Do you believe it is possible for the government (in current or +10 yrs state) to run any program well and efficiently?

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: babylon5

Originally posted by: Vic
The topic question is too black-and-white. There are a few things govt can and should do and many that it shouldn't. For example, I wouldn't want the courts or police to be privately owned by competing entities. There'd be no uniform rule of law. Private military isn't so good either. Private fire depts wouldn't be so hot either (hard to bargain a good deal when your house is burning to the ground). The postal system seems to work fine, for the most part it even turns a profit. So yes, it is possible for govt to run something well and efficiently. The greater issue is what govt should be limited to doing so that the rest of us can be free to doing everything else. And exactly that, limited govt, is the idea our country was founded upon. Not no govt. Not everything govt. Limited govt.

Postal is one of the few areas our government seems does fine. But what other area is our government doing a good job running with good result? Education? Food Safety? Airport Security? Managing our nation's budget?

Since our higher (greater than K12) public education institutions are often ranked the best in the world, yes, I'd say we run education pretty well.

The public K-12 schools are mostly abysmal, but there's no reason to believe that they can't be fixed.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Perhaps because the topic is whether it is possible for government to run ANY program well, not just the one you want to cherry-pick as a bad example. This thread is full of people who condemn all of government based on their favorite government horror stories. It is just as dumb, and just as wrong as condemning all companies, or all blacks, or all Republicans, or all -insert your pet class or organization here- based on the actions of one or two members of that class or organization.

Very true, but the fundamental difference is that you can choose not to do business with a private organization. You can't escape government. And the times you can't escape a private company it's because the government granted it a monopoly.

 

[Sacrilege]

The VA department's prescription drug purchasing program is a model for any future government health care system. Republican congressmen insisted that the Medicare prescription drug benefit program not have the collective bargaining abilities that the VA system has, and Medicare pays much higher prices as a result. All for the benefit of the politician's drug company cronies.

 

[budafied]

NOOOOO

Not until there is a revolution similar to that of the Founding. Americans, on the whole, have accepted this heinous form of government blindly. We need a complete revolution of government before it can do anything in a way that actually benefits the people in a true way.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: budafied
NOOOOO

Not until there is a revolution similar to that of the Founding. Americans, on the whole, have accepted this heinous form of government blindly. We need a complete revolution of government before it can do anything in a way that actually benefits the people in a true way.

What exactly would this revolution do? Declare that from now on, corruption is wrong?

The naivete of thinking a 'revolution' would do anything but unwittingly reduce the power of the public if it had any chance to happen, which it doesn't, is boggling.

The American Revolution was to gain independance, with the vote offered as incentive to get the masses to support the war. We now have that. So why a revolution?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Efficiently? No.

The first purpose of a government program, regardles of its stated intent, is to perpetuate itself. This automatically means it can't run efficiently.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who really really can't do, run government programs.

:thumbsup:

It's a great bumper sticker, but parroting propaganda doesn't make it meaningful, no matter how earnest you may be. Every organization, public or private, tends to try to perpetuate itself. Following your insinuation, that means all organizations are bad, right? Naturally you also both ignore the counterexamples and the fact that big business can be just as bad as the worst of government.

Nooo...

It's true that a business exists to perpetuate itself. That is its primary goal. It's also true that some (very few) can be responsible for very bad things. But private business also runs the risk of failure. Should a business fail to make a consistant profit, or be found to be negligent or act in an unlawful way, that business will go under. Its assets will be folded into another business that will correct its failings and shortcomings... or it will cease to exist altogether. There is constant pressure/motivtion to try to do better.

Government programs have no fear of the consequences of failure. The program could be an absolute, unquestionable, abominable failure and still continue to live on and continue to fail... forever. Raise taxes, print more money, whatever... there's no risk of a program disappearing. Therefore, there is no incentive to be more efficient or do better work. This kind of mentality will eventually lead to even the most successful program's road to failure. It's inevitable that a government program, given enough time, will fail and become counter productive. The best we can hope for is that it just runs with gross inefficiencies.

