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.
The idea of efficient government is largely a myth. As a previous poster pointed out, government is too entwined with politics to conduct itself in an efficient manner. A prime example in this country is the fact that every 4 and sometimes 8 years, the heads and some upper level employees of every federal agency change with the new presidential administration.
But the bureaucrats stay and therein lies the problem. As long as there are bureaucrats entrenched in their jobs, any size government will never be efficient.
All far-right wing ideas would only work in Utopia,
that's why you will never hear a conservative saying: "X idea has been working great in X country for several decades"
Right on. Not too many things that work for others will work for us. We're an unique country.
Just as an aside, I think for the US they mean smaller federal, larger state govt, which has its own insane set of problems (and is subsidized by the fedgov anyway, go figure).
That is the way it is suppose to be.
The States are competing for residents.
A bad State with sky high taxes to pay for all the entitlements, would be what some would like.
States with no taxes and the freedom to actually have a choice, would appease some, too.
Each State would set it's own destiny to strive or fail. NO BAILOUTS!! People could just move, if they didn't like what their state is going to do, or is doing.
That is why long ago, we didn't elect Senators. They were appointed by the States, depending on the amount of citizens in the state, like the House. They kept the States interest in mind. Special interest can elect a Senator now, not what the State represents.
That is a thing of the past and you see DC. running over States rights.
This is what got me curious about this. Former governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson who seems to be a Libertarian-Republican said that when his state government became smaller it became more efficient and they got more done with less.
This is what got me curious about this. Former governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson who seems to be a Libertarian-Republican said that when his state government became smaller it became more efficient and they got more done with less.
In the 90s the government became smaller and more efficient as computers overtook traditional filling, archiving, and a slew of other roles, eliminating quite a few people from the payroll. You no longer needed a dozen individuals to maintain records, it could all be done by one person on a computer. The internet helped greatly expedite communication within the government, which also helped trim the payroll..
Of course, outside of technological changes there really is no way to bring efficiency to a large federal (or even state) government without significant reorganization.
I often hear smaller government proponents say that they are for smaller government because smaller government brings about more efficent government compared to big government.
To those who prefer smaller gov't for this reason can you provide some examples of periods in U.S history when government was smaller and more efficient? What other countries fit this model?
The Founders and modern followers thereof, don't advocate small government because it is efficient per se, that is a strawman. We advocate it because it is small.
This is what got me curious about this. Former governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson who seems to be a Libertarian-Republican said that when his state government became smaller it became more efficient and they got more done with less.
Apparently they're going to be shutting off streetlights in order to save money on electric bills, to say nothing of cutting back on police, fire, libraries, etc.
I kind of wonder if the city has is trying to do these things mostly to demonstrate to the notoriously tax-averse voters how deep their fiscal pain really is. Something like when companies remove the free coffee from the breakroom when earnings are down -- it creates an overall "feeling" of belt-tightening more than actually saving much money.
Wonder what the thoughts of Springs residents is on this one. Of course, I realize that the post never misses an opportunity to poke fun at our neighbors to the south.
IMHO, I wonder if COS and its voters are still wrestling with what exactly the city should be "when it grows up" -- this recession is just bringing those tough choices into clearer view.
Not necessarily. Quite a few suburbs spent millions in subsidies to developers, hoping to rake in higher property and sales taxes, only to lose most of it in the downturn. Because the entire municipal budget is smaller, such losses have a much bigger impact.
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.
