National Review argued that the study left out the consistent failure of government programs. But I think the study was looking at something much more concrete: bureaucratic failures. Times where the process broke down. When Republicans shut down the government, that’s intentional, so it doesn’t count for the purposes of the study. When the IRS can’t figure out how to process applications or the whole VA system gets corrupted, or when FEMA can’t effectively respond to an emergency, or when regulators miss years of malfeascance by a corporation despite tons of warnings, that’s the kind of government failure the study is looking at.
So was Iran-Contra counted as a failure? The White House intended to break the law, so perhaps it wasn’t.
I thought only the arms for hostages bit was intentional by the White HOuse, the contra part freelancing by North and Poindexter?
Without wading into the discussion of what’s a failure and what isn’t (although that’s obviously going to have a huge effect), the below points are ones that caught my eye:
Did they also include that some failures occurred on sunny days and some on cloudy? These points seem so obvious to any failure state, whether in the public or private area, that it calls into question the rest of the study. I think it would have made the study stronger if they had focused more of just the failure rate and magnitude than making a bunch of navel gazing observations about the nature of failure that would be obvious to most high school students.
So it is only a half-failure of the government? Since the article says that Reagan had four failures during his last two years, I wonder what the other three-and-a-half failures were.
One would think that Brookings had some standards on what they cite, but apparently not. This is pretty amateurish stuff. If it was undergraduate work, they’d be told to resubmit.
All this measures is the politicization of news media. News is dominated by government news nowadays because of increased competition between the parties for spoils of victory. The budget is increasingly strained and the various interests that control the parties, are hurting because they are unable to join forces to plunder the citizens to the extent they were able to for preceding decades.
Of course not, because it can’t be blamed on the Dems.
Why is FEMA in there? FEMA was actually brought up to a high standard of proficiency before a Bush-appointed agency head gutted the bureaucracy in the name of “fiscal responsibility.” To include that as a governmental bureaucratic failure goes beyond cherry picking to simple invention.
I would agree that the IRS situation is a bureaucratic failure, but it would be interesting to see how much of that was due to systemic failure and how much was due to the service operating on short funds as Congress cut requests in order to avoid “intrusive” government.
Similarly with financial oversight failures, (to say nothing of failures by meat inspectors and other agencies charged with public safety): my first question would be how much of the failure was due to government not being able to handle the job vs how much was due to earnest attempts by slashed-funded agencies.
I am afraid that you are hardly making the case to support the study.
No, corporate welfare does not appear to be in any grave danger.
Actually, it is. Ex-Im is still on schedule to die.
But not because of budget-strain.