Kansas: revolution in a cornfield, failed experiment

[ussusimiel]

...I can only think they WANTED that to happen. Can anyone see another angle I am missing here?

Tax Cuts Leading to Deficits is the same deal. You KNOW what will happen: deficits, loans, and downgrades. Again, I can only think they WANTED it to happen.

If you want government to be ineffective, this is exactly how to go about and make that happen. Take away it's revenue, make sure it never gets it back...

Will this not just lead to a Federal bailout (which kinda defeats the purpose).

If you wreck the government in a State, what happens? Won't the whole place go to backwards: infrastructure fall apart, people and businesses leave, population fall, employment fall? Is there some idea that some other agency/actor will step in and keep the whole show on the road? (John Galt, maybe! ) Is that even possible or legal?

Personally, I don't see any logic in rendering government totally ineffective and I don't really think that that is anyone's intention (never mind the GOP). Smaller more effective government, sure, but a totally useless government, that just doesn't to seem to make any sense?

What I see here is inordinate and counterproductive haste. It's like someone in a sort of frenzy to finally do all the things they have always wanted to do, now that they have finally got the chance.

u.

[Rawedge Rim]

What was his rush? Did he want to enact the changes while he has legislative majorities? Not much point in that if your policy changes mean that you're out of power after the next election.

In the US, you can cut taxes, but never raise them. If you get a chance to cut, you cut, because it's forever.

I've seen nothing that lasts forever except a temporary tax increase.

[wayfriend]

Personally, I don't see any logic in rendering government totally ineffective and I don't really think that that is anyone's intention (never mind the GOP). Smaller more effective government, sure, but a totally useless government, that just doesn't to seem to make any sense?

A "smaller more effective government" is a contradiction in terms. A smaller government is only a government that does less.

The logic is this: if you ruin the government's finances, it forces cuts. Now you can cut things that voters - the populace - wouldn't otherwise cut. Like public education, or environmental regulation.

But it's never the things that the wealthy - who have all the government influence - want cut, like tax breaks, or government contracts. All that other stuff is just money they'd rather keep. So it's a highly targeted smaller government - it does less of what the average citizen needs and sticks to what the wealthy want done for them.

So yes, it makes perfect sense. The trouble the top 1% has is that their ideas only get 1% of the votes. So they have spent 300 years perfecting how to manipulate democracy to do what they want. Underfunding the government is one way. Lobbying is another. Engaging with the religious right and the libertarians, who will give them votes because they can be moved by irrelevant (to them) issues, is another.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

It's a conspiracy!

[Zarathustra]

Personally, I don't see any logic in rendering government totally ineffective and I don't really think that that is anyone's intention (never mind the GOP). Smaller more effective government, sure, but a totally useless government, that just doesn't to seem to make any sense?

A "smaller more effective government" is a contradiction in terms. A smaller government is only a government that does less.

Of course. The government doesn't waste a single penny, does it? Every subsidy is going to a worthwhile investment, and Solyndra is a right wing myth, right? Every single government employee is absolutely vital, and not merely the son of some rich donor, right? Every single one of our millions of laws make sense, don't expand the power of government too much, are efficiently enforced, and never trample on anyone's right, correct? The tax code can't be simplified. People actually need every single service provided by the government--it's impossible for them to do it on their own--and if we keep expanding government services, power, and spending, it will simply become more effective, right?

Well hell, let's just give it unlimited power, scope, and size ... and it will therefore have infinite effectiveness, according to the Logic of Wayfriend.

The logic is this: if you ruin the government's finances, it forces cuts. Now you can cut things that voters - the populace - wouldn't otherwise cut. Like public education, or environmental regulation.

But it's never the things that the wealthy - who have all the government influence - want cut, like tax breaks, or government contracts. All that other stuff is just money they'd rather keep. So it's a highly targeted smaller government - it does less of what the average citizen needs and sticks to what the wealthy want done for them.

