Hell NO on I-1098

[JayB]

But he's right, j_b. State workers all live the high life and they are paid more than they are worth and have all these lavish benefits and such. That is why government employment has always been known as the target employment for anybody with the means.

 

Oh yes, and government sucks. He's right, too, that the "gov" should not do anything that can't be done by private business. I mean, hell, we could have private police and fire departments, couldn't we? The market would assure that all who are deserving would get the services they need. The latte sipping do-nothing Orca crowd might actually have to pay for protection. Shame.

 

I've actually argued a couple of things.

 

The first is that there are things that only government can do, like draft laws, enforce laws, etc. There are things that the government is currently doing that the private sector can do - like staffing ferries, filling potholes, or running a port facility. When the demands on tax revenues exceed the economy's capacity to finance them via tax revenues, and you can't fund everything that government currently does - it's best to focus government on things that only it can do.

 

The second is that even in those domains where government is the only entity in society that can provide a given function, the government has a responsibility to use public funds as efficiently as possible.

 

That's it.

 

Consequently - I think that, say, spending 70 million dollars subsidizing a port facility, instead of leasing it to whoever can operate it for a profit is a completely unjustifiable waste of public money.

 

Instead of generating money for the public via its operations, public money is funding it's operations to the tune of 70 million dollars a year.

 

"Port of Seattle reduces tax bite on property owners

 

It may be a first: the Port of Seattle commission voted on Monday to approve a 2010 operating budget that will reduce the amount of tax dollars the port collects from King County property owners over the next year.

 

The port, which has the authority to tax property owners without voter approval, decreased the amount they will collect this year by about $2.4 million - dropping the total amount they will receive down to about $73.5 million."

 

All things being equal, I can think of quite a few more legitimate and effective uses for public money. Evidently some can't. That's fine - but I find it endlessly amusing that as a consequence of that I'm the "regressive."

[Fairweather]

Please don't bother Matt, TTK, and the Meme Brothers with logic like this. They're busy building another straw man right now.

[Choada_Boy]

I can't wait for this dumb cunt's taxes to go up so I can buy another yacht. Vote YES!

[Choada_Boy]

Meanwhile...

 

Crooked Teabagger in the News

[prole]

They're busy building another straw man right now.

 

The biggest strawman (more like uncritical assumption) being constructed here is that privatized or outsourced goods and services that were once administered by institutions with some semblance public accountability and oversight have a track record of creating better outcomes for taxpayers and consumers.

[Hugh Conway]

But he's right, j_b. State workers all live the high life and they are paid more than they are worth and have all these lavish benefits and such. That is why government employment has always been known as the target employment for anybody with the means.

 

Oh yes, and government sucks. He's right, too, that the "gov" should not do anything that can't be done by private business. I mean, hell, we could have private police and fire departments, couldn't we? The market would assure that all who are deserving would get the services they need. The latte sipping do-nothing Orca crowd might actually have to pay for protection. Shame.

 

I've actually argued a couple of things.

 

The first is that there are things that only government can do, like draft laws, enforce laws, etc. There are things that the government is currently doing that the private sector can do - like staffing ferries, filling potholes, or running a port facility. When the demands on tax revenues exceed the economy's capacity to finance them via tax revenues, and you can't fund everything that government currently does - it's best to focus government on things that only it can do.

 

The second is that even in those domains where government is the only entity in society that can provide a given function, the government has a responsibility to use public funds as efficiently as possible.

 

That's it.

 

Consequently - I think that, say, spending 70 million dollars subsidizing a port facility, instead of leasing it to whoever can operate it for a profit is a completely unjustifiable waste of public money.

 

Instead of generating money for the public via its operations, public money is funding it's operations to the tune of 70 million dollars a year.

 

"Port of Seattle reduces tax bite on property owners

 

It may be a first: the Port of Seattle commission voted on Monday to approve a 2010 operating budget that will reduce the amount of tax dollars the port collects from King County property owners over the next year.

 

The port, which has the authority to tax property owners without voter approval, decreased the amount they will collect this year by about $2.4 million - dropping the total amount they will receive down to about $73.5 million."

 

All things being equal, I can think of quite a few more legitimate and effective uses for public money. Evidently some can't. That's fine - but I find it endlessly amusing that as a consequence of that I'm the "regressive."

 

once need only look at Heathrow Airport to see how shitty private run ports can be.

[rob]

liar. THe private sector does EVERYTHING better. We should privatize the police department. I'm SO SICK of our socialized police and fire departments.

 

Also, those police officers are all living THE HIGH LIFE. Man oh man do they get paid well.

