Where Anti-Tax Fervor Means ‘All Services Will Cease’
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Unfortunately, as we've seen from Republican-led governments operating under this Grover Norquist-esque model for thirty years, the beast never starves. In Washington DC they print money to offset deficits. Instead of cutting waste, the libraries and the parks are closed.
There's still a great desire out there for responsible government that can operate efficiently. That can keep the libraries open by trimming bureaucratic waste rather than asking for more money. Probably will always be a pipe dream.
Waste that you get from the privatization efforts are an order of magnitude more expensive. Unfortunately, the people in policy positions today are clueless... voting no doesn't fix anything.
I understand the drive to make government more efficient, run better, but I'm not sure if that's the goal of the current conservative movement. At least here in Michigan the state government under republican control has caused all sorts of issues, like the Flint water crisis.
The best way I've seen it done is to just slash everything by the same amount. Sadly this results in things like closing libraries.
Nobody agrees on what's waste and what isn't. If everyone agreed that X was a big waste of money it wouldn't exist, so we're stuck with a system where every dollar goes to a thing somebody cares about
This piece does a fairly good job of presenting the conservative point of view: that there are mountains of waste in government to cut rather than hike taxes. I agree with that perspective.
And it was that agreement with conservatism as a political philosophy that I asked to explore. It's not that your opinion is invalid, but that it is unresponsive to the question that was asked. I am not interested in having an argument with you, I'm interested in knowing where that other person was coming from.
For what it's worth, I'm all for reigning in government spending and power. Sounds like we are ratcheting up another drug war.
On top of that, a lot of times like in the case of the library, you know exactly where the tax increases are going.
Beyond that there's huge obvious ones that come along all the time like the F22s we keep buying more of even though the military doesn't want them. This of course is a jobs program for engineers and a way to again funnel money into the districts which all these random parts are procured.
"Instead of actually going with the lowest bidder .. " In many states, it's law that they must go with the lowest bidder. This often causes problems because that lowest bidder delivers shoddy work that leads to eventual cost overruns--going with the "best value" instead of "lowest price" would reward companies that could meet both cost AND quality expectations. It'd also more closely reflect private sector considerations if those laws were changed; a private company can spend more for higher quality and get the long-term benefit of that quality deliverable, and that's a trade-off and decision that's simply taken away from state/local procurement professionals.
State and local procurement tends to run pretty lean, and tends to be pretty accountable. All this stuff is public record, and local papers will often cull through that stuff looking for juicy nuggets. The relative rarity of public purchasing scandals, at least for state and local folks, tells you that they're probably doing a pretty good job (even with the goofy restrictions like "you must buy from the lowest bidder even if their work is shit").
That's like 1 dollar out of 34, probably not all 100% wasted either.
I'm not going to argue that there's not a lot of wasteful government spending - transfer payments that don't need to happen, waste in healthcare, etc. I just don't see much of a path towards a really substantial change in tax rates that would emerge from 'cutting waste'. Tackling transfer payments IMO is a much bigger deal, but this is also likely unfixable for political reasons (essentially the middle class have to be bribed to support anti-poverty programs by including them in the transfer payment merry-go-round).
It's important to keep these ideas in mind when we talk about government waste.
I would like to see some of that diverted into more important things like health care. Of course the whole prison concept is very, very expensive. We house more prisoners (total, not per capita) than any other country in the world. How much does that cost us in money and liberty?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2...
You're only getting a cost savings medal if it's substantial and doesn't affect your own department.
But your point is right. The incentives for budgeting, at least at the government institution I worked for years ago is if you don't use it, you lose it, so it leads to completely using the budget every year regardless of if it is actually needed or not.
Clearly, none of the non-voters ever read Matilda. Or understand that ultimately, the lack of public services will put everyone back.
Ultimately, things like this are probably for the better.
1. Almost all media in the US is severely biased.
2. This to me at least looks like something called the "national parks strategy." This is when the government funds its unpopular pet projects (frequently theft), and underfunds popular programs such as national parks, roads and the like then threatens the public with their closure if they do not pass tax increases. Frequently, if the tax is passed, they do a show project and misallocate the rest of the money. Over the time citizens have become wise and vote--entirely rationally-- for the safest option which is, no new taxes.