 

[AreaCode707]

The polarization we see in the poll is interesting. Although I'm not in the middle segment, I'd almost want to say that those 7 voters probably have the most realistic, least-propagandized viewpoints, simply because the poll options were fairly extreme. Also interesting that doubt in the government is apparently stronger here than confidence is.

I like having polls where you can't neatly align one side of the other with a political party.

 

[QuantumPion]

The government can run some things reasonably well, but in general they are extremely wasteful and inefficient. The reason is simple:

A) none of the people in charge are responsible for their own success/failure,
B) they spend other people's money and not their own,
C) Failure is rewarded; "oh you didn't complete your objective? I guess you need more money next year then."

It's the same reason why communism doesn't work, it's human nature to work hard when your own neck is on the line, but mooch off others when you can get away with it.

 

[Xavier434]

Does this mean that everyone who voted no believes that our military sucks ass?


I think some programs are run very well, others need a lot of work, and there are some that just need a little updating and polish. The rest is just details.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

they never have, and they never will. anything that could be even slightly viewed as a success could be done much better by private industry. for some things, basically just national security, its a necessary evil since individuals do not have the resources or jurisdiction to defend much more than their own home.

 

[Elias824]

The government is around to provide things for society that it cannot provide for themselves, or would be ineffective to provide for themselves. Think how many libraries would we have if they were not govt funded, im sorry but a nickle late fee inst paying anyone salary. The point is they don't have to be efficient compared to the private sector because they don't work on the same level.
I think state and local government can work quite efficiently, however when you jump into the massive fed there is so much bureaucracy and overhead costs I would doubt the possibility of very many things running efficiently.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
The government can run some things reasonably well, but in general they are extremely wasteful and inefficient. The reason is simple:

A) none of the people in charge are responsible for their own success/failure,
B) they spend other people's money and not their own,
C) Failure is rewarded; "oh you didn't complete your objective? I guess you need more money next year then."

It's the same reason why communism doesn't work, it's human nature to work hard when your own neck is on the line, but mooch off others when you can get away with it.

A) Same applies to large corporations
B) Same applies to large corporations
C) Same applies to large corporations (as of the bailout)

But seriously, you've painted with such a large, exaggerated stroke that you ended up not making any point at all.

The difference is that to hide the endless inefficiencies inherent in any large corporate group, they simply raise prices on products and services. That doesn't mean the inefficiencies don't exist, nor does it mean that they're small (they're often quite large in fact).

For instance, in the 70s the US Govt created a single rail freight corporation from several bankrupt northeastern railroads, brought them to profitability, and a few years after they were privatized the whole thing went bankrupt. A classic example of the federal government managing a service better than private industry. Obviously not all stories end like this one (see Amtrak, which was never quite able to reach self-sufficiency), but to deny it is to deny history.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
THOSE WHO CAN'T TEACH

I DIDN'T GET A HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION AND I TURNED OUT JUST FINE AS THE CASHIER AT TACO BELL AT AGE 43

Seriously, if you think "those who can't, teach" is a legitimate "philosophy" or whatever then you need to take a serious look at the big picture. The biggest "doers" in history have almost always been educators. Remember, most great scientific discoveries are made by educators (professors at public/private institutions).

Eh-hem, sorry to derail the thread

You started by saying this:

The first purpose of a government program, regardles of its stated intent, is to perpetuate itself. This automatically means it can't run efficiently.

And then you said

It's true that a business exists to perpetuate itself. That is its primary goal.

Ignoring that logical fallacy, you went on to state that

Its assets will be folded into another business that will correct its failings and shortcomings

But THAT business also falls under the category of "perpetuates self" as a rule.

Inefficient government programs DO get cut, it just tends to take longer than in business for the reasons you stated; once a business fails, it's simply gone, whereas a government program can be on life support. In other words, you're trying to revise history, or maybe you're just ignoring history altogether.

However, that ignores a crucial fact; sometimes these government programs include essential services. For instance, if a hospital goes bankrupt, I'm suddenly lacking an important medical facility.

Your arguments are also completely flawed, assuming that government employees don't get raises, don't get performance bonuses, etc. There are incentives in place that encourage employees to be more efficient, to cut costs, etc.