Edited September 18, 2010 by rob

[prole]

Of course only some things should be outsourced or privatized. Not to worry, the thinktanks, politicians, and lobbyists with ties to those companies that stand to gain the most will let us know what those things are.

[tvashtarkatena]

Please don't bother Matt, TTK, and the Meme Brothers with logic like this. They're busy building another straw man right now.

 

Haven't been involved in this issue, other than to take note of a certain ignorance in distinguishing between the initiative and legislative process...a shortcoming best cleared up prior to any actual political involvement beyond this forum, however unlikely.

 

Might I suggest an evening at the bowling alley to clear the mind.

[tvashtarkatena]

I just assume, usually correctly, that every tax related initiative is the product of idiocy, self interest, or idiotic self interest.

[tvashtarkatena]

Most chronic initiative generators, Eyman, the anti guy fucks, are in it for profit. Their constituents are too fucking stupid to figure it out.

 

Kind of like the Kochsuckers.

 

 

 

 

[prole]

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzr6wk7FVXE

[AlpineK]

If we tax the rich they might not have the money needed to remodel their second homes.

 

"We love this house, but it's really cramped space for our family."

[img:center]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Salinas_mcMansion.jpg/800px-Salinas_mcMansion.jpg[/img]

[Jim]

The first is that there are things that only government can do, like draft laws, enforce laws, etc. There are things that the government is currently doing that the private sector can do - like staffing ferries, filling potholes, or running a port facility. When the demands on tax revenues exceed the economy's capacity to finance them via tax revenues, and you can't fund everything that government currently does - it's best to focus government on things that only it can do.

 

The second is that even in those domains where government is the only entity in society that can provide a given function, the government has a responsibility to use public funds as efficiently as possible.

 

While I think there's a handful of items that government could hand over to private industry - liquor stores for one - I don't think the Port is a good example. If it were run by a private industry - yea THEY would make a profit of some sort and WE would end up paying for infrastructure upgrades that were "outside the scope of standard operating procedures".

 

Shoot - from the abundant craters around us from private indurstry nosedives it doesn't appear that private companies can run automobile manufacturing, banking, insurance companies, risk analysis firms and a multitude of other endeavors. Boeing gets huge tax breaks, energy companies get subsidies of all sorts, and corporate farms get corn subsidies. The idea that there is some inherent market efficiency spread like jam over all human actions is a crock. Like anything else, it just depends on who is running the show.

[j_b]

All things being equal, I can think of quite a few more legitimate and effective uses for public money. Evidently some can't. That's fine - but I find it endlessly amusing that as a consequence of that I'm the "regressive."

 

No Jay. What makes you a regressive is your wanting the taxpayer to pay for infrastructure and its maintenance in order to turn it over to the private sector so that someone can make a profit and the taxpayer cannot recover its expenditure. What makes you a regressive is your willful ignorance of natural monopolies that demand considerations other than profit in order to provide necessary and efficient services to the entire public (not only that part that is profitable). What makes you a regressive is your making the unreasonable assumption that privatized entities are always (notwithstanding a handful of exceptions that you concede) more efficient than public management. What makes you a regressive is your neoliberal religion that leads you to think that greed is the only valid motive for economic activity.

[JoshK]

While it may not make him a regressive, his defining feature is a complete inability to use less than 14 paragraphs to say anything. I have yet to make it through a JayB drivel post without falling asleep.

[tvashtarkatena]

JayB has a blind spot when it comes to the cognitive nature of human communication. Brevity being the soul of wit and all that.

 

[Nitrox]

Shoot - from the abundant craters around us from private indurstry nosedives it doesn't appear that private companies can run automobile manufacturing, banking, insurance companies, risk analysis firms and a multitude of other endeavors. Boeing gets huge tax breaks, energy companies get subsidies of all sorts, and corporate farms get corn subsidies. The idea that there is some inherent market efficiency spread like jam over all human actions is a crock. Like anything else, it just depends on who is running the show.

 

Actually, only two car companies were bailed out, none others needed or wanted the US government's help. In the process the government violated existing bankruptcy laws by wiping out bond obligations.

 

Of all your other examples only a few would have gone under, but that is the nature of business as a whole. We wouldn't be in any worse shape economically had the government not stepped in, probably better shape really.

 

I agree with you on the farm subsidies.

 

 

[Jim]

Actually, only two car companies were bailed out, none others needed or wanted the US government's help. In the process the government violated existing bankruptcy laws by wiping out bond obligations.