California is in the midst of such a battle now: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/11/californians...
a. well below the rate of inflation
and
b. not enraging people.
Your conservative friend will tell you the Washington Times is more fact-based and the New York Times is heavily biased. Your liberal friend will tell you the New York Times is more fact-based and the Washington Times is heavily biased.
Your first conclusion might be that one of your friends (whichever one whose beliefs oppose yours more) is insane or uneducated on what you know is true.
The more likely conclusion, however, is that each of these papers weaves heavy amounts of opinion, spin, and perspective on the "facts" it conveys, and that opinion and spin is invisible to those who share the same biases, while being conspicuous and grating to those who do not.
As a fellow Euro I really recommend the book American Nations by Colin Woodard (actually also from Oregon) if you want to understand the strange contradictions of US politics. One of the best history books I've read.
People would probably be much more supportive of paying for government services if they were getting the level of quality and efficiency Norwegian taxpayers get. :)
Moving from the US to another country it's amazing how well-liked government institutions are, even including the local equivalent of the IRS. And with good reason; they're well run too. In the US, the DMV is a punchline and a staple of standup comedy; a shorthand for the towering, malevolent incompetence of government, but most parts of government would work just as well. You could go years without a positive interaction with the government.
It was quite an interesting surprise to learn there are parts of the world where the government functions well and an interaction with them is not to be dreaded.
I was surprised to hear you describe people voting against continued public service as 'selfish'. Why would you consider them selfish?
Maybe libraries are a moot point, given the Internet. But the same issues come up for schools, police, fire, roads, bridges, etc. I mean, I have no children, so paying for schools seems like a rip-off sometimes. But on the other hand, I like living in a society that's at least somewhat literate.
If you have e.g. public health system, and public education, at high standards, your chance of success is to a vastly greater degree decoupled from the wealth of your family, or the suburb you live in.
The benefit is that society as a whole gets richer, you reduce crime, etc etc. Basically what comes around goes around.
To be opposed to having great public benefits e.g. just because you are from a family of great wealth and are unwilling to share some of that for the greater good is thus something I ultimately define as selfish. I also think it is short sighted, as no matter how well off you are the higher the chances you'll be affected by things like crime.
Hopefully this explains my thinking.
I want to support community services and public works and social equality.
The only context in which I really really hate paying tax is where I feel that the politicians are looting the public money to enrich themselves and give themselves generous employment benefits well beyond that of ordinary citizens.
Ever notice how some of the political candidates are supported by some public employee unions, e.g. a candidate supported (and frequently financed) by police, teachers, prison guards, etc.?
Well, that same politician, once elected, is frequently in charge of negotiating the public sector compensation and pension benefits. In what might come as a total surprise, they turn out to have very weak negotiating skills when it comes to dealing with unions that invested in their previous rounds.
You don't have to look very far - as far as few years ago the city of San Jose had to suspend hiring policemen, and lay off some junior teachers due to funding issues. Meanwhile on the other end of the paycheck spectrum a bunch of public employees were throwing early retirement parties, having locked in a six-figure pension for the rest of their lives http://www.mercurynews.com/2012/08/30/bay-areas-200k-club-an...
There could be an argument that the strength of the police unions are partially to blame with the issues we are having with police shootings and lack of prosecution, among other things.
Age 45 and up comprises the smallest number of HN readers, the largest number of Americans, the largest quantity of American voters, and the greatest concentration of wealth in America. This, majority demographic will support real change when there is no other option, but not before then. Most refuse to admit their generations enacted public policies that have left most cites States and the Federal Government irreversibly in debt.
Milton Friedman also said, "When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around." Its critical that today's emerging leaders are well educated on what makes for sustainable economic and social policy, and what is required to dig ourselves out from the hole dug for us.
I would also support raising the retirement age for women to a higher value than that for men, due to the difference in life expectancy. Equal opportunity to collect, and all (ducks head to dodge flying objects). OK, maybe I'm half kidding about that, but dead serious about everything else.
