Reagan quote
 

It strikes me that Reagan plays in the modern conservative movement a role analogous to that of FDR. Though he wasn't an intellectual, he communicated and condensed a lot of what conservative theorists had been saying for a number of years (people like Friedman and Buckley).

And now the quote, to perhaps start some conversation:

"Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them."

I looked it up to make sure I got it right, and found another one that I liked:

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidise it "

(And if you like the man, or just want to see some of his words, you can go here.)

Before we go off talking about welfare, let us remember that it underwent considerable reform in the 90s. It's no longer a perpetual free-money handout program. There are education and work requirements attached. I'm not saying there aren't loopholes, but welfare is not the handout program it used to be.

Government efforts to reduce its own size tend to have either mixed success, or none at all!

As Reagan said:

"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth! "

This is a structural political problem. When a program is cut, everyone in the country saves about $5 (or whatever small amount), but a small number of people who benefit from it, or who work in it have very big incentives to work very hard to keep the program. Even if it is wasteful or unnecessary, programs exist because they seemed like a good idea at one time.

I think it's true that some government programs are bad or wasteful, but they are inevitable in a democracy. It's the cost of the American way. Moreover, I think the proposition that government is useless while businesses are paragons of effeciency is just plain wrong. Lots of bad businesses continue to operate for various reasons. It might take 10 years for a wasteful business to finally be driven out of business. People say the government's problem is no competition. The number of failed privatization projects shows that competition isn't a simple answer. Just look at Enron. Besides, no one pretends that businesses don't go to great lengths to insulate themselves from competition and the threat of going out of business. Diversified companies have less incentive to innovate and excell, because other sectors can bear the cost of relatively poor performance.

Ok, I'll shut up now.

Being a political speechwriter must be tough. The politicians get credit for all your best lines.

To make it as simple as possible, the government's problem is size. Too many levels of useless management make it impossible to get anything done. At least that was the case when I worked there.

Big bureaucratic businesses can linger for a while, yea maybe even 10 years, before someone buys them or they go out of business, but little inefficient ones go bye-bye fast.

The federal government is so big, it really can't be expected to do anything very well.

I think we ought to put a cap on the size of the beast. Force it to remain funded at a certain % of GDP and only allow that % to move up and down with a national vote. That way, if it has a good new idea, it has to find funding for the new idea by cutting funding to an old one that isn't working very well.

Ronnie would have liked this.

Thanks for listening.

wwcd101- Your ideas are sound. However, we live in a society of entitlement- and I don't just mean government entitlement. We feel as though we're entitled to Cable TV, or the Internet, or Thai Delivery food. We feel like we've earned the right to relax and watch "24" or "The West Wing" because we work hard.

Why is this important? As time keeps going, new stuff is invented, and new entitlements created. Everyone's going on Atkins now- it must be safe! If it wasn't, the government would tell me! Zicam can't really cure a cold, can it? Why doesn't the government find out if this is a scam? Terrorists are utilizing e-mail! We'd better track it! Bob Dole can't get it up any more? Write him a prescription for Viagra! These are all issues the government has seen fit to dabble in the last few years- and none of these issues were present a decade ago. (Okay, Bob Dole still couldn't get it up...) So how do we pay for the government to test Atkins, Zicam, check billions of e-mails, and provide Bob Dole with another pen holder?

Toss in the huge boon in immigration, which we will pay for in terms of public school, lower wages, so on, and our costs will continue to rise while our.. taxes are cut? Watch that deficit...

Luckily, most Americans are starting to realize "tax and spend" isn't a Democrat thing, it's a politician thing. Democrats control jack squat nationwide, and our spending it out of freaking control. No one left to blame but terrorists.. and we feel entitled to invading Iraq and Afghanistan, too!

Those are good quotes, and actually my liberal Democratic political science professor has the first two pinned up to the wall. The innefficiencies of government programs and the fact that once they develop a constituency they tend to go on forever is something that liberals need to deal with, intelectually, if they want to propose realistic solutions to the county's problems. I say that as a liberal.

Of course, conservatives overstate the efficiency of big business. People forget that wile competition can spur efficiency, it can also harm it. The reason businesses merge afterall is to cut down on competition so as to more efficiently generate a profit. Frther, the ideal of competition is just that, an ideal, and it rests of several impossible assumptions, the biggest being perfect information. Theres a lot less real competition going on in the business world then conservatives would have you belive.

Part of the success of the 90's budget surpluses were due to budget rules you described, wwcd101 - the Congress was forced to find cuts for every new program it implemented (ie, a zero balance change). Unfortunately this budget rule expired in '01, and with no "divided power" government, there is a no-holds-bar feeding frenzy going on the past 3 years, and no check on the excesses of the Republicans.

Kerry in '04

A funny thing that Reagan did was deregulate the fishing industry and simultaneously subsidize it at Georges Bank. Now there are no fish there.

Reagan also gave domestic business the most import relief than any other president (tarriffs being a form of subsidy).

Do we remember that SDI initiative? That had little to do with putting weapons in space. Its purpose was to use taxpayer money to subsidize the development of the fifth generation of computers.

Reagan talked so much about market forces, but he refused to let them work.

What a tool.

There is currently no pressure for Congress or the President to cut spending. American voters, while not overly happy with the deficits and national debt, don't really care to do anything about them.

Representatives are applauded for bringing money back to their states while President's are applauded for providing new programs.

There need to be limits on spending and there should be no new taxes until the government is forced to clean house. Just because there was a reason for a program at one time it is not acceptable to allow programs to continue with no oversight as to their success or failure. The government simply passes the costs of its inefficiency on to the taxpayer.

There's a little hope, onetime2. Read on, from today's Post:

Thanks SH, I saw that in another paper. I hope they can iron out the differences and commit to it. I am all for tax cuts (even without the required accompanying cuts) as it forces the government to do equal (or more) with less but at this point it's probably necessary to force spending cuts in association with tax cuts.