Government waste

Remove all ads!

People wonder why I say the government is usually the least efficient means of dealing with most issues. Here is another classic:

Waste, possible fraud reported at TSA

Lets see:

CABLE TV???

The article goes on to detail further abuses. I just love how the government spends the money they take from me by force.

Yep, bureaucracy at it finest!

 

My personal favorite:

Twelve Fig trees on a five year LEASE in the new government offices (Portcullis House) cost £150,000.
(That includes care, maintenance and replacement if they die for the five years, whoop-de-doo)

 

My personal favorite from Finland is when a honorary title was bought to the CEO of YLE (government owned television&radio). Now talk about waste of money.

 

Corporate America is far more extravagant regarding "waste." None of the government employees even had memberships to a few country clubs. Any corporate executive would be outraged by that.

In a pre-Enron world that argument "seemed" to make sense. Now, given the rampant corporate waste, fraud, corruption and mismanagement, it no longer makes sense, except to a few die-hards. Let's not forget, they just paid Carly 40 million TO LEAVE HP. Pretty nice cut for someone who was fired from her job. How is that fair to other rank-and-file HP employees, shareholders and customers who have to absorb a 40 million write-off for one stinking person who couldn't do her job. Talk about "waste."

 

These things gall people but it is such a miniscule part of the public funds that they might as well not exist. Yes it is, wrong, but in practice it doesnt matter one whit. The only impact it has is to put water on the wheels of governmentophobes.

 

The difference is, I get to choose who I work for, who works for me, and what I spend/invest my money on/with.

The gov't takes my money by force, and I never get to vote for these bureaurocrats.

 

DW - But that's a different argument than saying that government is more wasteful than a private corporation. The piece of that argument about choice is something I really agree with you about. But any large institution, whether its public or private, seems to suffer from symptoms of extravagant waste as it ages.

Representative government is supposed to provide the choice for us in this matter. Yet, regarding size and waste in government, it appears that either choice is about the same as the other.

 

I always prefer governmental instances or similar public organisations to handle things before private things just for this reason. They were caught werent they? They have to answer to someone, dont they? Public organisations are supervised and regulated and work within certain frames. I greatly prefer that to for example as in the cat thread letting any lunatic with a license go around shooting cats. Create a specific agency for it and let them handle it instead.

Most humans are idiots and/or lunatics, I wouldnt trust your average individual with a plastic spoon. A public official agency though, same morons and lunatics but now they are supervised and controlled morons and lunatics.

 

Government is inherently wasteful, as it has no competition. Businesses that are wasteful create added expenses that consumers or investors have to burden, leading to the eventual reduction of these costs, or competition taking over their business. The extreme examples of your WorldComs, Enrons, and Level 3's are still relatively isolated when you look at the breadth and depth of the number of publicly traded corporations.

Now, as for the favorite claim of those who like to engage in class-warfare, that CEO's and executives are paid too much, it is a marketplace. There is nothing that forces a company to pay more for any employee than the value of that employee. If a monkey could run it, why would the board members approve the huge salaries paid to CEO's? These people are stockholders as well, and it is in their best interests to maximize profitability. When is it in bureaucrat's best interest to lower costs or increase efficiency? It isn't, because if they do they risk being deemed unnecessary, and in a bureaucracy, you spend every dime you are budgeted, even if you don't need to, because if you don't, next year someone who did will try to claim your unused allocation to expand their department, whether or not they really need it. Corporation’s success is judged based upon their profitability; a bureaucracy's success judged is based upon the size of its budget. It is a piss-poor way to run anything, though admittedly in some cases it is the only way that will work (or at least we haven't figured out a better way). Throw in the fact that we only get to choose between politicians that either want to grow government fast, or grow government even faster, and it is a recipe for disaster.

Off topic: This reminds me of a favorite quote of bureaucrats. “Well of course we need to raise taxes, didn’t you get a raise last year? Your expenses go up every year don’t they? Well ours do too, it is unfair for you to think that we shouldn’t raise taxes just like you get a raise”. And stupid sheeple believe it. They get a raise when we get a raise because we are not taxed a flat amount per person; we are taxed on a percentage of our income. So if the average wage earner’s salary goes up by 5%, then the gov’t revenues go up by 5%. If you keep playing the bureaucrat’s game to the end, they get 100%.

I can't remember the exact quote or who said it, but it was basically that our (the US) form of government is terrible, and that its only redeeming quality is that it is better than anything else out there. IMO, truer words have never been spoken.

 

What do you expect. These people are brought in from management positions in corporations--I don't believe Bush is dipping into the union and social worker subsets at the moment--and they're accustomed to corporate perks. And they get them, with even less accountability than they used to have to their stockholders. And this is the "small government" party. Imagine what it would be like if the Democrats were in power.

