You want to see budget cuts? I can GUARANTEE budget cuts.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

Ladies and gentlemen,

I have devised a method of cutting the budget of this state, literally, to shreads. I can guarantee at least a 25% cut from each and every agency in this state, and it will be a cut they would happily support!

How do we do it? Simple:

We empower each and every state, county and/or local government budget manager to cut their budget as much as they possibly can.

Now... on the surface, you might think, "Why on earth would they do that?"

Well, that's where the kicker comes in.

We allow EACH and EVERY budget manager to KEEP, say, one percent of whatever they cut!

Folks, don't you agree that the budget of this state would practically vaporize, overnight?

MASSIVE state and local employee layoffs... cuts across the board... plummeting tax rates. Why, 695 would not only pass... NO ONE WOULD NOTICE IT IF IT DID!!!

Imagine... the legislature sets up the criteria... it could be done on a one time only basis, and 601/695 would KEEP the lid on.

Few life-forms on this planet are greedier then a bureaucrat. We would, quite litterally, save, perhaps, BILLIONS.

Whadaya say? 695 opponents should support this, as many of them would tell you that the ONLY people equipped to deal with this state's cash flow are those very same bureaucrats! State employees/unions would go schitzo, but so what? They always do when they don't get a piece of the action.

I say, "run it!"

Westin

"Cry 'budget cuts!' And let loose the Dogs of Cash!"

Sen. James West Then Senate Ways and Means Committee Chair

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 04, 1999

Answers

Fantastic plan Westin!!

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 04, 1999.

I wrote this for "How much should the ferry system be subsidized", but it fits here too. You may be right about the extent of the cuts that some would propose, but all that shows is that uncontrolled "profit" and greed are not good motivators for management of public programs. Personal greed is a big reason I-695 is even being considered. Keep suggesting these silly ideas. You help make my points.

A version of what you suggestion that actually works, is when a budget cutting suggestion results in a limited "bonus" to the suggester; but the review committee that actually could approve the idea does not profit, so the decision is made objectively and for the public interest. Some governments and businesses already do something like this, with good results.

"Believe it or not Private ALWAYS does a better job than government because they have to..to make a profit" -- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 04, 1999.

NOT! If that were true, why would we need government programs at all? Sometimes the profit motive is inconsistent with the public service being provided. Do you want the police and judges motivated by "profit"? Do you want paramedics to allow "profit" to determine if they initate patient care procedures on the uninsured during an emergency? Some services require a monopoly situation, and "profit" over "public interest" would lead to higher prices and unacceptable outcomes.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 04, 1999.


OK, db, I admit it. You've confused me.

On one hand, you call my idea "silly," then on the other hand, show it with the qualification that a board be devised to review the cuts; and that the board be akin to a disinterested party as they would not receive any of the money from the cuts.

My confusion is this: what's "silly" about it? I'd be more then happy to have a board in oversight, that's why I suggested legislative action on the matter.

Even you acknowledge that where a version of this has been tried, there have been "good results." I just wouldn't cap the financial rewards. For example, if someone comes up with a plan that would save the taxpayers, oh, 100 million or so, the idea that we cap their reward at 25,000 seems, well, just a bit bizarre.

Now, if you see that as "help(ing) to make your points," feel free. I don't believe anyone else will, especially when it seems that my "silly" idea has already been enacted at some level.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 06, 1999.


Westin:

The silly idea was the one you started with, which included some expectation and glee about massive program cuts in government by managers looking for a quick buck. You seem so intent on cutting government, you did not even find it a problem that these cuts would be made for personal greed rather than public benefit.

As for rewarding good ideas, I don't find that to be a problem. Without limits, however, it could be misused. A sliding scale may be needed; so the smaller savings are still worth suggesting, and the larger savings do not result in rediculous payments.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 06, 1999.


P.S. I would not expect major savings if I were you. Where this is used it usually finds slightly more efficient ways to get things done, but not the program cuts you described.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 06, 1999.


db,

Glee? I plead guilty to arriving at an obvious conclusion. The obvious conclusion is that budget managers at every level would slaughter their respective budgets if they knew they could get a cut.

Glee? Yes, the FACT that budget cuts reflecting MANY more times the the 2 or 3% this initiative will result in would be implemented by many of those whining the loudest right now about the effects of this initiative.

