About a week ago, Eljefebob wrote a piece about conservatives wanting to "starve the beast." The notion was that if government could no longer afford entitlement programs then entitlement programs would have to die. It was a brilliant plan because no one would argue for killing social security, medicare, or medicaid on their own. Thus, they could cut programs without directly opposing them. Brilliant.
When Ronald Reagan (architect of starving the beast) entered office, he uttered those now famous words, "government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem." The general idea was that government regulation was bad and private business was good. You could almost hear Gordon Gecko warming up offstage. So, part of the Reagan plan was starving the beast, but this ignores the second half of the plan. I call it "wussifying the beast."
Here is the way it works, When you underfund a program you create a big problem. However, when you ignore a program overall (money and manpower) you create a much bigger problem. If you insert imcompetent people into important positions you create the illusion that government is incompetent. George W. Bush was particularly effective in this capacity. Appoint someone like Brownie to FEMA and watch the fireworks when a natural disaster hits. Brownie is amazingly ineffective (there was nothing in his past to suggest he would be effective) and the people start grousing about FEMA. Then, conservatives can come back and say, "you see, government really is the problem."
Conservatives have done this in all walks of life. The postal service is a joke and has been for years. Now, people use UPS, FedEX, DSL and any other service they can get their hands on. Government as a whole (including state and local governments) underfund education and appoint idiots to state and local boards. The result? People want to take their kids to private schools. Heck, private business is even making its way into fighting our wars for us. If we allow this to continue then we will wake up one day where everything is done by a private business or corporation.
Some out there will say, "great, that means less taxes for me." In a way that is correct, but the problem is that you will pay more that way. It's one of the great fallacies of taxes. The one thing you can always count on is that you will pay one way or another. Even if all of the governmental services were taken away and given to big business and all of the tax dollars went along with it, you would still end up paying more because big business must always profit. That is their motivation after all.
Take away public education? Sure, you could do that and you could save the property taxes involved. However, the average student cost between 6000 and 7000 dollars to educate per year. See how much that gets you with private schools. You want to cut state sales tax and let a private company handle our roads? Sure, that will save some money until Rick Perry puts up toll booths on every major highway. And maybe even more importantly, let's stop having money taken out for social security. We can be responsible for our own retirement now. Sounds great right? Maybe it does until we have a whole host of people that can't afford to feed themselves, care for their children, educate them privately (remember, no more public schools), and provide for their own retirement.
Like it or not, we are all better off with a government that works. We should all fight to combat waste where waste is, but we should also fight to make sure we have a government that is strong and will work for us. We need a government that will provide us with goods and services that only it can provide (for an affordable rate). So, it is important to fight "starving the beast" but we must also fight "wussifying the beast." Our children deserve to have a country for their own, but they also deserve a government that will work for them and not a bunch of faceless corporations doing what government should be doing.
Suggestion: turn off Glenn Beck. Or Rush. Or whoever is filling your brain with nonsense such as this.
What we are trying to get through to you is that people such as the great incompetency himself, GWB, was totally incapable of hiring good people. Plus he felt the need to "dance with them that brung him".
So he danced. To their tune.
And we ended up with goofballs such as Brownie who was more concerned with how he looked on camera, for Chrissakes, than for the fact that AMERICANS were dying. He just didn't give a flip.
Which pretty much sums up the GOP these days. They just don't give a flip.
Yes, master of the subtle. It is a master left wing conspiracy to call this a conspiracy because 28 different posts (not counting your two) came to a simultaneous agreement that it is a conspiracy without uttering the term. Since we both can be sarcastic lets get down to the nitty gritty. First of all, no one here buys into the whole 9/11 conspiracy crap, so don't even go there. It is in fact very basic. There is no conspiracy.