And again, programs do get cut. You don't hear about it because these programs probably don't influence you. Regardless, you're giving yourself tunnel vision.

You've constructed a very poor philosophical argument that has no basis in reality. Sorry, but you're just wrong. Government programs CAN be run efficiently. Privatization is often (not always) simply more efficient. Any large group, be it a corporation or a government program, is going to develop inefficiencies that are impossible to completely remove.

The difference is that the government is undercharging for services provided (ie taxes are too low). When you see a deficit, you see inefficiencies without making the correct comparison. Obviously they are present, but you're not seeing the whole picture. Perhaps you would see the same inefficiencies in a corporate group if it undercharged for all of its goods and services. If you could buy laptops from Apple for $50 a pop, how high would their deficit run I wonder?

 

[PokerGuy]

Bwahahahahahahaha .... well run and efficient, in the same sentence as "government"? Is that some sort of joke?

The problem is that no matter what you do, government employees generally have no incentive to really be efficient since their customer -- the people -- don't usually have a choice to go with a competitor. When competition exists, there is an incentive to be efficient and reign in expenses. When government runs something, there is generally no competition, so the results range from "complete trainwreck" to "run of the mill disaster", with very very very very few exceptions.

Government employees are often also part of unions, so there's even less accountability. Government employees for the most part never get fired for incompetence unless there happen to be lawsuits or they do something really really bad. In a private company if someone's not cutting it, they can be removed.

It's common sense. That's why the role of government should be limited to doing those things that only the government can do. By it's very nature, left unchecked, it increases in size continuously. Limiting the government to those things it actually needs to do because no private entity could do them is something both ruling parties have failed miserably at.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Bwahahahahahahaha .... well run and efficient, in the same sentence as "government"? Is that some sort of joke?

The problem is that no matter what you do, government employees generally have no incentive to really be efficient since their customer -- the people -- don't usually have a choice to go with a competitor. When competition exists, there is an incentive to be efficient and reign in expenses. When government runs something, there is generally no competition, so the results range from "complete trainwreck" to "run of the mill disaster", with very very very very few exceptions.

Government employees are often also part of unions, so there's even less accountability. Government employees for the most part never get fired for incompetence unless there happen to be lawsuits or they do something really really bad. In a private company if someone's not cutting it, they can be removed.

It's common sense. That's why the role of government should be limited to doing those things that only the government can do. By it's very nature, left unchecked, it increases in size continuously. Limiting the government to those things it actually needs to do because no private entity could do them is something both ruling parties have failed miserably at.

Short response: You are neither correct or incorrect. At the end of the day, we need both the private industries and government to provide us with options in order for our country to truly flourish. The people working in government are also much more responsible for their performance than you may realize. I work for government. I know.



Longer version:

Tell that to the massive amounts of government employees in my state which are being laid off.

In some sense, you are correct though. The key difference here is that in the private industries there is a goal with infinite prospects. We call it profit. There is never enough profit that can be obtained. Therefore, there is never a real limit to the amount of work one can do in a private industry. That also means there is never a real limit to the amount that can be spent as long as it brings in that profit.

On the other hand, government is not there to make profit. Government has no goal of infinite prospects. There is not an infinite amount of work to do in all cases. The idea of government is to provide a service to the people. They are to fulfill a role and not go beyond it because when they do they are often scolded for spending too much money. They have a task to complete and they get it done with the funding that is allocated to them. There are countless times where you have people working in government that want to improve quality but simply cannot because they are denied the funding to execute their ideas. That is not always the case of course. There are also cases which occur in the exact manner which you describe.

However, I do not recommend that you follow the rest of the sheep and believe no department in government is effective because many are very effective and while there are some cases where private industries could do better it is not worth relying on them. The reason is because private industries all take risks and their quality relies far too much on the state of an economy. There are some things which we need to retain despite bad economic times. That doesn't mean that private industries should not get involved to provide the people with an alternative, but to rely on them solely is very often just as bad of an idea as it is to rely on government solely for other things.