An Olive Branch

[Superman]

Okay, we've taken some heat for arguing here and, as much as I enjoy arguing, we should show folks that America is not as polarized as they might assume. Sure, we have our family squabbles, but really we're just looking at different ways to achieve...small tactical differences in how we might achieve...the many important goals we heartily agree on. So, perhaps in this thread we can post those thoughts we know the "other guys" are thinking. Let me start.

You guys know I was a public servant (bureaucrat) for years, and that I am still in the game of helping to accomplish public works construction. Many here have apparently formed some negative impressions of "government" and I have disputed those conclusions for the most part. But honestly folks (I hope you guys are sitting down), there is a lot of inefficiency in government. Many agencies have a "work up" system of promotion that arguably places more emphasis on seniority, and less on performance, than might be ideal. Often there are only thin provisions for displacing a bureaucrat whose performance in an important management role is....underwhelming.

Further, there seems to be long cycles of efficiency (or lack thereof) due to political and strategic pressures, among public agencies. I hope I am not breaking my "say something nice" rule here when I say that regulatory agencies tend, over time (decades) to become "captured" by the regulated community. Over time the regulated community, particularly when that community is 'businesses,' chips away at the agency's effectiveness. Watering down one regulation in exchange for support in some other area...and once a regulation is softened it is nearly impossible to ratchet it back up. For this reason, governments shift certain offices and functions between agencies, and restructure whole agencies, or groups of agencies. Wholesale restructuring allows an office to "recall" its regulatory mandate and jump back up to a level of effectiveness lost during the preceeding decades of attack by the regulated.

Here's another one I can vigorously validate: The insanity of the government budgeting process. Trust me when I tell you that my bosses and colleagues at the "bureau" regularly insulated me from budget processes, for their own safety. When my nose was pushed into budget discussions, the outcome was usually not pretty. Yes, the more you spend this year the more you protect your budget from cuts next year. Yes, limitations on the number of workers you may hire are circumvented by "casual" labor and other emergency hiring provisions. Rich offices help fund poor offices by pretending that the transfer of money and positions is necessary to accomplish the mandate of the "rich" office.

Okay, I'll stop here. For now. You guys know I support much of what government does, and that I feel many agencies do a Herculean job of serving its customers within the available resources. But here, in this thread, I am going to offer my thoughts that support the misguided notions apparently held by the Klingons (conservatives). And I challenge them to do the same. So, let's lock arms and sing "Kumbaya" together. If you can. I'm throwing down the gauntlet. The olive branch.

[Superman]

By the way, there's more where this came from. If you guys play, I'll be back with more concessions.

[dd74]

Originally posted by Superman
I'm throwing down the gauntlet. The olive branch.

Well, I'm picking up the conch through which I will announce...

...that efficiency varies from state to state and that state's population. And I've found that as a state grows in population, the government becomes more inefficient. LA County is a good example of that. Our roads are awful, detritus (abandoned buildings, houses, vacant lots, etc), are everywhere. Social services aren't what they used to be; but LA County continues to expand.

Another example of inefficiency is the Federal Government. Have you seen the pathetic state-to-state distribution of Homeland Protection Act funds? New York gets $5 bucks per person while Wyoming receives over $30! Ridiculous.

Government suffers, in the very least, from ADD. It increasingly focuses less on the big picture and concentrates itself more on things of little interest that do not support the mainstream. For instance, L.A. has needed an expanded freeway system for over 30 years, but CA. has been too infactuated by environmental impact studies that interest only a few in lieu of the larger masses. Now, of course, we have no money to even hope for expanded transportation - freeway, train, bus or otherwise.

Maybe WA. government is different. But CA. government suffers not just efficency problems, but poor judgement. I'm holding out hope (the future president) Schwarzenegger will turn things toward the right direction. Or maybe a mass exodus of East Coast squatters move back from where they came.

[techweenie]

"I'm holding out hope (the future president) Schwarzenegger will turn things toward the right direction."