It is basic human behavior. When you have something you don't think is important then you don't pay much attention to it. Maybe it's cleaning the gutters. Maybe it's mowing the lawn. In the conservative mind, they would rather pay someone to take care of those things then to take care of them themselves. That's fine in of itself I suppose. In terms of hiring and staffing government agencies it simply means you don't make the effort. If I have a position I think is unimportant then I give it to a buddy (like say Brownie). It doesn't mean they have a meeting of right wingers to discuss how to hire incompetent people. They did by virtue of the fact that they didn't care as much. Again, that was not the main crux of what I was talking about.
What they did is operate as if they didn't care and then turn around and complain about the fact that it wasn't done well. That would be like me mowing my lawn and then turning around and bitching about how I did it. Essentially, government doesn't work for them because they don't care enough to make it work. Your initial response was actually more on point. I believe government can work if you make the effort to do it. Conservatives do not and so they don't make the effort. Then, they turn around and point to the fact that government doesn't work. In parlance, if I do a shitty job of mowing the lawn, it is a lot easier for me to justify hiring a contractor to my wife. That's essentially the conservative way of doing business.
Thanks for the clarification. Now I understand.
Its the great right-wing conspiracy at work again!
So, if I get you right, conservatives have been working in unison over the decades to staff all the government agencies with incompetent people?
That's certainly believable. NOT. I suppose you think that 9/11 was an inside job too?
BTW, how do you interview if you are looking to hire incompetent people? If the interviewers are some of the incompetents that you've already hired, they may screw up and hire someone competent.
No, this is not a credible theory, or should I say conspiracty theory. Even conservatives could not carry out something like this.
Maybe you should stick to baseball.
On Facebook the other day, I saw a little ad at the side of the page. Now, there are many "little ads" posted up there each day. Some of them are funny. Some of them (mostly the GOP "do you want a daily email from Gingrich" type stuff) are annoying.
The one that caught my attention was, to be honest, HORRIFYING.
It was an ad that stated "Real People for President" with a picture of some redneck clown in a Hawaiian shirt or something. In other words, could be your local yahoo in the neighborhood bar.
And these nimrods think having some "regular person" is a good idea to be "the most powerful person in the world"?
Are they THAT stupid?
Oh wait......this is the group that thought Sarah Palin would make a great VP. Sarah Palin, who thinks Africa is a country. Who, on any given day, should be put on Jeff Foxworthy's show, "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader", just to prove how absolutely mindless she really is. Sarah Palin, who as many reports have shown, has a great big ol' streak of meanness and vindictiveness. Witness her constant snapping at the bait that Levi Johnston puts out there. A bigger (or wiser) person would sit back and shut up. Sarah Palin who obviously has come to believe her own press releases.
Stupid is as Stupid Does. That's Sarah.
I do not WANT "Joe Sixpack" (or Palin) running the country. I don't want "the guy next door". I want someone intelligent.
It was unintelligent people (see "George W. Bush") and his ilk who got us IN this mess. Untelligent people who surrounded themselves with crooks and opportunists (see Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Phil Gramm et al).
All the way back to Ronald Reagan....who should have just stayed in acting.
When we allow cooler heads to prevail we realize that we live in a better world when we have both government and private enterprise. There are things that both do well and things they do not. I don't think any red blooded American could argue one way or the other with a straight face. The question we always face is how much government and how much private. As long as we are working under the discussion that there should be some of both then I am okay.
My point is that standing back and arguing for private enterprise while starving the beast or stupifying the beast is intellectually dishonest. The crime of it all is that real people suffered through events like Katrina for this so-called strategy. As for us, this is my main complaint about the likes of Sarah Palin and her ilk.
On a day to day basis, your or my politics don't matter. Her politics didn't matter on most days in Alaska. Her general incompetence did. I generally loathe litmus tests, but I do consider only one. The candidate must at least be as smart as I am. I'd prefer that they be smarter and know more than me about the issues. I guess I'm funny that way. Once we get there, their opinions about the issues can vary. In a crisis situation, I want someone smart and rational at the helm. Stupid and spastic just won't cut it.
Scott, hopefully it will sink in for John Galt with a second concise attempt.