Yeah... I'm gleeful about it all right. But then, I see all efforts made to reduce the tax-burden as being a "public benefit," given the unconscionably high levels we currently maintain.

I also don't give a damn that I'd use greed as a tool FOR the people, instead of the current technique, which goes after the people that are paying the bills: (4 words: teacher's pay, and prevailing wages)

No one's here out of altruism. Mention privatization to the public employee's union and they get nutso in a minute. Mention getting rid of the sales tax on materials and equipment for public projects, and the whole world comes apart. Mention the fact that teachers would sell their souls for a pay-raise, the students be damned (you know, like just last school year?) and insanity reigns. Make an effort to get rid of prevailing wages, and bombs start being thrown.

Yeah... greed is a great motivator. Just ask our stalwart public employee unions.

So why not use it FOR the people, instead of against them?

I stand by my observation on limits. It makes NO sense for someone to legitimately save this state (and, correspondingly, the tax payers) millions and only get a few thousand for it. Setting the limit, and keeping it at 1% would result in a snow-storm of ideas for budget and personnel cuts. And the 1% motivator would have them crawling out of the wood work. To that end, a 1% reward for any savings over, say, a million would be just fine. That would be a $10,000 reward to the person responsible.

But, correspondingly, I wouldn't have a problem paying a government employee one million if he saved us 100 million. I would not see that as a "ridiculous amount," considering, and I doubt that most people would oppose such a move.

Hell, down here in Clark County, we hand money out like its samples. Forked over in excess of $800,000 to the family of a 15 year old who broke his neck in a car wreck. The family claimed that it was because the curve where the wreck happened wasn't properly marked.

Of course, the fact that this kid was with four others at the time made no difference. Or the fact that he wasn't wearing a seat belt made no difference (he was the only one who wasn't, strangely enough, sitting in the middle of the back seat of this ford escort) AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS HIS BROTHER DRIVING, WHILE HE AND HIS BUDDIES WERE *STEALING THIS CAR* made no difference. Nope... we just cheerfully settled out of court...

Just makes me brim with confidence over our local government's ability to handle money... MY money.

So, *I* say, let's use greed for good, just this once.

I will, however, support the idea of a sliding scale for lower amounts saved... I want as much money as possible saved, so, I would agree to the sliding scale. But, comparatively speaking, if we want the big bucks saved, we're going to have to pay big bucks out.

Keeping the cap off would result in major savings. With greed motivating the numbers crunchers, we'd get thousands of ideas. Money can do that for you, you know.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), September 06, 1999.


Westin: You make my points again. I agree that some savings suggestions should be rewarded. I object to the "uncontrolled profit and greed" your original proposal would have used to reward program cuts that are not in the public interest. Your "glee", and bias against any tax and any government services, shows me you don't have the public welfair high on your priority list. Its all about a personal tax cut, and it doesn't matter to you what damage is done in the process.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 07, 1999.

Nope 'd' you just demonstrate once again that you don't understand the basics. A 'personal tax cut' is putting the 'public welfair' very high on the list of priorities.

The tax cut benefits the public.

And what kind of bozo wants to limit profit?

Greed is what runs government it is not what runs private enterprise.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 07, 1999.


Maddjak: You and Westin make quite a pair. Greed is now a virtue, and a substitute for the "public welfair"? Not in my community, or my home, or my church, or my business, or my personal relations.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 08, 1999.

Here's the perfect cut for government to start with. Westin! If that's the best he can do, we don't need him.

-- Mike Powell (mkpow62@silverlink.net), September 14, 1999.


"Here's the perfect cut for government to start with. Westin! If that's the best he can do, we don't need him. " Did you intend to merely put him in a re-education center until he's too old to speak (or breathe), or was the idea that the state should authorize a REAL LATE term abortion for Mr. Westin. Worked in Cambodia (sort of) and in the PRC during the Great Cultural Revolution. Let's see, there's d, Mike, ......... (damn, that's only a Gang of Two, need to find a couple more converts, maybe BB would agree.....)

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 14, 1999.

Craig:

Freedom of speech includes, of course, the freedom to be wrong. It would be better if Westin didn't exercise that freedom to quite such an extreme.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 14, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