Originally Posted by jb2000

I agree that voters are able to improve efficiency, but not the 'turn off the tap' approach.

The problem I have with that logic is two-fold. One, I don't see the historical record to back this up. Governments have not generally responded to a lack of resources with large-scale improvements in efficiency. Large-scale spending cuts, I can see, but efficiency is a factor of cost vs. benifit, not merely cost, so if benefits are reduced along with costs, efficiciency may even get worse. Governments do generally respond to a resource squeeze by becoming more active in their attempts to secure more resources. Take a local county government for example: you cut budgets for the county mounties, and so they spend more time writing up ticketable (and finable) offenses versus non-revenue duties so that they can keep their cash flow. Is the dept. more efficient? I don't think so, but I guess its debatable.

Two, I just can't follow how merely cutting funds improves efficiency. It may cut spending, but like I said before, spending and efficiency aren't proportionally inverse to each-other. Only when the ratio of spending to effect improves does efficiency improve.

So it boils down to two basic points against your theory that cutting taxes improves efficiency:

1) Cutting taxes won't necessarily cause spending reductions (loans are only one way to get around it). The current Administration demonstrates this.

2) Reductions in spending won't necessarily improve efficiency. Hamstringing programs by slashing budgets often results in the remaining funds being essentially a waste. I can rattle off a string of defense programs to demonstrate this.