John, let me translate down to right wing speak for you (in 10 words or less, preferably with a catchy but empty slogan):
Can you say "self fulfilling sabotage by incompetency prophecy"?
Scott WAS speaking quite consistently if not a bit too complex for one track minds.
So FedEx and UPS are prime examples of capitalism at its finest besting "government inefficiency"?
And how much does FedEx charge to send a simple letter crosstown (thanks Carguy for that example)? I'll bet closer to $20 versus 43 cents.
And how long do you think FedEx/UPS will last charging $20 for a simple little letter?
And do they deliver that $20 letter to any and every podunk address in the US? No.
They do what capitalism does best: cherry pick only what suits them for maximum profit and screw everyone else. Would suck to live in Wasilla, Alaska if all you had was FedEx, huh Sarah?
And how is that deregulation (re: naked, unfettered capitalism) of the electricity grid working out? Price gouging during peak summer demands that warranted a Federal investigation for price fixing and tiny Communistic community invested electric cooperatives still provide the lowest rates.
And you think Wal Mart doesn't have significant fraud/waste/employee theft/customer shoplifting?
And you don't think you're not absorbing the cost of that waste as opposed to Sam Walton's progeny out of the goodness of their magnanimous capitalistic hearts? Now there's an oxymoron plain as day. And where's your outrage for paying for private enterprise's waste and fraud? Not talking out both sides of YOUR mouth there, huh? Yeah, okaaaaaaaaaay.
"There is nothing evil or sinister about wanting to use private enterprise, where appropriate, to save money and do a better job."
Nothing sinister about using private enterprise? Your kidding right?
A few examples of sinister private enterprise and the entities they tried to control, corrupt, or destroy.
United Fruit Company and Guatemala
British Petroleum and Iran
Enron and California
Blackwater and Iraq
Chevron and Burma
Exxon and Venezuela
Vivendi, Suez, RWE and virtually every water source in the world.
Union Carbide and India
And the recent ruling by the corporate owned SCOTUS allowing corporations to spend as much as they want on political campaigns
The list goes on and on...
If anything private enterprise has proven they can not be trusted. How do we have an honest debate when people clearly choose to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the obvious?
Scott, your answer to John Galt was the best and clearest response I have seen. We need someone with a large megaphone to say this and keep repeating it, until people realize that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are blowing smoke up their collective asses. And realize they have been taken for a ride for the last umpteen years by the GOP.
Government is NOT the problem, regardless of what Reagan said.
Incompetence and cronyism IS.
Thank you for replying John. I think the argument you put forth is the slickness of the conservative argument. If I say that programs don't work now, that is not a statement saying that none work and it is not a statement saying that they never worked.
The issue is that conservatives have managed to fill government positions with idiots like Brownie. Then, they feign shock when FEMA doesn't work. Well duh! The fact is that FEMA was a great agency in the 1990s when Clinton appointed capable people to run it. I have never met a liberal or conservative that has really been anti-Medicare. This is the Rush Limbaughesque argument of saying government doesn't work.
I'm a firm believer in competition which is why I liked the public option. It is an option. If I want more bells and whistles then I can take a private option. Thus, this is why UPS, FEDex, and the others work as well. They offer increased services for a higher rate. I have no problem with that either.
The Adam Smith model was a model built on the expectation of 100 different competitors in each industry. That model is strained in most industries and non-existant in others like health care. Let them compete. Conservatives seem to forget the fact that competition not only helps private industry but also public. If the public knows they have the option of going to a private contractor then the public will do a better job.
My issue that I brought up is that it seems that conservatives want to eliminate the public option (generically and not just health care). They want to eliminate public schools. They want to eliminate public works. They even want to phase out public defense. They do this by introducing incompetence into those sectors and then standing back and pointing at the incompetence. I have never argued that government can't work. It works remarkably well when you include competent people in the process. I am arguing that when you let it wither on the vine in terms on manpower, intelligence, and funding then you shouldn't be surprised when it falls short. It is disengenous to underfund it, underman it, and underintelligence it and then turn around and argue that it doesn't work. They have made sure it doesn't work.
