When you look at the size of the government in the US, it is truly astonishing.

Take a look at this article:
Uncle Sam, Inc.


$50,000 per family...shocking.


There are more people working for Uncle Sam than there are making things in this country. What gives?


Question for debate: Is our government too big? Is it spending money in the right areas? Are you getting your $50 grand out of the government?

If anyone thinks that it is NOT too big (i.e. too small or just the right size...) was it too small at the turn of the century, then? At the onset of WW2?

Bad math, according to my calculations. There's a $2.4 trillion budget and an estimated 291 million people. That comes out to $8275 per person. No matter how you try to slice it, that's not $50,000 per family of four.

Of course it's too large. Actually, that's not quite right. It's too many pork projects that just never seem to go away. In some ways, the government needs to do more in some areas -- roads, infrastructure, port security, disease control, etc. -- and less in others -- building single-interest "tourist attractions" in certain states to grease a Senator or Rep, taking over foreign countries, subsidizing large corporate farms, etc.

Well spending like 1.5 billion for marriages and other worthless programs do not help. It also doesnt help that in 2001 and 2003 50% of all tax cuts went to the richest 1% of Americans. You must drop senseless programs and you must increase taxes especially on the absurdly wealthy. The defict isnt anything to laugh at or ignore. Spending money w/o taking money is fiscal suicide.

Yes the budget is too large.

It is like an avalanche. Anything or anyone getting in its path is destroyed.

Every person in every party is involved. I scratch your back and you scratch my back. I have this special project in my district and if you vote for it, then I will vote for your project.

Every member of Congress talks about it,but few really intend to do anything about it.

I was brought up on the principle of balancing the budget, and I see no reason that American can not also do it.

I believe quite a few years back, Congress had some kind of deal about balancing the budget. I forgot the details. But they put all kinds of holes in that project.

I definitely believe that it should be cut around the edges, not emaciated. The president should have the line item veto to take out last minute pork provisions. I would be happy with the size of government if millions of dollars worth of projects like paving parking garage for some senator's district in Oregon were killed. Of course, others will disagree, but we could be more judicious about that. If we are going to give the departments of education and defense billions, I would like to know that they are actually using it, as opposed to losing it(I read that both have done so in the recent past)

At the same time, I think we need to exercise some caution when it comes to throwing numbers around. Most people do prefer some services from the government and are happy with them. I don't necessarily believe that regulations are a bad thing. I prefer to have my meat inspected, food labeled, place of business slapped if I get injured on the job, or to pay me overtime if I work it. Yes, I know about the federal registry of rules. Different rules apply to different companies, that's just some think-tank blathering on about how things should be run from a pro-corporate point of view.

The figure includes all levels of government: local, state, and federal.

There is no doubt the government is just too big. We all need to resist the notion that we need the government to do more “for us” because whatever is done is usually more costly than if the private sector does the same function.

In some cases that is true, and in other cases it is not. You have offered no proof.

Even if you combined all the levels of gov, and I get this 50,000 "back"- or it is never taxed in the first place, which is the gist of this topic- is my employer going to give me a 50 thou raise, and are we all going to get together to wipe out poverty, maintain an army, a police force, a fire department, build roads etc? Oh shoot- we are already doing that- it is called goverment LOL

The money we spend, is basically a payment for services rendered that the private industry either has no business being in (public safety- the profit motive is simply incompatable with the mision) or are too massive for private biz to fund (this is how we got our road system in the first place, Henry ford and company did think it was the private industries' area to fund basic infrastructure for the country)

Now, that does not mean we have some horrible waste and wrongdoing, so we should fix what is being spent badly, not worry about getting our 50 thou check LOL

The GAO – Government Accounting Office is a good source for information on the efficiency of government agencies. Here is an example of a report that discusses the attempted modernization of the DOD. It discusses the move to change “over 1,700 timeworn, inefficient and non-integrated business process.

http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-458


Here is a “performance scorecard” for government agencies. Not impressive is an understatement. Look at the pdf file. It seems the agencies that spend (control) the most money are the worst. The average seems to be about 50% efficient. I recall (but cannot come up with – sorry) a previous GAO study that compared government agencies to private firms. The worst private firms rated about 65% in this type of scoring.

http://www.mercatus.org/governmentaccounta...le.php/298.html

I believe that the government always "does" it's just a matter of who it does "for" When government regulations and the like are not carried out "for" us, it's big business that governmetn works "for" If we stop social services programs the like, but allow tax breaks, subsidies, and other deductions, can we really say that the government isn't working "for" some entity??

I have never believed the idea that public sector activity is by it's very nature, less efficient than private sector activity.

I remember thinking about the first big British privatisation of a state industry - British Steel (now part of the Anglo-Dutch Corus group). Because the idea of privatisation was unproven, they spent some seedcorn moeny attracting Ian McGregor from the USA and a quality senior management team to make the business profitable.

I have no argument with the fact that it was deeply unprofitable before this, but I also don't doubt that this influx of management expertise, and the comcomitant changes in business processes and cost savings, made the business very profitable on a sustainable basis - McGregor and co made the business into a model steel producer of its time, rather than just capitalising assets.