There always is a balance to strike, not providing too many services at too high a cost, but killing off a library? Not being able to have police?
How is someone supposed to apply for a job if they don't have internet? How are they supposed to pull themselves up by their bootstraps? The library provides ways for people to get ahead.
A common and incorrect view of the homeless persists in America, to their peril. Destitute starving people exist in some countries but not those as rich as the US.
In the US and other wealthy countries basically 100% of chronic homeless are in that position due to drugs or mental illness. A normal person thrown on the street with nothing would be able to scrape together some semblance of a normal life within a few months.
This is hurting the homeless in the US greatly. The common view of homelessness as someone just "down on their luck" leads to bad attempts at solutions. Mentally stable adults without drug problems do not stay homeless in the US and rarely become homeless.
To help the homeless we need vastly increased spending on mental health and addiction treatment for the poor. We also need socialized housing for those too mentally I'll to ever hold a job. A lot of homeless people will be homeless unless someone pays for a place for them to live indefinitely.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1900_2020...
It's surprising that the closing of some library branches is somehow the fault of overly paranoid tax-haters rather than out-of-control spending patterns.
The latest tax plan that was floated means very few people in states like Oregon (with high state taxes) are going to see any reduction, because they're going to make those state taxes non-deductible. Not sure how that plays into this argument.
I know there are other deductions, but I still doubt that the average middle income household ($60,000/year) is clearing over $12,000 in deductions.
And you know what? I have not been to that library ever, and I've lived in this neighborhood for years.
Even if you happen to use your library every day now, you probably won't be doing that in twenty years, regardless of whether or not they continue to offer service in your town.
Taking a wide view, what else should we expect, now that we have computers in our pockets connected to a far larger and more comprehensive source of knowledge?
There are a lot of details and small objections to my point here, to be sure, but the technology that's driving this trend is NOT going away.
I would really like to see paywalls go away within twenty years, but I am doubtful that this will happen.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/leading-artic...
> Closing libraries is inevitable, the argument goes, in an era when two out of three British homes have a computer. But that is far from the whole story. While 200 million books are sold every year, more than 310 million are borrowed. The one-in-three homes without a computer are those of the nation's poorer children, many of whom live without even a table at which they can do their homework.
Ok, so when are the libraries/community centers going to turn those awful fluorescent lights off, bring in some comfortable couches and start serving alcohol and coffee?
Because if they don't start doing that, there's just no draw for me...
EDIT: On the other hand, is leasing out space to a commercial coffee stand a revenue stream that libraries — particularly smaller, less well-funded ones — might consider?
And what if we had nice narrow European-style streets, free of cars, connecting these places together? That would be even more amazing.
I'm not even just talking about the range of community events that libraries often host: my kindergarten-aged daughter has enjoyed going to our local library for weekend read-along events for years, for instance, and I've hosted a local science outreach event there, and they're the location for a local arts festival every fall, and they're a natural space for a variety of community meetings. Some libraries even run their own maker spaces.
But it can be easy for highly educated and/or reasonably well-off people to forget how much of a lifeline a library can be. A lot of librarians I know talk about how library computer services are the only way for some of the poorer people in their communities to hunt for jobs, for example, because they don't have reliable internet access at home. (That's getting better as more and more people do have computers in their pockets, but there's a long way to go.) Kids growing up in families that are struggling financially don't have shelves and shelves of books to learn from at home: a library can do wonders to fill that gap if the family makes a habit of it. And librarians themselves can do wonders to help people sort through the oceans of available information to find the most useful and trustworthy sources: that's their specialized expertise, and it's not becoming less important as we gain increasing access to far larger and more comprehensive sources. Their training can be useful to anyone, but it's especially helpful to be able to turn to a librarian if (e.g.) you haven't gone through a high quality college program that's taught you the basics of that expertise yourself.
There's a lot more to say, and yes, libraries are going to need to transform in fascinating ways in the future. But there really does seem to be a role for something akin to libraries in our society. (And, as an aside, you'll rarely find a group of people more fervently dedicated to issues like privacy and freedom of information than librarians. That's valuable, too.)
This is the "I don't have a use for it, so no-one else possibly could either" mentality.