It's interesting that Arnold has pretty much come back with all the Gray Davis solutions and that the public is as enthusiastic for them as they were angry with Davis and the legislature for the same stuff (Borrowing $15 billion, etc.)

The only thing missing is the "resetting" of auto license renewal taxes to the 90s levels. For Californians, that's a "third rail."

But back on the topic, it's popular to call government less efficient than industry, but in most cases, they are comparable. I think that of all CA government institutions, the one that is consistently result-poor and inefficient is the Department of Education.

[dd74]

Originally posted by techweenie
I think that of all CA government institutions, the one that is consistently result-poor and inefficient is the Department of Education.

Yes, but in return for stupid kids, we have lower property taxes. Thank Prop. 13, which everyone voted in favor of...

[Overpaid Slacker]

Supe -
I suspect there is a broad spectrum of issues within this very topic on which you and I would be in violent agreement. No so much the solutions to those issues, but the issues themselves.

In the regulated environments in which I've operated (securities and vitamin/nutritional supplements), there has almost never been a "ratcheting down" of the strictness or scope of the requirement. I can't name one, but I can't say there's "never" been one.

Like any other profession, public or private, the majority of people do their jobs to the best of their ability (though the ability level differs between public and private, in my experience). The crux of our other-topic disagreement is the relative ease w/ which the "market" can correct inadequacies/corruption and make accountable those whose a$$es should be in slings vs. the relative impossiblity of such accounting and improvements in the public sector. It's just been my experience that it works that way, and maybe you're taking it personally. You shouldn't. If I took every lawyer joke personally, I'd be a miserable bastard. Oh, wait...

JP

[Hugh R]

Originally posted by dd74
Yes, but in return for stupid kids, we have lower property taxes. Thank Prop. 13, which everyone voted in favor of...

I don't think that's true. With housing prices among the highest in the nation, $340,000 average for the state I think, and 1.25% property tax, that's an average of $4,250 per house in property taxes. I know that the assessed value is based on the sales price, but truthfully, how many people are living in houses that they bought pre-prop 13? Also with 8.25% sales tax in Los Angeles, that has to be one of the highest rates in the country as well. The problem, IMHO, is the large influx of low wage earning immigrants, (legal and illegal). The state spends $7,300 per student in education, who pays for that? Answer, the rich, certainly not the poor. If you have two kids in school thats $14,600/year in education costs alone, never mind, police, fire, flood control, roads, etc. If you earn $60,000/year, you might pay $4k in income tax, another thousand or two in sales tax. Look at Los Angeles Unified School District, its something like 70% hispanic, do you think all those kids parents each pay $7,300 in taxes for each of their kids to go to school, plus all the other government services. In summary, it isn't the property taxes, actually, maybe it is... I suppose I could have my current property tax bill doubled or tripled to pay for some other persons kid to go to school. I read in the L.A. Times recently that something like 70,000 households in Los Angeles County get Section 8 housing subsidies of about $1,000/month. That's $12,000/year, so the way I see it, me and my neighbors property tax bill is going to support one family that wants to live in one of the most expensive real estate markets in the United States, no wonder we don't have money for schools, they just took my property tax bill check and gave it away for housing, not my kids education, nor someone else's. No wonder we don't have good schools.

[techweenie]

"they just took my property tax bill check and gave it away for housing, not my kids education, nor someone else's. No wonder we don't have good schools."

I don't think it's the raw dollars. After all, i've paid over $90K in property taxes since coming to California and I don't have even one kid in school. Well over 50% of homeowners do not have kids in school ans so are paying property taxes for somebody elses' kids.

The problem is that over 50% (I've heard) of the education employees are administrative, not in the classroom.

[Superman]

There's lots of bait here for me but that's not why I created this thread. You guys just don't have the spirit. Yet, anyway. I was hoping that, in this thread, we would find the "common ground" we all know is there. Even better, this is an opportunity for the conservatives, who have so far left the rest of us with the impression that they do not understand what's going on (forgive me for that), to impress us with their broad knowledge of the issues by presenting some liberal tenet that they actually respect and recognize. And vise versa.