The London stock market was initially sceptical, and did not want to see a flotation of a business that didn't already make money, so the Thatcher government simply had to make the business a lean competitive place before their holy grail could be implemented.

At the time, I wondered why the heck it couldn't stay in the public sector, and start to be a net contributor and pay back the billions of taxpayer's money that had been soaked up during its earlier history.

I know that's only one example, but I simply do not see why areas of government activity that could make money aren't made to do so while still run by government, and the ones that could not are run along similarly efficient lines so we get maximum bang per tax buck. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to do this, can it?

Pay the money up front to get the smart guys to come in and work to run government activity, and get them to do it properly, rather than just sell off a dog of a business nobody wants.

So government spending is always too high, but the first port of call should be to make it work better, rather than just give up. Few taxpayers would mind so much paying their tax if they could see they got good value for money in return for it.

I too, believe that the argument that private entities are always more efficient than public ones--is a myth. I've worked in both sectors and can testify to their repsective strengths and weaknesses. I worked under a public school superintendent who had a superior understanding of finance and management, than any private company that I've ever worked for. I have yet to meet a manager who was his equal. I've seen companies be just as profligate and irresponsible with people's money as even the most bloated and reprehensible government bureaucracy. Just another example, In my state of Nebraska, we have publicly owned energy entities, and our energy rates are much lower than privatized ones in other states. What does all this have to do with government spending??-these are things that have been money well worth spent!!

All you have to do is look at the government data I have posted (from the GAO). Nothing is universally true but the broad data says private firms supply goods and services more efficiently. One of the reasons for this is that they have competition whereas the government usually does not. Competition is a powerful motivator to do it better and at the best possible price.

I have had the benefit of having worked with a few government entities (usually related to military contracts). My experience is that government “red tape” and inefficiency is still alive and well (and costing the tax payer billions a year).

We could also have another conversation about how government regulation, where it is used, costs the tax payer $ in higher prices for goods or services.

True enough, but how, exactly, does one introduce true competition into, say, roads or indeed social security?

And I would also say that a more prosaic and influential reason is that it's eay to raise money on the open market in the private sector (but only because fiscal rules set by governments usually say public sector companies can't take out market rate loans), and that pay rates and structures are usually less conducive to excellence than in the public sector.

Many civil servants at the top of public services are well paid in absolute terms, but none of them get anything like the rewards that the leaders of similarly sized private industries can command - even for disastrous leaders.

A suitably structured remuneration strategy for public sector workers, that rewards performance effectiveness and efficiency - rather than the Buggins' Turn and DEad Man's Shoes principles that more usualy apply - would more than pay for itself within a few years.

As it is, and despite the dedication and hard work of many in the public sector, the old saw applies - if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys

I would wager that sectors of our economy that are more "service" oriented are better to be owned by the public. "Supply" operations are best served by the private sector. The former like schools is an obvious point. The Edison Schools project has yet to make a profit. Not only that, but they are doing an average job when it comes to test scores. It's hard to reconcile making a profit and providing a service. Usually you have to streamline the service to obtain the greatest amount of profit. Doing so, is detrimental to the notion of a particular service entity. Supply operations are different. Making the best car, making the best medicine, making the best product is undoutedly a more private sector specialty. Along another line, I will use a local example. The power in my state is publicly owned, and I assure you that service is more efficient, and is better carried out than any privately owned utility company around. Other than the state of North Dakota, Nebraska has the lowest rates in the plains. As a leading state paper has opined:

On a state senator's proposal to sell public power to inject more money into state coffers.



On Montana's problems(they can't compare to us!)

It seems clear that on the product side private firms have done a good job of giving us good products at competitive prices. I tend to disagree with you on the service side. Anyone who has waited in line for an hour at a registry of motor vehicles will agree. Competition IMO tends to yield the best products AND services.

On the education front I think it is far too early to say Edison or any other company has failed. We have an, on average, horrible education system in this country. And from what I have read they have improved test scores and are on the right track. Let’s remember that this company is taking over the worst schools in the country. Schools that have been publicly run very badly for decades. Let’s give them a chance to solidify the improvements. Also let’s encourage other companies to enter this market. A little competition never hurts.


http://www.aft.org/research/edisonschools/


Deregulation usually leads to lower prices. I am not sure what all the issues were in Montana but it sounds like the (private) company was badly run and had no competition. Look at airlines. It is estimated that consumers have saved 3 to 5 billion $ a year every year since airlines were deregulated.

A few issues with your post, Ted:



Here in Georgia, we were having horrible problems with the DMV, lines were sometimes running 4+ hours before you could even find out that you were in the wrong line! So, the last governor (a Democrat), made it a priority to fix the problem. He basically threw resources at the problem and -- sure enough! -- the lines disappeared... down to an hour or less for anything. So, then we voted him out and voted in a Republican governor who cut the DMV's budget and -- surprise! -- the lines came back. Moral of the story: if you put your resources into solving the problem (government OR private industry), you can get the results you want, but if you cut your resources, you usually end up with terrible results. Republicans and Libertarians distrust government spending, so they cut taxes and programs and then say, "See! Government can't do the job!!"



