Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Government is fine, and the only reasonable way, to fight a war---or build a long-distance interstate freeway--to regulate foreign affairs---or to oversee interstate commerce.
Government is AWFUL, and not a good choice at all, when it comes to providing social services, education, and "legislating morality", (such as all sort of 'social engineering', etc). In these cases it's impossible to control the massive waste, duplication of efforts, and the bloated "overkill" of any government program. Most of this stuff could probably be better done by closely-supervised private-industry contractors, overseen by government 'watchdogs', but with their own incentive to keep costs down...
An example would be the "private" corrections industry. Totally unthinkable just a few years ago, "Corrections" contractors, who run small or large jails for an agreed-upon yearly cost, are now a growing industry---and apparently doing well. In some respects, it's not a great deal different from running a hospital. Costs per inmate are WAY down, yet complaints about mistreatment don't seem any worse than before.....at least that's my understanding.
Good post.
What bewilders me is how many seem to forget the ineptitude of the fedgov. when it comes to a national healthcare system.
Since 2001, even with record low inflation, Federal spending has increased by 19.7% - non-defense discretionary growth has increased 25.3%. It is too big, but no one really cares - eventually it won't matter, the payment on the national debt will be so huge, there won't be any money left to pay for anything but interest on the debt.The Gross National Debt is over $9 trillion and climbing. More than $1.5 trillion of debt is owed to the Social Security trust fund. Oh where is Clinton when you need him?!
In general terms,do you think the agencies and departments of the federal government perform well and are run smoothly?
Or is there a lot of wasted money, bureaucratic red tape and ineptitude?
Your thread is running all over the place, per your original question you were asking about the operation of the federal government, not if the programs should exist.
If you want to stick to your original topic my response would be no, it generally does not operate very well. The reason it fails to operate efficiently, in my view, is the multiple parties participating in all aspects of decisionmaking. Responsibility and accountability are fractured among many program participants, and failure to properly execute is muddled in who is at fault.
Finally, the Dept of Defense is rather poorly run due to a core problem, the funding for each of the military services and the SecDef of the DoD are all done directly through Congress, and there is not a single DoD budget. This results in significant duplication of efforts and competition for turf concerning program development and management.
The federal government is like any other large bureaucracy. Parts of it are run extremely well and are models for others in the public and private sectors alike. Parts of it are too slow, underfunded, poorly administered, and in general serve only as models of things to try to avoid. People tend to see only the Congress and senior members of the Executive and Judicial branches and think that this is the government. It is not. This is like watching Baywatch and thinking that you have seen America.
In representative forms of government, the government tends to reflect what constitutes its base, the people. Who would place an inept government into office or let one remain but an inept population?
Although I happen to think the largest part of its ineptitude stems from the fact that our federal government is bloated, top heavy and inefficient. I look to the world around me and whether it is a biological system, a mechanical system, or mathematical system, whatever...efficiency is usually more prevalent in simple things than complex ones.
And; the sick irony is that said US gov't has become more 'bloated' since Bush 43 has been in office-------so much for smaller governments under 'Republican' rule.
The federal government is like any other large bureaucracy. Parts of it are run extremely well and are models for others in the public and private sectors alike. Parts of it are too slow, underfunded, poorly administered, and in general serve only as models of things to try to avoid. People tend to see only the Congress and senior members of the Executive and Judicial branches and think that this is the government. It is not. This is like watching Baywatch and thinking that you have seen America.
As two who have spent much time on the inside, wouldn't you agree that many decisions, such as when to hire employees vs using contractors, aren't made based upon optimal use of assets? Wouldn't you agree that much of this has to do with what would sound better when campaigning?
Wouldn't you also agree that when we institute stuff like the Internal Management Control Program, we initially follow the rules, and then subsequently streamline it to the point where it becomes little more than a pencil pushing annual compliance exercise?
And; the sick irony is that said US gov't has become more 'bloated' since Bush 43 has been in office...
There may be several levels on which this is true. Certainly, the Bush administration has been the reverse of Vice President Gore's Reinvent Government program, which really did do away with excess layers, consolidate logically related functions, force people into inter-agency cooperation, and reduce both staff and costs. Today, there are many more people who are dedicated to the process of writing and reviewing reports that will never be of any use to anyone other than those who may in turn be assigned to the task of writing and reviewing those reports.
As two who have spent much time on the inside, wouldn't you agree that many decisions, such as when to hire employees vs using contractors, aren't made based upon optimal use of assets? Wouldn't you agree that much of this has to do with what would sound better when campaigning?
Some things are pushed down from the top. The top being the political layer that comes and goes with each succeeding administration. When these recognize the levels of experience and expertise that exist across much of the senior career service, seeking and actually reacting to their viewpoints, ideas, and recommendations, things tend to work more smoothly. When ideological marching orders are promulgated without recourse and over the relevant objections of such experts, things tend not to work so well. The bias toward expanded reliance upon contracting is one of those things that has not worked out so well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA
Wouldn't you also agree that when we institute stuff like the Internal Management Control Program, we initially follow the rules, and then subsequently streamline it to the point where it becomes little more than a pencil pushing annual compliance exercise?
Yes, in one sense, though blanket statements are not possible. In general, the long process toward expanded internal controls has, within my obviously limited view, been a good thing. There is greater conformity, there is greater transparency, and there is a greater realization that 'empire' is not what effective administration is all about. At the margins of that effort, there are indeed those annual compliance efforts that are a pencil-pushing sham and a waste of everybody's time. I think we could get by with 2-, 3-, maybe even 5-year cycles in many cases, but I don't think it would be wise to put the process as a whole at risk by mandating widespread relaxations. Does that answer the question?
There may be several levels on which this is true. Certainly, the Bush administration has been the reverse of Vice President Gore's Reinvent Government program, which really did do away with excess layers, consolidate logically related functions, force people into inter-agency cooperation, and reduce both staff and costs. Today, there are many more people who are dedicated to the process of writing and reviewing reports that will never be of any use to anyone other than those who may in turn be assigned to the task of writing and reviewing those reports.
Smaller, more efficient government, now there is an idea.
What is apparently one of the biggest differences in view is how much to cut, how much overhead needs to be cut in order to make government more efficient. I suspect this mostly depends on which party affiliation your views reside with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