The problem with your argument is that it sounds like you are trying to argue out of both sides of your mouth.
You decry the waste and inefficiency and incompetency of government run programs but say that we should keep them anyway (and, you try to imply that Republicans are responsible for the situation).
I am not against legitimate functions of government. But the government's track record is dismal. That's why companies like UPS and Fedex are doing so well. And that's why people are nervous about having the government getting involved in their health care.
There is nothing evil or sinister about wanting to use private enterprise, where appropriate, to save money and do a better job.
You act like private enterprise can't possibly compete with government because private enterprise wants to make a profit. If that is so, then, using your example, why do people use Fedex and UPS if it costs them more or if they didn't think they were getting better service?
The Obama administration says that there is $500 billion in waste and fraud in government run Medicare, and then turns around and wants the government to take over everyone's healthcare. Is it any wonder people don't think this is a good idea?
I love you too, Carguy!
There is an interview with Chalmers Johnson that will help bring into focus the over all strategy of our government and corporations. Gives you an idea of the mind-set that we are dealing with.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1245364/
If you are interested in really knowing what our government has been doing in our name, you should take the time to watch this interview. A weaken government plays right into their hands...
There are people trying to clean up the mess we've been brought to. A very important development to be announced tomorrow - by Sen. Bennet from Colorado - an amendment that will preclude any member of Congress from EVER being a lobbyist! Great start!
Well put Scott. I remember when our government worked fairly well. In my family we watched EVERY minute of BOTH conventions. My parents were knowledgable and they talked to us about politics and government. I remember discussing the two parties and the candidates and their differences. My first campaign was 1960. I actually worked for Johnson in'64.
I (think) I've seen how things CAN be. I just don't know if we can ever go back there. Too much special interest, Too many legislsators "for sale". Too little concern for what's good for the country over what's good for me.
Nail + head.
I like the preamble to the constitution. I think that pretty well says it for me.
The only thing I have to add is that I really don't like that dick Cheney.
I couldn't agree MORE. You may not bat 1.000, but, IMO, you are in the high 900's.
I'm glad you're on our team.
Unfortunately, the government HAS been run like Worldcom and Enron.
After all, remember all the deregulation from the GOP over the last 30 years. (How's that working out for everyone, by the way?)
Remember Phil Gramm....and his asinine comments a couple of years ago about the recession.
And let us not forget about MRS. PHIL GRAMM....aka Wendy Gramm....aka a member of the board of directors of Enron.
And we wonder why the country is tanking so badly.
There are a lot of people (Rove, Cheney, Bush, Gramm, DeLay, Sanford...the list seems endless) who should be sharing space with Bernie Madoff these days.
My in laws are what I like to call classic conservatives (aka libertarians). I respect that point of view because it is actually a legitimate one. They didn't want any bailouts and I can respect that point of view.
I suppose my problem is more than just money. My problem is incompetence. Neo-conservatives don't think enough of government to be good at it. They didn't think FEMA was important. God knows what might have happened with an outbreak if someone like Brownie was head of the CDC. Being a government employee used to be a source of pride. The problem is that when you install idiots in charge then everyone under them looks like an idiot. Therefore, if I am a promising young person with a promising future, do I want a public sector job where people will assume I'm an idiot because I work for idiots or do I want a private sector job where people will laud my "can do attitude and ingenuity?"
This assault on our government had been ongoing for 30 years. That's a generation and a half folks. For some of us, it spans most of our lifetimes. Therefore, most of us (especially if we didn't pay attention in history class) only know a government that "doesn't work." It doesn't work because it hasn't been allowed to work. For the conservatives among us just imagine it this way. Imagine if every business was run like Worldcom and Enron. People would rightfully assume that big business doesn't work. The truth would be though that they can work if the right people are in charge.