So yes, it makes perfect sense. The trouble the top 1% has is that their ideas only get 1% of the votes. So they have spent 300 years perfecting how to manipulate democracy to do what they want. Underfunding the government is one way. Lobbying is another. Engaging with the religious right and the libertarians, who will give them votes because they can be moved by irrelevant (to them) issues, is another.

[/quote]

God, it's been boring in the Tank without you, WF. I'm glad you're back. Sometimes I wonder if you're just doing a comedy routine. You can't honestly believe this stuff, can you?

[Fist and Faith]

If WF's been gone for a bit, his return might not be a terrible time to be civil. He's certainly not saying anything remotely rude or condescending. And I, the most politically and economically ignorant person here, wouldn't mind any actual counter-arguments. Which part is wrong:
-The wealthy run the government.
-The government does not act against the wealthy.
-The wealthy have found ways to remain in control of the government, despite the fact that they are only 1% of the vote.

[Zarathustra]

If WF's been gone for a bit, his return might not be a terrible time to be civil. He's certainly not saying anything remotely rude or condescending. And I, the most politically and economically ignorant person here, wouldn't mind any actual counter-arguments. Which part is wrong:
-The wealthy run the government.
-The government does not act against the wealthy.
-The wealthy have found ways to remain in control of the government, despite the fact that they are only 1% of the vote.

I think one can be sarcastic and incredulous and yet civil (as I did above). Given the implications of what WF is suggesting here, sarcasm and incredulity are not only appropriate, but show restraint, imo. Not only is his speculation ludicrous, but insulting. He's saying that people who are in favor of small government or fiscal conservatism are actually, secretly plotting to have government fail in order to hurt middle and lower class at the expense of upper class. He gives no evidence for these rather insulting views of fiscal conservatives, as always. It's a stereotype, combined with the usual conspiracy theory with the aim of painting people in a nefarious light, always trying to back up the assumption that conservatives are evil. If you can't sense the condescension and judgment in a position like that, perhaps it's because you haven't debated WF as much as I have, nor have been implicated in as many instances of "evil" innuendo--sometimes even explicitly--as I have. Such behavior is unapologetic, and therefore not forgotten.

[Fist and Faith]

I can't sense the condescension and judgment in his position because I don't know enough about all this to understand that that is his position. I thought his position is the three things I put in my post. And I thought it meant the rich want a government to continue, but only doing what the rich want. Is it not also true that public education is being cut everywhere?

What about environmental regulation? Don't the wealthy want to be able to do what they want, regardless of the damage to the environment, because it would be easier to make a profit that way? The only people I ever hear talking about saving the environment are the grass roots movements, putting up signs, picketing, etc. Would that be necessary if the wealthy wanted to protect the environment? Wouldn't it be a simple matter for them to get the laws put into place? Would there be any need for such laws if the wealthy wanted to protect the environment?

[ussusimiel]

And I thought it meant the rich want a government to continue, but only doing what the rich want.

I know that Z is well able to speak for himself and I'd also like to have a go at addressing some of your points from my understanding of the fiscal conservative position. The first point to make is that the 'rich' do not include all those who are fiscally conservative. So there are many people with regular incomes who want smaller government. This makes it a position based on principle rather than self-interest. To categorise all those who want smaller, more efficient government as the 'selfish rich' is inaccurate and risks missing the many positive aspects that the position offers (an insistence on a strict adherence to the Constitution, a rigourous and often justified critique of 'liberal' policies, an alertness to goverment overreach and so on).

What about environmental regulation?

One of the responsibilities of a smaller government would still include regulation of resources that affected everyone: air, water, land. Some on the extreme right might like to see complete deregulation, but most on the right accept that oversight and regulation are necessary in these areas. (A smaller, more effective govenment would also probably be less prone to the influence of wealth.)

Brownback's 'experiment' in Kansas seems like an attempt to dismantle the system in place too quickly. The effect may be to destroy the effectiveness of govenment, but it is unlikely that that was the intention.

u.

