Hm. So, essentially we’d take the waste from Defense and pour it into the waste for other (social) programs. This sounds like bread and circus’s to me…as usual. Needless to say I’m far from excited about simply shifting wasted money from one boondoggle to another…
Or, pretty much what Renob has been saying (much better than I).
-XT
Likewise, the Virginia class SSN’s are meant to be an important step between the older Los Angeles class boats, and the two, or is it three, Seawolf class boats. Even the newest Los Angeles boats are getting a bit long in the tooth. If one wants to argue that having more of the Seawolf boats would be a good idea, that’s fine. But cutting back to only those and cold war era boats seems to be very short-sighted.
I have some reservations about the DD(X) program, but that’s because I’m prejudiced against staterooms and false bulkheads. I don’t really question what the DD(X) plans to be able to do…
I don’t really know enough about the other programs that this proposed bill is targetting, but based on what I do know I suspect that the other programs are not as wasteful as they may look at first glimpse.
It is my impression that Impact Aid reimburses counties with large federal installations (military bases and Indian reservations being the most common) for the fact that local property taxes cannot be levied on federal property. Most children on military bases and on reservations are educated in base or reservation facilities, and would presumably continue to be educated there.
So basically, it’s impossible for the federal government to do anything successfully. Hell, why don’t we just disband it altogether? Believe it or not, there are actual people who have been helped by federal programs before. I don’t have the energy to look up cites right now (perhaps someone else can help out?), but how about an appeal to logic: Do you really think federal social programs would still exist if none of them were ever successful? This money, while just a fairly small percentage of the defense budget, would be an enormous shot in the arm to these other programs.
But, eh, I guess thinking the government actually has the power to help people is just a pipe dream . . .
Essentially, yes. Government, to over-generalize, is too burdened by rules and regulations and has no incentive to efficiently allocate resources.
I’ll settle for disbanding most of it.
Sure, and there are plenty who are being hurt by the federal government’s high tax rates and oppressive regulations. There are also plenty of people who are hurt by the dependency engendered by social programs.
It’s not even a matter of who is helped vs. who is hurt, however. It’s a matter of whether or not the number of people truly helped by a program is worth the expenditure of the huge amount of money it takes to do that. I would say the trade-off is not worth it.
Every program certainly has its constituency. It’s not a matter of success. It’s a matter of free money. If the feds are handing out free money to a special interest group of which you are a member, you are going to fight very hard when someone tries to cut off that free money. That is why it’s very hard to kill any federal program.
Apparently something we can both agree on.
Renob, I’ve got to give you credit . . . you really know how to stay on message. I bow before your unshakeable cynicism.
Meanwhile, back in the real world…
Increasing educational spending is arguably a good idea. Cutting military spending is arguably a good idea. But linking the two together is nothing but political propaganda.
Cite?
Cite? (For any of these programs having been proven to be “wasteful.”)
NAEP Scores are basically flat since 1971:http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ltt/results2004/2004_sdts.asp
I’ve already proven that per-pupil spending has doubled. Basically, spending has doubled and scores remain flat.
On the cite for the wastefulnes of the government programs listed (and many not listed), their very existence is a waste of money. They are doing things the government has no business doing. I’m not arguing they are inefficient; I’m arguing they are unnecessary.
Impact Aid is available to local educational authorities simply because of the presence of a federal installation – about 250 LEAs receive funds under this formula. However, more than 1,200 LEAs receive funds because children are connected to Federal lands and they attend public schools.
In comparison, DOD runs about 50 or 60 schools in the entire US, the bulk of them in about four states.
So, again: if you want to eliminate Impact Aid, how are kids in those 1,150 other school districts supposed to pay for school?
If you live on the base or on a reservation, you go to schools on base or the reservation. If you live off-base and send kids to local public schools, then you pay some form of local tax dollars into the system.
I would prefer to see less federal land, which would mean that there would be more land eligible for local districts to tax. That’s my overall solution – have the feds sell some of their vast land holdings.
Public school isn’t free where you live?
So the government has no business funding academic institutions, subsidizing medical and scientific research, or even compiling labor statistics?! I don’t think even the Libertarian Party would go that far.
Actually, the Libertarian Party would go much further.
Why are labor statistics a government function? If companies or unions use these statistics in the course of business, they should pay for them. For the average citizenry, these statistics are completely meaningless.
Same with academic institutions. The people benefiting from them should pay for them.
Medical and scientific research is best left to corporations and drug companies. Why should the government subsidize their work?
National aggregate figures don’t prove your point. As howye pointed out, quality/funding of public schools varies widely. To prove the proposition, “Putting more money into education does not improve students’ performance,” you would have to look at the effect over time of increased funding on particular selected institutions, compared with a control group of other institutions whose inflation-adjusted funding remained constant in the same time period.
:rolleyes: Same reason the Census is a government function.
:dubious:
Somebody remind me, wasn’t there something in the news not that long ago about what a wonderful job corporations do in researching and policing drugs?
Coud it be Vioxx
Political interest groups do influence where the government spends our money. How about we fix that problem and see what happens?
The people who benefit from academic institutions do pay for them; because you see we all benefit from academic institutions.
Really? Did I miss the clause in the Constitution that authorizes the government to collect labor statistics? Did I also miss the clause that says we base one of our houses of Congress on those statistics? If I did, please point it out.
Sure, corporations produce dangerous drugs at times. When they do, they deserve to be sued and have people stop buying their products. That is what’s happening. Shall we also discuss the thousands of life-saving drugs produced by corporations?
And how do we fix the problem? It’s a constitutional protection that people have the right to lobby. If government has the power to distribute funds to special interest groups, it is going to exercise it. The only way to stop them is to take away the power.
Sure, and those who graduate from them benefit much more directly than people who don’t. Therefore, they should be the ones to pay. Those who develop products from their research benefit much more directly than those who don’t. Therefore, they should be the ones that pay.