 

Of all your other examples only a few would have gone under, but that is the nature of business as a whole. We wouldn't be in any worse shape economically had the government not stepped in, probably better shape really.

 

I agree with you on the farm subsidies.

 

Just for clarity - I not arguing that those unfortunate steps were not necessary, just that they illustrate that private enterprises can be as screwed up, if not more, than public run entities.

[prole]

We wouldn't be in any worse shape economically had the government not stepped in, probably better shape really.

 

 

Uh yeah whatever. Looking forward to hearing lots more dispatches from this existentially unverifiable parallel dimension as the elections approach.

[tvashtarkatena]

Actually, only two car companies were bailed out, none others needed or wanted the US government's help. In the process the government violated existing bankruptcy laws by wiping out bond obligations.

 

Of all your other examples only a few would have gone under, but that is the nature of business as a whole. We wouldn't be in any worse shape economically had the government not stepped in, probably better shape really.

 

I agree with you on the farm subsidies.

 

Just for clarity - I not arguing that those unfortunate steps were not necessary, just that they illustrate that private enterprises can be as screwed up, if not more, than public run entities.

 

80% of all businesses fail within 2 years. As anyone who's worked in the private sector for any length of time can tell you, most private companies are managed poorly and therefore execute poorly.

 

Public entities can be just as or more efficient and effective than private and vice versa. The type of organization is not the issue. Management is the issue. Shitty management will run any organization into the ground.

 

The fundamental problems with hiring for profit private entities to support the public good are:

 

Conflict of interest. Private entities cater to their stockholders first, at the expense of their clients if need be.

 

This problem is greatly worsened with no bid contracts and the general lack of accountability and oversight.

 

Private entities tend to cut services that are too expensive on a case by case basis, which is often not an appropriate type of triage when providing critical services.

 

Given equal management, private entities inherently cost more than their public counterparts because they need to distribute profits to their shareholders to remain viable. They also need to grow. Public entities can remain effective and viable without doing either.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[Nitrox]

Actually, only two car companies were bailed out, none others needed or wanted the US government's help. In the process the government violated existing bankruptcy laws by wiping out bond obligations.

 

Of all your other examples only a few would have gone under, but that is the nature of business as a whole. We wouldn't be in any worse shape economically had the government not stepped in, probably better shape really.

 

I agree with you on the farm subsidies.

 

Just for clarity - I not arguing that those unfortunate steps were not necessary, just that they illustrate that private enterprises can be as screwed up, if not more, than public run entities.

 

80% of all businesses fail within 2 years. As anyone who's worked in the private sector for any length of time can tell you, most private companies are managed poorly and therefore execute poorly.

 

Public entities can be just as or more efficient and effective than private and vice versa. The type of organization is not the issue. Management is the issue. Shitty management will run any organization into the ground.

 

The fundamental problems with hiring for profit private entities to support the public good are:

 

Conflict of interest. Private entities cater to their stockholders first, at the expense of their clients if need be.

 

This problem is greatly worsened with no bid contracts and the general lack of accountability and oversight.

 

Private entities tend to cut services that are too expensive on a case by case basis, which is often not an appropriate type of triage when providing critical services.

 

Given equal management, private entities inherently cost more than their public counterparts because they need to distribute profits to their shareholders to remain viable. They also need to grow. Public entities can remain effective and viable without doing either.

 

 

 

 

I think its largely dependent on the service being discussed. There is no reason why the government should operate a ferry service at a loss (or even at all). Same goes for public gambling (Oregon slot machines known as "lottery") or liquor.

 

 

[rob]

Totally. Likewise, there is absolutely no reason to run the police department at a loss. Just another example of liberal waste and spending run amok!!! Fucking B-Ho! Hell, he can't even run the post office at a profit. WHAT CAN BROWN DO FOR YOU??? RUN THE POST OFFICE INTO THE GROUND, THAT'S WHAT!!

Edited September 20, 2010 by rob

[AlpineK]

 

I think its largely dependent on the service being discussed. There is no reason why the government should operate a ferry service at a loss (or even at all). Same goes for public gambling (Oregon slot machines known as "lottery") or liquor.

 

 

Umm the ferry is part of the highway system. If we're going to not fund the ferry we should be fair and quit funding all road maintenance.

 

If you want snow plowing you can pay for it.

 

Lets privatize our roads it'll be way more entertaining. Well entertaining to some that is.

 

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2Dn2hyN8cE&feature=related

 

[rob]

OMG, I don't think the government runs ANYTHING at a profit...HOLY SHIT! Someone alert the tea-baggers!!!