[Fist and Faith]

The first point to make is that the 'rich' do not include all those who are fiscally conservative. So there are many people with regular incomes who want smaller government. This makes it a position based on principle rather than self-interest.

Absolutely. I'm one of those non-rich who want smaller government. I just thought WF was saying that the wealthy want smaller government because of reasons X, Y, and Z.

And I think WF's "A smaller government is only a government that does less" is way off. There is absolutely no possibility of governing 300M people without STAGGERING waste and embezzlement. Also, laws that the 10M people in one area love really piss off the 10M in another area, and another law does the opposite. And my understanding is that a stupid bill might be attached to a very good bill, so either a stupid law is made or a good law is not. (Why is this done???)

They should stop trying. They should stop making more laws in the attempt to control that many people. The federal government should scale back to several basic functions, and let the local areas' smaller governments govern their own areas.

(I believe this is the Republican position? I'm not a Republican, though. I'm opposed to other positions of theirs. I support SSM, for example.)

They massively under-calculated the revenue loss

HOW??? Did they not examine past records, population, and other seemingly important things that would allow them to calculate what the revenue loss would be with fairly good accuracy??

[wayfriend]

So there are many people with regular incomes who want smaller government.

Why?

"Waste" is not an argument. People who want to eliminate waste say, "Let's eliminate the waste". But this is rarely if ever attempted. They try to eliminate the whole program, throw out the baby with the bathwater. This is not what people who want to eliminate waste do, this is what people who want to eliminate programs, using "waste" as a cover for it, do.

Waste is a byproduct of greed - people diverting government resources into their own pockets. And our system is designed to elect greedy people - the ones who jump to be in the pockets of lobbyists are the ones the PACs help get elected. Quid pro quo. So, in essence, waste is an inevitable byproduct of plutocracy.

Just ask the fiscal conservatives under whose administrations the US government grew. After they say "Obama" without even thinking, they will try to dodge the question, because the answer is "under conservative administrations".

[Cail]

So there are many people with regular incomes who want smaller government.

Why?

Have you not read this forum over the last decade? This is such well-trodden ground that I don't think it needs repeating.

"Waste" is not an argument. People who want to eliminate waste say, "Let's eliminate the waste". But this is rarely if ever attempted. They try to eliminate the whole program, throw out the baby with the bathwater. This is not what people who want to eliminate waste do, this is what people who want to eliminate programs, using "waste" as a cover for it, do.

Nice job of redefining a word so people can't use it. The fact that it's rarely attempted (which I'm assuming you can post citations of) is not the point (if it's even true, I don't know).

Waste is a byproduct of greed - people diverting government resources into their own pockets. And our system is designed to elect greedy people - the ones who jump to be in the pockets of lobbyists are the ones the PACs help get elected. Quid pro quo. So, in essence, waste is an inevitable byproduct of plutocracy.

There's so much wrong here that I don't know where to start. Waste can be a byproduct of greed, but it's not necessarily so. There's incompetence and apathy as well.

Just ask the fiscal conservatives under whose administrations the US government grew. After they say "Obama" without even thinking, they will try to dodge the question, because the answer is "under conservative administrations".

Way to make a blanket accusation.

Who cares which administration did what? Stop focusing on people, start dealing with the issues.

[Zarathustra]

What about environmental regulation? Don't the wealthy want to be able to do what they want, regardless of the damage to the environment, because it would be easier to make a profit that way?

That's a stereotype. You think the wealthy want to live in a dirty, poisonous, collapsing environment? You think no wealthy person or corporation ever takes steps on their own to clean up the environment without government force? Sure, there are a few guilty parties who make everyone else look bad, but to generalize from them to all rich people is a stereotype.

A dirty environment is more prevalent in poor countries, not rich ones. All the environmental measures for a clean environment were already starting to improve before the government put into place major environmental regulation (like creating the EPA).

