3 ms·
This is tangential, but also relevant. A big part of the problem is not the lack of money, it's completely reckless spending and management of money. If you lo
by TangoTrotFox 8y ago
This is tangential, but also relevant.
A big part of the problem is not the lack of money, it's completely reckless spending and management of money. If you look at the actual amount of money spent on any public servant ranging from teachers to police to garbage collectors, it's a minuscule fraction of the spending for their respective segment, as is the cost for facilities and other fundamentally necessary costs. Where the real expenses come in are in bloated administrative salaries paired with even more bloated administrative structure, unsustainable and irrationally constructed pensions, completely wasteful spending of discretionary funds, and so on. It takes a truly special government to manage to spend in excess of $2,000,000,000 billion on a website [1]. Of course that's federal spending but the exact same is true at the state level.
So for instance we ostensibly should take pride in the fact that we spend more on education than nearly any other country in the world (3 spend slightly more than us), even parity adjusted. It should show how highly we value education. Yet of course in reality our educational institutions are seemingly underfunded. What gives? As a random example Illinois, like most states, is currently in a 'higher education crisis.' This [2] article provides details on where their funding is going, and this is completely typical. Primary and secondary education suffers the exact same problems.
And this is a similar pattern in nearly (and that is a weasel word - to my knowledge it's safe to just say every) every single government program. So how can we fix this? One of the biggest problems with bureaucracy is that when money is 'free', there is a massive incentive to not only spend every single penny you have but also slightly overspend to justify budgetary increase requests in the future. Organizations that spend less don't get rewarded; quite the opposite - they get punished with reduced budgets in future years. If our government suddenly had an annual windfall of $10 trillion, it's not like we'd be living in utopia as far as state programs are concerned. We'd be running a deficit within a decade again with shockingly little to show for it all. It's the nature of bureaucracy. The point of this all is that whatever we are currently spending is certainly much more than we what we need to be spending, and if fair taxation resulted in less revenue (which, as an aside, is not necessarily a given) - I do not see that as a major problem.
[1] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-24/obamacare-website-costs-exceed-2-billion-study-finds https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-24/obamacare...
[2] - https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/pensions-vs-higher-education/ https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/pensions-vs-higher-ed...