As I remember "old timey" republicans - they were against government having too large a role - which is different than "smaller government". "Government" was not only defined as "federal" government either; state governments were to have limited roles. After the obvious suffering and deprivation of the Great Depression, I think most people agreed that government had a duty to protect its citizens - whether from military attacks on our country or from unscrupulous companies or individuals - it did not matter. Now, it seems republicans are of a caveat emptor mindset worshiping unregulated and unrestrained "free enterprise" above any concern for human life. see Citizens United v. FEC, No. 08-205. Old timey republicans made their arguments based on a political ideology of conservatism - fiscal and environmental - something akin to the American Indians idea of wise and frugal use of resources. These days, conservatives are more high livin', free spending, gun toting Joisey wise guys (and their molls) than anything else.
I agree with the old timers - government should intrude in its citizens lives only as necessary to protect and defend citizens and their rights, from enemies foreign and domestic (and secular and religious too!). Every other function of government should be to enhance the quality of its citizens' lives-- great education, great health care (including access for every citizen), protected labor rights, protected retirements, etc.
Excellent blog, Scott! And spot on. Just listen to some of the wingnuts bitching about "government" taking over everything. I had several friends on FB (who are on the opposite site of the political aisle) complaining about Obama being a "socialist" and they "didn't want the president running their car dealership or their bank."
Please. As if.
With asinine comments like those, how can they expect to be taken seriously? They wrap themselves in tea bags and carry misspelled signs at their faux outrage rallies, and they expect me to not laugh at them?
It's my belief that the nearly total economic meltdown we endured (and are still trying to dig out from underneath) was a direct result of dear ol' Ronnie Reagan and his "government is the problem" BS. Reaganomics. The only thing trickling down is them peeing on the people.
No, government is NOT the problem. Ineffective and incompetent PEOPLE ("Heckuva job, Brownie!" Here's a shout-out, Turd Blossom") in government are the problem. Incompetent frat boys elected (or chosen by the SCOTUS) are the problem. Idiots such as Sarah Palin ("I don't claim to know more than the next person") are the problem. (I happen to WANT a person who knows more than the next person...not a person who knows remarkably less than MOST PEOPLE) are the problem. Idiots such as Rush Limbaugh who is selling a bill of goods to the suckers and laughing all the way to the bank are the problem.
Giving important positions to people who are not qualified is a problem. Holding up important legislation because you have a nit to pick about some special action for your state is a problem. Holding out for unemployment benefits funding to complain about the deficit and about changes to the estate tax (that *might* impact a very small number of people) is a problem.
On the other hand...we get the government we vote for.
Tomorrow is election day. If you haven't already voted early.....VOTE!!!
Without public education, private schools and their leaders decide who gets an education and who doesn't. Also keep in mind that most private schools are religion based.
This is about forcing children to be indoctrinated into someone's religion. Not about education.
These "people" think they are the good guys, when in fact their track record clearly shows they are the bad guys. For lack of a better word these guys are evil. Couple that with religious fervor, and you have a result of what we are seeing now.
I remember back when Republicans (notice I capitalized it this time) were decent and truly the "loyal opposition". They WERE truly conservative but they were "fair". They truly wanted to limit the size of the federal government, which I favor too. (Me and TJ think alike and we're both fairly handsome guys)T hey favored state's rights and individual liberties. Not that they "loved" the poor, but they understood their plight. Eisenhower and Everett Dirksen. Hell, even Gerald Ford was a decent guy, just a little clumsy. But remember, he played "center" in football. as they say, "he spent much of his life looking at everything upside down and backwards."
My suspicion is that the cancerous paranoia that infected the Nixon-Watergate era took over the party. You wanna see what we got now.....look at the campaign Perry and Hutchison are running this last week. They got no repsect for anybody, not even fellow republicans. It's despicable.
USPS......not really a "service" industry from that perspective. But that IS their game plan. Send it "regular mail" or we'll make you pay.
