks are closed. There's still a great desire out there for responsible government that can operate efficiently. That can keep the libraries open by trimming bureaucratic waste rather than asking for more money. Probably will always be a pipe dream.

Spooky23 9y ago
I've worked in government in a variety of capacities. The stereotypical waste that is typically cooked up in a drop in the bucket. Waste that you get from the privatization efforts are an order of magnitude more expensive. Unfortunately, the people in policy positions today are clueless... voting no doesn't fix anything.
brohoolio 9y ago
My local government is really transparent about the budget, where it's going. They've been running really lean since the great recession. It's really interesting to see how they spend money. There are couple programs I question, but for the most part they do an excellent job. I will say sometimes a few years after these programs are implemented I'm generally a fan. I understand the drive to make government more efficient, run better, but I'm not sure if that's the goal of the current conservative movement. At least here in Michigan the state government under republican control has caused all sorts of issues, like the Flint water crisis.
- ashark 9y ago
  A couple of my friends are in low-level positions with the state government. At least in their cases, I can say that their offices run so lean that cost-cutting attempts from higher up just lead to worse service and conflicting (or outright illegal) directives, which encourage rule-breaking of a sort that is sure to eventually bite them in the ass in expensive ways.
- ericras 9y ago
  Local government that's smaller in scope and closer to the people generally runs better. Imagine that.
slackingoff2017 9y ago
The problem with cutting costs is that nobody agrees on what should get cut. Everyone has their district and it's pet projects. The best way I've seen it done is to just slash everything by the same amount. Sadly this results in things like closing libraries. Nobody agrees on what's waste and what isn't. If everyone agreed that X was a big waste of money it wouldn't exist, so we're stuck with a system where every dollar goes to a thing somebody cares about
anigbrowl 9y ago
But why is it that when conservatives are in government they go for the easy targets instead of tackling the structural problems? There are lots of ideas in conservative philosophy that are superficially very attractive and that I'd like to agree with, but far fewer examples of conservative governance bringing down costs while maintaining or improving service levels.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  For the same reason that when liberals are in government they give you a right-wing healthcare bill and expand 2 wars to 7. Because as the now infamous Princeton study demonstrated, Congress doesn't care what voters want. http://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congress-doesnt-care-what-you-think http://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congre...
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    I asked about conservatives, not Congress, and at any scale of governance. Please don't switch the terms of the argument like that.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      You specifically said when conservatives are in government, not conservative voters. The answer to your question is that the people in government, regardless of whether they campaigned as conservative or liberal, do not care one iota about what the voters who put them in office want.
      - anigbrowl 9y ago
        I reject both your claim and your rhetorical switcheroo.
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        I provided a reference. What more do you want? Go look at the provided data. It doesn't matter whether liberals or conservatives hold power. Government doesn't do liberal or conservative things. It does whatever the wealthy want. If that happens to appear conservative or liberal on the outside that's purely incidental.
Clubber 9y ago
The beast never starves because the GOP feeds it when it's theirs. They complained endlessly about the debt, but once they are in power, they are proposing the largest tax cut we've probably every seen. It's all a lie. For what it's worth, I'm all for reigning in government spending and power. Sounds like we are ratcheting up another drug war.
- CalChris 9y ago
  Exactly. There's right wing welfare just like there's left wing welfare.
scarface74 9y ago
I can understand the idea of worrying about government waste at the federal level or even the state level, but you can see exactly where your taxes go at the local level and especially in small towns, the politicians aren't some remote out of touch folks that you never see. I moved away from my hometown of about 100,000 people 20 years ago, but I could probably get in touch with most of the politicians there through family connections. In fact, the current mayor is the mother of one of my best friends. I go to her house almost every Christmas to see my friend. On top of that, a lot of times like in the case of the library, you know exactly where the tax increases are going.
glangdale 9y ago
Which parts of government spending do you consider 'waste', and what proportion of government spending do they add up to? If they are 'mountains' of waste they should be easy to identify, and if you have such a strongly held viewpoint on it, you should also have plenty of evidence.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  It's not as simple as saying a given program is a waste. The government procurement system is incredibly wasteful. Instead of actually going with the lowest bidder they intentionally order parts from lots of different Congressional districts. Otherwise funding won't get approved. A prime example of what happens when you can escape government procurement is SpaceX. Beyond that there's huge obvious ones that come along all the time like the F22s we keep buying more of even though the military doesn't want them. This of course is a jobs program for engineers and a way to again funnel money into the districts which all these random parts are procured.
  - Frondo 9y ago
    Please distinguish between federal-level procurement and state and local procurement. "Instead of actually going with the lowest bidder .. " In many states, it's law that they must go with the lowest bidder. This often causes problems because that lowest bidder delivers shoddy work that leads to eventual cost overruns--going with the "best value" instead of "lowest price" would reward companies that could meet both cost AND quality expectations. It'd also more closely reflect private sector considerations if those laws were changed; a private company can spend more for higher quality and get the long-term benefit of that quality deliverable, and that's a trade-off and decision that's simply taken away from state/local procurement professionals. State and local procurement tends to run pretty lean, and tends to be pretty accountable. All this stuff is public record, and local papers will often cull through that stuff looking for juicy nuggets. The relative rarity of public purchasing scandals, at least for state and local folks, tells you that they're probably doing a pretty good job (even with the goofy restrictions like "you must buy from the lowest bidder even if their work is shit").

