4 ms·

The problem is that there's a lower bound on what government can spend and still be effective. If a business has to cut jobs, that affects that business and th

by akeefer 17y ago

The problem is that there's a lower bound on what government can spend and still be effective. If a business has to cut jobs, that affects that business and those people, and if the business dies as a result of that revenue shortage or from those job cuts, it's pretty localized. Can you really do the same thing with police officers or the fire department? Or with the DMV? Or social services, which people need more of during a recession, not less? Do you really just cut the fire department in half? Or expect everyone therein to take a 50% pay cut? So you cut salaries or freeze them, you cut back staffing as much as you reasonably can, etc. But there's a real lower bound on how much you can cut, and you can't just say, "Well, we have 50% less money this quarter, so we'll just have 50% as many policy officers." I'm not saying I have any answers to those questions, or that government budgeting practices are ideal or rational (I live in CA, so if you want to talk about messed up budgeting . . .). But you also have to realize that it's a very, very different problem space, and the government fundamentally isn't in a position to absorb sudden, huge drops in revenue the way a business or individual has to just by cutting back on spending.

awt 17y ago
I would disagree with the argument that there are lower bounds. That precludes the possibility that there are more efficient ways to solve the problems addressed by say, the fire dept. or the police dept. For example, let's say marijuana were legalized and officers no longer needed to enforce drug laws related to marijuana. This could reduce the required outlay to the police department and judicial system. I'm certain that all sorts of systemic changes are possible that would make the system more efficient, but without downward pressure on tax rates, they will never be implemented.
- zach 17y ago
  Why is marijuana legalization always the example? "You know, there are a lot of ways we can stabilize Medicare, for example by legalizing marijuana..." I'm just saying!
  - awt 17y ago
    Hadn't heard that one before but it sounds like a good idea :). I think drug enforcement comes up a lot in these arguments because it is currently such a tremendous misallocation of resources. The point will come where we can't afford it anymore.
mynameishere 17y ago
The government is absolutely choked with useless people. It's not the police who are going to get cuts. Consider, for instance, the fact that only the coast guard materially defends the United States, and it's the joke branch of the military.
- dantheman 17y ago
  It could come from the police though, if most peoples wages are being pushed down then so can police officers. Remember we only pay them the wage that they get paid, because that is wage that is required to get someone qualified to do that job. If other qualified people are willing to do it for less then they police should have their wages decreased.
ars 17y ago
One way to cut expenses - don't mail renewal notices for drivers licenses: http://www.snopes.com/politics/traffic/massrenewal.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/traffic/massrenewal.asp It sounds like a joke, but it's real. You might thing they could take some of the money from the renewal fee, but nope.
jerf 17y ago
"The problem is that there's a lower bound on what government can spend and still be effective." True, but it would only be relevant if we were anywhere even remotely near that spending limit. I can cut about 75% out of the Federal budget and government will still be "effective". No Social Security, Medicaid, much smaller military, and a lot less subsidizing, but laws will still be passed, police services will be untouched, and all the truly basic functions of government will continue on. I for one can't stomach a definition of "basic effective government" that includes things that didn't even exist 100 years ago. What we need from our government is law, order, basic public safety, defense from our neighbors, and little else. What we want is another story. I'm not advocating this. I'm substantiating my point that we are nowhere near the true "lower bound". Which is good, actually. If you're implicitly claiming that we actually are near the lower bound, and I also add the observation that we may very well be mere months or weeks away from no longer being able to afford the government we have (that bond auction story is scary), then we're all in real trouble when the upper bound of the government's spending drops below the lower bound of the government's spending. I think a lot of people are about to re-learn the difference between "want" and "need".

by akeefer 17y ago

awt 17y ago

I would disagree with the argument that there are lower bounds. That precludes the possibility that there are more efficient ways to solve the problems addressed by say, the fire dept. or the police dept. For example, let's say marijuana were legalized and officers no longer needed to enforce drug laws related to marijuana. This could reduce the required outlay to the police department and judicial system. I'm certain that all sorts of systemic changes are possible that would make the system more efficient, but without downward pressure on tax rates, they will never be implemented.

zach 17y ago
Why is marijuana legalization always the example? "You know, there are a lot of ways we can stabilize Medicare, for example by legalizing marijuana..." I'm just saying!
- awt 17y ago
  Hadn't heard that one before but it sounds like a good idea :). I think drug enforcement comes up a lot in these arguments because it is currently such a tremendous misallocation of resources. The point will come where we can't afford it anymore.

mynameishere 17y ago

The government is absolutely choked with useless people. It's not the police who are going to get cuts. Consider, for instance, the fact that only the coast guard materially defends the United States, and it's the joke branch of the military.

dantheman 17y ago
It could come from the police though, if most peoples wages are being pushed down then so can police officers. Remember we only pay them the wage that they get paid, because that is wage that is required to get someone qualified to do that job. If other qualified people are willing to do it for less then they police should have their wages decreased.

ars 17y ago

One way to cut expenses - don't mail renewal notices for drivers licenses: http://www.snopes.com/politics/traffic/massrenewal.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/traffic/massrenewal.asp It sounds like a joke, but it's real. You might thing they could take some of the money from the renewal fee, but nope.

jerf 17y ago

"The problem is that there's a lower bound on what government can spend and still be effective." True, but it would only be relevant if we were anywhere even remotely near that spending limit. I can cut about 75% out of the Federal budget and government will still be "effective". No Social Security, Medicaid, much smaller military, and a lot less subsidizing, but laws will still be passed, police services will be untouched, and all the truly basic functions of government will continue on. I for one can't stomach a definition of "basic effective government" that includes things that didn't even exist 100 years ago. What we need from our government is law, order, basic public safety, defense from our neighbors, and little else. What we want is another story. I'm not advocating this. I'm substantiating my point that we are nowhere near the true "lower bound". Which is good, actually. If you're implicitly claiming that we actually are near the lower bound, and I also add the observation that we may very well be mere months or weeks away from no longer being able to afford the government we have (that bond auction story is scary), then we're all in real trouble when the upper bound of the government's spending drops below the lower bound of the government's spending. I think a lot of people are about to re-learn the difference between "want" and "need".