The government is without a doubt the worst polluter, btw, and responsible for more destruction of the environment than any private business.

The only people I ever hear talking about saving the environment are the grass roots movements, putting up signs, picketing, etc. Would that be necessary if the wealthy wanted to protect the environment? Wouldn't it be a simple matter for them to get the laws put into place? Would there be any need for such laws if the wealthy wanted to protect the environment?

I think this is a collection of misconceptions.

As for WF's arguments, there are plenty of wealthy people who donate to the Democratic Party. Plenty of wealthy people who want a larger government. Plenty of corporations who love bigger government, with more regulations, because this often forces out their smaller competition, who can't afford to comply with the regulations.

This thread started out as a criticism of a particular governor's naivete, but it was intended as a vehicle to launch this cooky conspiracy theory. I think that's why the opening post simply said "discuss" before he launched into his true goal, even presenting the idea as if it were someone else's, before showing his commitment to the idea as his own. This is yet another attack thread that creates a strawman to malign an entire ideology. That's why there are no specifics here, not in terms of the guilty parties who allegedly want all these horrible things, nor any evidence to back up the charges. It's pure, bitter, malicious speculation and stereotyping.

[Fist and Faith]

Yes, "waste" is an argument. There is no way to keep massive amounts of it out of an organization the size of our federal government. Between incompetence, diversion of funds, and red tape that is impossible to eliminate at this size, huge waste is impossible to stop. We would have to hire teams of accountants, investigators, and other groups, just to try to keep waste down. I assume such groups are already in place. Which means, even of they succeed in eliminating ALL waste, which they surely are not (even if the goal is achievable in theory, some of THEM will be incompetent or thieves), we have to pay them to do it. Smaller government will still have it. But it's easier to spot. If something can be done, it can be done more easily and effectively when there are fewer incompetents, thieves, and other variables.

[Zarathustra]

Some evidence to back up points I made above about the environment:

Chart 9 shows the trend for settleable dust in the industrial city of Pittsburgh between 1925 and 1965. The rapid decline in the early years between 1925 and 1940 is attributable to the simple efficiency gains from industry upgrading its technology. The industrial drive for cost-saving efficiency also typically leads to cleaner technology. In 1938, dustfall records in Pittsburgh averaged 60.0 tons per month per square mile, but by 1955 the figure had declined to 48.9 tons.19

Although the pre-1970 data for air pollution is not as well quantified as is the post-1970 data, studies indicate that air quality was improving rapidly before the passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act. For example, Paul Portney, an environmental economist with Resources for the Future, writes that it is "extremely difficult to isolate the effects of regulatory policies on air quality, as distinct from the effects of other potentially important factors," because "some measures of air quality were improving at an impressive rate before 1970."20

www.mackinac.org/2821

[Fist and Faith]

What about environmental regulation? Don't the wealthy want to be able to do what they want, regardless of the damage to the environment, because it would be easier to make a profit that way?

That's a stereotype. You think the wealthy want to live in a dirty, poisonous, collapsing environment? You think no wealthy person or corporation ever takes steps on their own to clean up the environment without government force? Sure, there are a few guilty parties who make everyone else look bad, but to generalize from them to all rich people is a stereotype.

I worded that poorly. I certainly don't believe all wealthy people are evil. My thought is that the people who do not support environmental protection are the people who want to be able to do things that will harm the environment. And those people want to do so because it will make them money. Why else?

A dirty environment is more prevalent in poor countries, not rich ones.

Are we talking about the same kind of dirty? Do the poor countries have the huge factories dumping incredible poison into the atmosphere and water? I know sanitation problems can be considered a dirty environment. But nature will wash that clean in short order if allowed to. Nature can't get the PCBs out of the Hudson River.

All the environmental measures for a clean environment were already starting to improve before the government put into place major environmental regulation (like creating the EPA).