But in all honesty, think about it....you mail a letter TODAY at 5:15pm and they deliver it tomorrow across town usually by 2pm, for 44 cents. Cup of "joe" at Starbucks costs $4.50.
Thus proving that modern conservatives aren't against big government. They just want different government. It's easier to say smaller government than it is to say they are against helping poor people.
but they do seem pretty loud and insistent that the deficit be cut...they just wuss out on what cuts they are pushing for
Remember Carguy who INCREASED that government. It is part and parcel of worsening the government's position by cutting taxes (VERY popular with the rednecks) WHILE increasing the size of government and Big Brother activities (you shouldn't care WHO is in your bedroom if you're doing nothing wrong), making government less and less capable of being efficient and less popular.
We now have the Ray-gun wished for unsustainable deficits that require the "necessary" cuts to once very popular government entities - the USPS, SS, & Medicare and Medicaid.
The wussies are the repugs who aren't ballsy enough to openly & publicly suggest and implement the "necessary" cuts they've worked so hard to achieve.
My USPS visual is more from walking into a post office than the actual carriers. See if this jives with your recollection...you walk into a line of at least half a dozen people and there is only one person waiting on them. Someone peers their head out of the break room and sees the crowd. They either snicker or have no emotion and then go back into the break room. The DMV would probably inspire a similar story.
Excellent insightful piece Scott! This is the Scott we Libs love! ;-)
I totally agree that's a conservative shell game and unfortunately, there's a sucker born every minute (we call them collectively, "teabaggers").
Less taxes for private contractors? Now THAT was my laugh for the day. Way to call them out Scott.
Ya think we're paying LESS for KBR, Blackwater, etc. to fight our wars for us? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you. A US Private gets probably one tenth the salary of a Blackwater mercenary. Why do you think they're staffed almost exclusively by ex-military? Blackwater casualties don't get counted in our "war on terror" to cook the books and show we're "succeeding".
Even PT Barnum would be incredulous at what wingers willingly swallow (yet they constantly whine about the government "cramming/forcing stuff down their throats against their will).
Ok, I know Carguy is champing at the bit for the tempting visual and metaphor. Sic 'em CG.
Carguy,
As usual I gotta story for you. One of my life long buddies worked for the postal service and no, he was not one of the people that has gone postal...he just went and died a few years ago.
anyway...oh well, nevermind...i'll tell the story on the next opportunity.
Hope you're having a good day!
Brilliant!
Now, I think where we have "gone astray", and I'm pretty sure Thomas Jefferson would agree with me, is we have put more and more oversight AND actual operation of government into the hands of the federal government when local and state government is WAY MORE EFFICIENT and WAY MORE RESPONSIVE.
IMO, the only way to fix our problem is to shrink the federal government and move more and more of these programs (back) to local and state governments.
And the problem........THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. It's like the addage.....We used to have 50,000 farmers and 5,000 people in the Farm Bureau. Now we have 5,000 farmers and 50,000 people in the Farm Bureau. In so much as Washington is NEVER gonna do anything to reduce it's size and/or power, I am afraid we are screwed. IMO, our chance to really DO something was back in the Reagan/Bush era. THAT GOVERNMENT that Reagan did away with was government WE NEEDED. What he GREW was unnecessary bureaucratic DO-NOTHINGS. Clinton started us on the right path.
Reduce size of government in the middle of a recession. Is the pope Jewish? Now, it's WAAAAAYYYYYY too late.
Where is all this gonna go????? Nowhere good.
Good article Scott. I am going to take a stand that will likely be unpopular. And I am ready to take the heat.
Over the course of my life, I have been VERY dependant on the USPS. And I am gonna stand up and say that I think they do a more than acceptable job considering. Over the past 30+ years, I would say that the USPS has delivered MY mail on time and in good condition well over 99.9% of the time. We used to mail over 80 pieces of mail each and every day and they would lose a piece on average, 1-2 times a year. That's maybe 20,800 pieces a year. Losing 1-2, that's pretty good.
And when you consider the quality of people they employ...that's even more impressive.