YellowKing wrote:My boss just drove his own van out to drop off some equipment at the DC. About a 5 hour drive there and back. Saved the government THIRTY FUCKING THOUSAND dollars in shipping charges.
I saved my company $300,000 this year by giving them a more accurate count of our Office installations and suggesting we move to a new licensing standard. But I wouldn't call my company as a role model for cost savings. We still have major, major areas for improvement.
Until this latest debt ceiling fiasco, I certainly have heard of no serious attempts by politicians to save money. The facts don't back up the idea that they're spending less money. If the government truly is saving money right and left and spending less, then by all means bravo. Let's see the numbers and the results. Then we can talk about hiking taxes.
Really? Not even in the 90's when, after the cold war the military budget was slashed and we actually were running surpluses and paying down the debt?
I understand your point about wanting efficiency and cost-effectiveness, but I'll ask you what the primary role of government is, and I'll give you a hint, it's not to be efficient.
Government is about governing effectively, and in our system, it's about a struggle to non-violently wield the power of the most powerful country on the face of the planet amongst competing interests. Part of keeping us out of bloody power transitions is money and the the bottom line is that sometimes inefficient spending is necessary to ensure that.
Now, our form of government does a decent job of balancing that degree of power with living up to its ideals of being of the people, by the people and for the people - maybe too good, because that, too is inefficient. It is much more efficient to be of, by and for only some of the people, but for the most part we strive to ensure that all the people are included in those statements (which can be hideously expensive, which is why rural folks don't get broadband, etc.). Ensuring opportunity for all, when there is an economic incentive to deny that opportunity to some (most?) is problematic.
Let's take a look at some of the most efficient programs in the US - gov't run healthcare and retirement benefits. As (I believe) Zarathud has indicated many times, VA benefits are more efficiently run than any private healthcare program. Medicare is likely the same (fraud and overhead is likely still higher in the private markets). Social security is also probably more efficiently run than any private system would be - though there is also likely some fraud and waste there as well.
Now let's look at the most inefficient program - the military. We spend over 20% of our budget here. We spend more than all the other countries on earth combined. How efficient is that? Do you think we are getting our money's worth? And if so, why? Perhaps because the job of the military isn't to be efficient, it is to get the job done. The same can be said of government.
You say you want wisdom in politicians? Who amongst the R's running would you say is the wisest? I'd say that in 2008 you made the right decision - President Obama (as problematic as his leadership style has been) has shown to me to be a much wiser choice than McCain-Palin was, and I believe may still be in 2012.
