Every large organization (public or private) has waste the same way every large computer system has waste. Management is complex and there’s simply no way to optimize all resources in real-time. In software we may lament some of the bloat but we generally accept it as a necessary evil. In places where performance is extra valuable we profile and optimize the path. Well the same thing happens in government and corporations. Government of Ontario spends a good chunk of money on grants to health care system researchers to incrementally make things better and the system is doing really well considering how underfunded parts of it are.
These are just off the top of my head. I'm not saying there aren't things that do run relatively effectively... I will also say there is gross overspending at all levels.
For the most part, the military could be cut to a fraction of the current size without much lost. A lot of the rest could be made up by shifting IP registration costs, and reducing protectionism. There's plenty of fat to trim...
Competent politicians aren't competent because they're knowledgeable in every possible topic, but because they surround themselves with subject matter experts.
¿Por qué no los dos? Is Ocasio-Cortez surrounding herself with subject-matter experts?
In my experience, it's often just "interested parties". I'm thinking of multiple cases where political advocacy groups I've worked with have drafted a bill proposal and taken it directly to state-level legislators seeking to have them sponsor it. In every case, they either refused or submitted the bill as-is without modification.
In one case, that means that an Arkansas law was actually drafted by a 16-year-old (me). That one was relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, but still :)
Secondly, isn't empathy, vision, ambition and an ability to rally people incredibly important for a politician? Politicians aren't supposed to know everything, but rather work with appropriate experts and aides.
Not seeing it. I've spent some time working in a (state, not federal) legislative office and have a political science degree (specialized in pragmatics of US politics.) I've seen some of her interviews. I don't see anything that indicates that she would be incompetent as a legislator. Could you explain the basis for your assessment?
Now, this could be that she's not good at interviews, and feels the need to keep talking to appear competent. She could know far more, and just be unable (yet) to bring it out in front of the cameras. But to me, she comes off as talking without knowing. That scares me in someone who can write legislation.
I support things like a tax on digital advertising. This is a tax that wouldn’t slow growth or harm the econo,y really and impacts mostly those with extremely high capital investments. Facebook, Google help our economy a lot but they don’t have that many jobs in relation to profits. A 10% tax on digital advertising would eat marginally into their profits but their profits rise 25% a year so not too bad. That would raise around $15-$20B a year by 2020. Imagine how doubling the subsidies for solar and EVs would do for renewables and EVs.