Keep trying. Perhaps I did a poor job of illustrating. Let me try again: The Economy. Truly, it is ideal for our nation if the economy can be restored to its robust recent past, like during the mid to late '90s (forgive me for that, too). A rising tide lifts all boats, and if jobs and sales were sufficiently plentiful then revenues to public coffers would increase and demands for public assistance would decrease. I could afford the 9x16 Fuchs I need and life would be wonderful. Our capitalist economic machine has its own automatic price/quantity adjusters that work quite well, and business knows how to go after a sales opportunity. R&D, and other important and necessary functions can increase efficiencies, and so to the degree that we can place companies into a position to be able to afford and invest in these market-exploring activities, we can use our free markets to "...promote the general welfare...."

Brownie points for any known conservative who can tell me where that last quote comes from.

[Schuey]

Dan Quale? [sic]

[Hugh R]

Wasn't it in the Federalist Papers?

I'm a conservative, and I think the government should stay out of my wallet, out of my bedroom, out of my body, and out of my life. The Federal government was created by the States, not the other way around. Which part of the Constitution says the Feds. can regulate what you can put in your body? Drug laws were actually legislated under the auspices of the Interstate Commerce Clause. I don't happen to do drugs (any more), but if someone wants to sit in their living room and have a beer and a joint, I don't see how its anyone else's business.

I think it made it to the U.S. Constitution after being debated in the Federalist Papers.

[Superman]

It's in a finished document, with signatures.

[Overpaid Slacker]

We The People of the United States, in Order to Form a More Perfect Union, Establish Justice, Ensure Domestic Tranquility, Provide for the Common Defense, Promote the General Welfare and Secure the Blessings of Liberty, to Ourselves and Our Posterity Do Ordain and Establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

From memory, so forgive minor inconsistencies. God Bless School House Rock.

JP

[Superman]

You've got an extra comma in there, JP. Kudos.

Now, I wonder if this little exercise is just too challenging for folks. C'mon. Someone state the other side's position well enough to fool us. Or do you guys just understand one side of these issues?

[Overpaid Slacker]

Supe, from my POV, there are many other positions -- many other "sides", so I could (strictly for devil's advocate purposes) put one forward and not be your particular other side. This is of course complicated by the fact that these other sides each involve sliding scales/spectra of commitment. What I could do (but not today, for workload reasons) is put forth a number of instances where the capitalist/market system is flawed, and where certain things would be handled better by quasi-governmental agencies (assuming such agencies were run "ideally"). Some of the market flaws, however, may be that it's not cutthroat enough, frankly.

JP

[turbo6bar]

Superguy, I will think about this today while I'm working and post later.

One issue I feel that is being approached improperly (I admit this is not in the scope of your post), is the issue of rising health care costs. I believe neither Bush nor Kerry have plans about curtailing health care costs. They only seem to be interested in reforming programs to make health care available to all. In other words, they want to raise taxes/increase the budget to pay for crazy high insurance programs. I've mentioned it before here, but I had to pay nearly $1400 for a 2 hour emergency room visit (no blood work, only x-rays, no IVs, only one pretty nurse that I can remember). To me, that is silly expensive. I really appreciated the care, but I felt it was expensive. At that rate, a 12 hour stay in the emergency room would be $8400!!!

Whether there is national health care or not is not a big concern to me. My concern is who can/will pay for this?

Oh, and John Kerry proposes sealing the boarders so illegals can not enter so easily. I like this policy better than GWBs temporary amnesty program for illegals already in the country.
jürgen

[Superman]

Good tries, but pathetic. I didn't realize this would be so hard.

[singpilot]

I think I smell an olive branch burning.

[Superman]

Well, I'm trying to think of a conservative tenet that I can say honest and supportive things about. Hmmmmm.

How 'bout Welfare. I don't want to support people that are just plain lazy. People who are just getting a free ride with no intention of acting responsibly or gratefully. I also do not want to pay for the sex change operations of other people.

There, I feel better.