 

Yes, a marketplace run by CEO's and execs. That's some real competition. If a smaller company should dare to do the unthinkable, such as being well-run and efficient, it is simply devoured by one of the monstrous, inefficient, mega-corporations. For instance, a very large company I know of (I won't mention any names here) was losing customers at a fast rate, due to mismanagement. The solution was to buy a smaller company. The result: a new instant customer base! They just added a whole bunch of new customers to piss-off. Isn't it a great system? It will end once they get done devouring each other - last man standing wins. The rest of us loose.

 

How do the rest of 'us' lose, Chandos?

 

As consumers and workers, HB. An example to satisfy your quip: Here we have deregultated airlines now. So there were smaller airlines running small routes in areas less traveled, like upstate New York. Now one of the large airlines can now muscle in. So, for several months they take a big hit, lower fares drastically in the area they want. The smaller airline cannot absorb the hit. So they go under (get bought out by the larger fish). Then the larger fish, raises rates even higher than they were initially. But guess what? Now it's the only game in town. So people who travel that route now pay more - they loose. True story, BTW.

 

OK - the "people" pay more. But who do they pay it to? It's not to aliens or extraplanar demons. It is to the companies. Aren't the companies made up of people, who then get that money?

 

Yes, 40 Million in Carly's case. I'm sure your check for 40 mill is in the mail, HB.

 

OK, firstly Carly only gets a small fraction of the total money a company she might run gets, and secondly, what does Carly do with that money?

And, if the little airline was so efficient, why couldn't they compete? If the big airline is so inefficient, where did they get the money from to absorb the losses from their route takeover strategy?

 

You are starting to get my blood up over this, HB. I'm really not in much of a mood for apologists for the corporate scum of the earth - the sorry-ass, greed mongers that you find so cute. And real American families are being hurt by these turds. You got the point of what happened with the airlines. If a company has more resources, they can win. They can also bury a smaller company in legal costs by filing lawsuits until the opposing company breaks. It happens.

Lookie here:

I work down the street from the main campus that was Compaq and is now HP. I've seen the dejected, laid-off, downsized former Compaq employees by the truckloads filing past. People who put in years with the company only to find that company loyalty ends in the unemployment line, while those who are responble walk away with cool millions. I hate what these turds are doing to American families and what they are doing to my country.

Take a hard look at this - more corporate BS, HB:

Here's more:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7528519/site/newsweek

You want to talk about "people" - fine - start talking. But don't try to convince me of the "humanity" of these corrupt worms who have taken over my government and are destroying American families with their greed.

Edit: Here's more:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7563967/site/newsweek/

[ April 22, 2005, 16:50: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Chandos, I'm not denying that there can be negative impacts from a capitalist society. What I am trying to point out is that every company, large or small is made up of people. Are all people who work for a large company evil and money hungry? Or just the management? Or just the directors? Or just the shareholders?

I work for a large company. I bet many people here do. Does that make me evil and greedy?

Is the world a worse place because of big business? If you really think so, then you'd better get rid of your computer, your TV, your phoneline, your electrical connection, and your medicines. And you'd better quit your job, unless you work as self sufficient farmer feeding your family from your garden.

Sure, there are plenty of creeps in big companies. But there are plenty of creeps in dark alleys and plenty of creeps everywhere else. To say that whole concept of the large corporation is evil and inhumane is far too much of a generalisation.

 

HB - Perhaps we misunderstand each other here. I was pointing out the worst cases of corporate abuse, and that abuses continue and are multiplying. I work for a large corporation also, and while it is not evil, it is somewhat mismanaged. I was countering Darkwolf's belief that private corporations are better managed than government, pointing out the abuses occur in both areas. The ones in private corporations are as bad as the ones in government.

Anywhere that power and wealth concentrates abuses happen, whether private or public. I thought you were defending those examples of abuses that I commented on.

 

I don't mind generalizing: large corporations are evil and inhumane, period. See the copious documentation above by Chandos. And no, HB, working for a large company does not make YOU evil & greedy. Nor does it prevent you from being so, unless you received a "wealth inoculation" when you were hired. This seldom used procedure induces feelings of philanthropy in the recipient, causing him to behave in a socially responsible way towards other human beings. Most corporate executives, unfortunately, chose instead the "me first" vaccine, which produces an uncontrollable urge to buy a personal jet plane.

I'm not a great admirer of Henry Ford, but he did have one pretty bright idea: if he paid his workers more money, they could afford to buy his cars. This simple piece of common sense seems elusive to today's empire builders.