Spooky23 9y ago

I've worked in government in a variety of capacities. The stereotypical waste that is typically cooked up in a drop in the bucket. Waste that you get from the privatization efforts are an order of magnitude more expensive. Unfortunately, the people in policy positions today are clueless... voting no doesn't fix anything.

brohoolio 9y ago

My local government is really transparent about the budget, where it's going. They've been running really lean since the great recession. It's really interesting to see how they spend money. There are couple programs I question, but for the most part they do an excellent job. I will say sometimes a few years after these programs are implemented I'm generally a fan. I understand the drive to make government more efficient, run better, but I'm not sure if that's the goal of the current conservative movement. At least here in Michigan the state government under republican control has caused all sorts of issues, like the Flint water crisis.

ashark 9y ago
A couple of my friends are in low-level positions with the state government. At least in their cases, I can say that their offices run so lean that cost-cutting attempts from higher up just lead to worse service and conflicting (or outright illegal) directives, which encourage rule-breaking of a sort that is sure to eventually bite them in the ass in expensive ways.
ericras 9y ago
Local government that's smaller in scope and closer to the people generally runs better. Imagine that.

slackingoff2017 9y ago

The problem with cutting costs is that nobody agrees on what should get cut. Everyone has their district and it's pet projects. The best way I've seen it done is to just slash everything by the same amount. Sadly this results in things like closing libraries. Nobody agrees on what's waste and what isn't. If everyone agreed that X was a big waste of money it wouldn't exist, so we're stuck with a system where every dollar goes to a thing somebody cares about

anigbrowl 9y ago

But why is it that when conservatives are in government they go for the easy targets instead of tackling the structural problems? There are lots of ideas in conservative philosophy that are superficially very attractive and that I'd like to agree with, but far fewer examples of conservative governance bringing down costs while maintaining or improving service levels.

Consultant32452 9y ago
For the same reason that when liberals are in government they give you a right-wing healthcare bill and expand 2 wars to 7. Because as the now infamous Princeton study demonstrated, Congress doesn't care what voters want. http://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congress-doesnt-care-what-you-think http://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congre...
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  I asked about conservatives, not Congress, and at any scale of governance. Please don't switch the terms of the argument like that.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    You specifically said when conservatives are in government, not conservative voters. The answer to your question is that the people in government, regardless of whether they campaigned as conservative or liberal, do not care one iota about what the voters who put them in office want.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      I reject both your claim and your rhetorical switcheroo.
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        I provided a reference. What more do you want? Go look at the provided data. It doesn't matter whether liberals or conservatives hold power. Government doesn't do liberal or conservative things. It does whatever the wealthy want. If that happens to appear conservative or liberal on the outside that's purely incidental.

Clubber 9y ago

The beast never starves because the GOP feeds it when it's theirs. They complained endlessly about the debt, but once they are in power, they are proposing the largest tax cut we've probably every seen. It's all a lie. For what it's worth, I'm all for reigning in government spending and power. Sounds like we are ratcheting up another drug war.

CalChris 9y ago
Exactly. There's right wing welfare just like there's left wing welfare.

scarface74 9y ago

I can understand the idea of worrying about government waste at the federal level or even the state level, but you can see exactly where your taxes go at the local level and especially in small towns, the politicians aren't some remote out of touch folks that you never see. I moved away from my hometown of about 100,000 people 20 years ago, but I could probably get in touch with most of the politicians there through family connections. In fact, the current mayor is the mother of one of my best friends. I go to her house almost every Christmas to see my friend. On top of that, a lot of times like in the case of the library, you know exactly where the tax increases are going.

glangdale 9y ago

Which parts of government spending do you consider 'waste', and what proportion of government spending do they add up to? If they are 'mountains' of waste they should be easy to identify, and if you have such a strongly held viewpoint on it, you should also have plenty of evidence.

Consultant32452 9y ago
It's not as simple as saying a given program is a waste. The government procurement system is incredibly wasteful. Instead of actually going with the lowest bidder they intentionally order parts from lots of different Congressional districts. Otherwise funding won't get approved. A prime example of what happens when you can escape government procurement is SpaceX. Beyond that there's huge obvious ones that come along all the time like the F22s we keep buying more of even though the military doesn't want them. This of course is a jobs program for engineers and a way to again funnel money into the districts which all these random parts are procured.
- Frondo 9y ago
  Please distinguish between federal-level procurement and state and local procurement. "Instead of actually going with the lowest bidder .. " In many states, it's law that they must go with the lowest bidder. This often causes problems because that lowest bidder delivers shoddy work that leads to eventual cost overruns--going with the "best value" instead of "lowest price" would reward companies that could meet both cost AND quality expectations. It'd also more closely reflect private sector considerations if those laws were changed; a private company can spend more for higher quality and get the long-term benefit of that quality deliverable, and that's a trade-off and decision that's simply taken away from state/local procurement professionals. State and local procurement tends to run pretty lean, and tends to be pretty accountable. All this stuff is public record, and local papers will often cull through that stuff looking for juicy nuggets. The relative rarity of public purchasing scandals, at least for state and local folks, tells you that they're probably doing a pretty good job (even with the goofy restrictions like "you must buy from the lowest bidder even if their work is shit").