I take exception at this as well. We have EXACTLY the public schools we're willing to pay for an manage AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, which is where those decisions get made. If you are trying to compare a public school that I pay only $2500 per year in taxes to support with a private school that I have to pay $10,000+ per year PER CHILD, then you're not comparing apples to apples. In places with better education (measured by test scores, college grads, etc.) also have higher taxes to pay for it. And better school boards. It's not the fault of government... the people are getting EXACTLY what they're paying for.



Since deregulation, numerous airlines have also failed, service has dropped dramatically, the airline industry as a whole has not made a dime in profit, etc. Deregulation doesn't solve every problem. It just moves the problem around a bit.

Amf. I sympathize with you on the DMV situation but the issue is not always money (resources as you say). This is true in schools as well. In fact there is very little correlation of money spent to results in education above a certain minimum.

The primary issue is often the management of the process. In a competitive situation companies must provide quality goods and services at a good price or be replaced by a competitor. This is obviously not the case in most State and Federal run groups that provide services. This does not mean they are all bad but it does imply that in many cases it can be done better at the same cost when done in the private sector in a competitive environment.

As far as airlines are concerned I disagree with you strongly. I travel a lot and have for 20 years. Service is better and fares are MUCH lower than they were under regulation. In fact the safety record is even better. Sure airlines have failed because they weren’t competitive in price or service and this is exactly what we needed to produce the better and cheaper product we have today. The airlines industry is a perfect example of the negative cost effects of regulation as opposed to free markets. For 25 years the regulated industry justified numerous fare increases. The year deregulation went into effect fares dropped 50%! And they have never reached the regulated level since.

The problem with regulation IMO is that the provider sees the “customer” as the rate setting authority and not necessarily the consumer. We deregulated electricity here in MA 2 years ago and my bill is down 20+%. I met a Keyspan manager at a post grad course in Marketing at Darden and he told me he was sent there to gain an understanding of free markets and the idea of the consumer as the “customer”. Up to the time of deregulation the “customer” was the regulating body and the way they were referred to was – “the ratepayer”!

I completely agree with you on the first part: management is usually the difference between "delivering the goods" and "annoying your customers/constituents".

And competition DOES sometimes lead to lower pricing, although I could argue that your electrical utilities aren't completely deregulated, since they still have to go back and request rate changes from your Public Service Commission (or whatever you have there that regulates utilities in your state).

However, I would also argue that governments can provide certain goods and services CHEAPER than businesses. Why? Because governments do not require a profit of 15%-30% (or more) on their invested capital.

Another example from close to home: the City of Atlanta decided to "privatize" their water/sewer system. The system was in disrepair and they thought they could be really smart and have a private company come in and run the system and do it cheaper. After about 5 years, the city was about $3 million ahead -- lower than anticipated -- and the company that was running the sewer was plagued with billing problems and was on the verge of going broke (and wanted some of that $3 million so they could stay in business). Atlanta finally broke the contract and took the system back under its control.

On the other hand, the government has contracted with Haliburton to provide goods and services and they're getting overcharged for stuff so that Haliburton could make a profit. Hmmm.... Ok, that may be an extreme example, but profit is important to companies and some companies think that profit is more important than happy customers.

I would LOVE there to be a happy medium. For example, why can't I have TWO cable companies in this town vying for my business? Why can't I have TWO power companies vying for my business? The best we have here in the gas market is that one company does the delivery and 8 do marketing and billing, which doesn't really lower the costs a whole lot, since there's still one company that delivers the gas. But that's not what we have for infrastructure in this country and building infrastructure -- phone, gas, electric, cable -- is expensive for that "last mile" to your home or business.

But I think we got the topic off track a bit.

I don't think we're spending enough on the services we expect from our government. Do we really want to underpay or understaff our police departments? We do now. Do we really want to underpay our teachers or understaff our schools? We do now. And we hate the results. And some think that a company -- with a profit motive -- will come in and do a better job. If that were true, then there would be lots more private schools out there and lots more communities hiring their own militias. But there aren't.

Let me give you a great example of a good government service-the Clark County, Nevada marriage license bureau. The only one(as far as I know of) that is open 24-7. When my wife and I went to Las Vegas to be married, the whole process didn't take more than fifteen minutes-and there were lots of people in line! Yes, DMVs are typically hideous, but try and wait in line at a fast food place-same experience.

Getting back on topic--most Americans do not mind that some government programs are in existence. Here is my list of government spending successes.

1.)Landgrant University Act-established state colleges and universities. Just imagine how many teachers, lawyers, doctors, and businessmen were trained. Just think how much research and writing has been churned out since the 1860s.

2.)The G.I. Bill-Allowed thousands to become the first in their family to attend college.

3.)Pell Grants-Have allowed many students from low socio-economic backgrounds to attend school, or at least to do so more easily.

4.)Public Education--I know, I know, some of you think that they haven't done anything well. Go look up the graduates of your local school and find out what they became.

5.)Defense-they protect us!

what about the subject to do with the ISS or what are president just announced the moon base in 2015 that also has a great amount of funding.

Locke1

I'll grant you that-the moonlanding and the proposed one. The entire space program has ben worthwhile.