3 ms·

Until you consider how the US Government runs any program into the ground, is blanketed with regulations and bureaucracy, and generally hurts the people who it

Until you consider how the US Government runs any program into the ground, is blanketed with regulations and bureaucracy, and generally hurts the people who it's supposed to help. Here's a few examples just in case you need some evidence: The US Postal Service: http://www.economicfreedom.org/2012/12/12/stamping-out-waste/ http://www.economicfreedom.org/2012/12/12/stamping-out-waste... The War on Poverty: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/062612-616212-war-on-poverty-failed-but-spending-continues.htm http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/062612-616212-war-o... Medicare: http://www.aei.org/article/health/entitlements/medicare/why-medicares-failure-matters/ http://www.aei.org/article/health/entitlements/medicare/why-... Cash for Clunkers: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204884404574366664026140786.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020488440457436... You can also add these to the list: Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, AmTrak, No Child Left Behind, and the Fair Housing Act. I would be more in favor if the government had a good track record with some of these programs, but when you see how horrible these programs are run, you feel like we really can't seem to fix anything. Sad but true

nawitus 13y ago
"Until you consider how the US Government runs any program into the ground, is blanketed with regulations and bureaucracy, and generally hurts the people who it's supposed to help." Sounds exactly like the complaints I read on my social feed from fellow Finns :).
wwweston 13y ago
To respond to a point from the first article you linked (one which I think generalizes well): "So why isn’t the USPS making innovations and meeting customer needs like Outbox? Simple: because consistent financial support from the government eliminates incentives to do so." Anybody who thinks it really is that simple is someone to be wary of when getting information or analysis. The biggest reason USPS doesn't make changes like this is that congress ties its hands -- free market devotees don't want it competing in new areas. Or even old areas, like postal banking/payments (imagine the outcry here if someone decided maybe a public digital/physical payment infrastructure might be beneficial if competitive with the various private services). Some don't want it doing anything at all, but they can't really get rid of it, so they join up with the next group: budget-watchers who want it revenue neutral (which it managed pretty well for a long time)... AND now subject to pension/healthplan requirements well above and beyond any private standards. Meanwhile, cutting service is seen as a no-go. Some people have actually speculated subjugating the USPS to this set of no-win requirements is actually an intentional strategy to bolster the case for privatization, which would pretty much have been a non-starter before 2006. You could say that this proves that the US Government is ineffective, I suppose, but in a representative democracy, what that mostly proves is that US politics either prevents good policy thinkers from being elected or prevents them from effectively doing their job. Or letting others do theirs. There may be an institutional component too (our legislature in particular is less representative than one might think), but I suspect the biggest factor is cultural/philosophical.

nawitus 13y ago

"Until you consider how the US Government runs any program into the ground, is blanketed with regulations and bureaucracy, and generally hurts the people who it's supposed to help." Sounds exactly like the complaints I read on my social feed from fellow Finns :).

wwweston 13y ago

To respond to a point from the first article you linked (one which I think generalizes well): "So why isn’t the USPS making innovations and meeting customer needs like Outbox? Simple: because consistent financial support from the government eliminates incentives to do so." Anybody who thinks it really is that simple is someone to be wary of when getting information or analysis. The biggest reason USPS doesn't make changes like this is that congress ties its hands -- free market devotees don't want it competing in new areas. Or even old areas, like postal banking/payments (imagine the outcry here if someone decided maybe a public digital/physical payment infrastructure might be beneficial if competitive with the various private services). Some don't want it doing anything at all, but they can't really get rid of it, so they join up with the next group: budget-watchers who want it revenue neutral (which it managed pretty well for a long time)... AND now subject to pension/healthplan requirements well above and beyond any private standards. Meanwhile, cutting service is seen as a no-go. Some people have actually speculated subjugating the USPS to this set of no-win requirements is actually an intentional strategy to bolster the case for privatization, which would pretty much have been a non-starter before 2006. You could say that this proves that the US Government is ineffective, I suppose, but in a representative democracy, what that mostly proves is that US politics either prevents good policy thinkers from being elected or prevents them from effectively doing their job. Or letting others do theirs. There may be an institutional component too (our legislature in particular is less representative than one might think), but I suspect the biggest factor is cultural/philosophical.