But not, according to the link you give in your next post, before local governments put environmental regulations into place:

Local government efforts to control air quality problems began long before 1970. Chart 8 shows the growth in local air pollution control agencies that occurred with the growth in the public perception of air pollution as a major problem. Very early in the twentieth century, visible air pollution, especially smoke, was identified as a problem to be reduced. More invisible forms of pollution, especially ozone, were more slowly recognized.

The environmental measures for a clean environment seem not to have begun until they were required by the local governments.

But yes, it was improving before the EPA. Would that have been sufficient? The production of the PCBs I just mentioned was not banned until 1977, by the EPA, seven years after it began operation. I don't know too many issues, so don't know how many other similar stories there are. I'd be willing to bet more than a few. (I live several miles from the Hudson, so I happen to have heard about this one quite often.) A local government can't ban the production of anything outside of its own jurisdiction.

The government is without a doubt the worst polluter, btw, and responsible for more destruction of the environment than any private business.

The government is the worst everything.

The only people I ever hear talking about saving the environment are the grass roots movements, putting up signs, picketing, etc. Would that be necessary if the wealthy wanted to protect the environment? Wouldn't it be a simple matter for them to get the laws put into place? Would there be any need for such laws if the wealthy wanted to protect the environment?

I think this is a collection of misconceptions.

(That's a great sentence. Those two words sound interesting together. Heh) It's true that I don't follow stories deeply enough to know that the wealthy don't join in the picket lines, or chain themselves to trees. But I have to assume the turnout for these events would be a whole lot bigger if Trump had a few hundred of his closest employees turn up with him. And the fliers that are put under windshield wipers would be much better quality if someone with a ton of money was getting them printed.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Engaging with the religious right and the libertarians, who will give them votes because they can be moved by irrelevant (to them) issues, is another.

This is the opinion with which I disagree most strongly. Libertarians are not focused on or motivated by "irrelevant" issues; rather, most Libertarians are motivated by the issues which are the most important.

There are three factors which contribute to government waste the most: 1) civil servant jobs--once you have the job it is yours until you quit because it is quite difficult to fire you even for poor job performance, 2) career politicians--they can afford to get a little lazy because they know their lazy constituents will vote for them again, and 3) lobbyists--I don't mean citizens calling their representative and trying to get a law about x passed, I mean a representative from some corporate interest group going around talking to politicians, handing out checks in exchange for votes or trying to find someone willing to propose pre-written legislation into Congress. Stop allowing government jobs to be lifetime appointments, implement strict term limits (I have often proposed a 12-year limit, after which you are out), and prevent all lobbying by corporate interests and shopped legislation.

Limiting class sizes does not necessarily translate into better schools. I went to public school back in the days when no one cared about class size; although many people didn't receive as good an education as I did (differences in ability but not opportunity) everyone managed to receive a decent foundation. Limiting class sizes leads directly to school districts having to build more schools, which invariably mean issuing bonds and/or raising property taxes in addition to having to hire more teachers, administrators, etc.

[lorin]

1) civil servant jobs--once you have the job it is yours until you quit because it is quite difficult to fire you even for poor job performance, [/color]

Well, not exactly but close. There are two breeds of civil servants - unionized and non-unioned. The managers don't have a union and serve (in my city) "at the pleasure of the mayor." They are classified as Provisional Exempt and are easily gotten rid of. The unionized employees are classified as Permanent, are difficult to get rid of but not impossible. But it a long arduous process and half of them get their jobs back with back pay.

So in my agency the solution was to make everyone they could a Provisional Exempt manager, which enabled them to hire who they want and not go through civil service hiring procedures, which of course eventually led to justifiable screams of nepotism which eventually led to the unions taking the city to court which eventually led to something called the

Long Beach Decision,
schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/B908E34F-2408-44F6-A0EF-8D2804203EF9/0/LongBeachFAQs111413.pdf

which requires 90% of the city employees to come off a civil service list and be unionized, which led to me taking a civil service management test and getting a score of 93 (top 3%) which led to protests from EEO which led to me being pushed down and ranked 6807th on the list for a job.

Even worse, those city managers that failed the exam were promoted up to the Non-Competitive positions and became my bosses.

sigh

IMO the waste is more in the quality of upper management that does the hiring of substandard permanent unionized employees that requires additional staff to make up for the incompetence.

Also I think you left out the biggest waste, and that is in what governments spend money on. One time I looked at a bill for my shelter. You know those plastic outlet covers? Those tiny things you push into the socket to protect kids - $5.00 each. for one, not one bag of them.

[wayfriend]

Also I think you left out the biggest waste, and that is in what governments spend money on. One time I looked at a bill for my shelter. You know those plastic outlet covers? Those tiny things you push into the socket to protect kids - $5.00 each. for one, not one bag of them.

Yes, that's what I was referring to above, lorin. Someone set up this irresponsible deal somewhere, and is raking in that cash as a result. Every hundred-dollar hammer is the brainchild of a guy who is making 99% margin on hammers.

Engaging with the religious right and the libertarians, who will give them votes because they can be moved by irrelevant (to them) issues, is another.

This is the opinion with which I disagree most strongly. Libertarians are not focused on or motivated by "irrelevant" issues

On the one hand, I am glad, then, that I never said libertarian issues were irrelevant. On the other had, I am saddened that you choose to believe I did, and then disagree on that basis.

Fiscal conservatives ally with the religious right to get Republicans elected, despite the fact that fiscal conservatives largely don't care about the religious right's social issues. Is it implausible that fiscal conservatives ally with libertarians on the same basis?

Meanwhile, I noticed the conspicuous lack of any explanation as to how Brownback's agenda was in any way related to "smaller government". Or was in any way NOT exactly the same as screwing the less well off to enrich the already well off.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

There are also differences whether you are talking about municipal, county, State, or Federal government jobs. In a former life I worked for TxDoT (Dept of Transportation) and if my boss hadn't given the permanent job to the brother of the guy who was already there and had a permanent job (what were the odds on that, hm?) then it would have been mine until I let go of it. It also depends upon the State or agency in question because they aren't all like that, only most of them.

You are correct in your assessment about much of the problem being attributable to poor-quality managers. A poor-quality employee can thrown a company off target for its earnings or production goals but they can be dealt with relatively easily. A poor-quality manager can cause a company to tank because they may not be able to be dealt with quickly.
No, we can't hold elections for every government job as a way to hold them accountable but if more civil employees were subject to performance evaluations like private employees and they actually got fired for poor performance then some waste might be eliminated.

On the one hand, I am glad, then, that I never said libertarian issues were irrelevant. On the other had, I am saddened that you choose to believe I did, and then disagree on that basis.

Fiscal conservatives ally with the religious right to get Republicans elected, despite the fact that fiscal conservatives largely don't care about the religious right's social issues. Is it implausible that fiscal conservatives ally with libertarians on the same basis?

Meanwhile, I noticed the conspicuous lack of any explanation as to how Brownback's agenda was in any way related to "smaller government". Or was in any way NOT exactly the same as screwing the less well off to enrich the already well off.

Then it is my misunderstanding that is the problem, not your statement. It isn't the first time I misunderstood something and it certainly won't be the last.

No, it is both understandable and believable that fiscal conservatives would ally with Libertarians in the way you state. Many people who vote are realists and they know that sometimes they have to swallow foul-tasting medicine in order to get better.

I am unconvinced that Brownback was trying to bring Kansas around to smaller government. I do not disagree with the assessment that many politicians are beholden to their wealthy financial backers and that those backers, being financially savvy, always expect a decent rate of return on their investment in the form of favorable legislation or a game field tilted in their favor. Money always destabilizes a political process, as history tells us, and our system is not different from other systems in this regard.

A conspiracy of the wealthy to control the government? Perhaps. However, do not forget that not all conspiracies are false.