# Which government functions can we do without? (Tim R. Mortiss) **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 2, 2019, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-government-functions-can-we-do-without-tim-r-mortiss/827090 "2019-01-02T13:14:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2019, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-government-functions-can-we-do-without-tim-r-mortiss/827090/101 "2019-01-04T15:47:50Z")
I don’t think SS is that bad a deal when you do the math. I did some simple spreadsheet calculations for a person who mad the maximum taxable income for each year 1978-2018, 41 years of working. For example, in 1978 you and your employer each put in 5.05% up to $17,700 of earnings, total $1787.70 for the year. Do that for each year of the range, taking into account both the salary cap and the rate. In 2018 the employer and employee both kicked in 6.2% of wages up to $128,400, for a total contribution of $15,921.60. If you do it right, you should wind up with a total contribution over the 41 years of $364,803.88. What about interest, you might ask? OK, then at the end of each year tack on 5% interest on the amount on deposit at the start of the year. With simple interest, your balance would be $854,151.88. Then suppose you take out 5% starting in 2019. Then you’re taking out $42,707.59 per year. The max SS benefit in 2019 is $45,240. I don’t think the difference is that significant. What SS does do is ensure that if you become disabled before retirement age, that you have something to live on. Squirreling that cash in the bank every year wouldn’t do that. Back to answer the original question, which agencies to eliminate. The answer is none. I find DHS abhorrent and the jobs they do should be farmed out to other agencies like they were before. I think the phrase “Homeland Security” is Naziesque and the office should be headed by the Reichmaster or something. But what they do is by and large needed to be done. As to the notion that we could give all government a 25% “haircut”, I find that a bit naive. If there was 25% there to be cut, it would have been cut. Republicans always run on cutting waste, but when they get in charge they can’t find it. I believe that means there is very little fat to be cut, any cuts involve cutting meat and bone. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2019, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-government-functions-can-we-do-without-tim-r-mortiss/827090/102 "2019-01-04T16:48:34Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Ok, then, for starters, I’d shut down HUD and not replace it. HUD primarily provides rental assistance through various programs. That would save the federal government something like $50B a year. Not enough, but it’s a start. You’re wrong on several levels. The entire budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development is well below fifty billion dollars a year, so it’s obvious you couldn’t save that much by eliminating it. On a bigger point, rental assistance is not the primary role of HUD. Its primary role is backing up mortgages - which are loans. It also works on ensuring that people are not discriminated against when seeking housing. What I believe you’re talking about is the Housing Choice Voucher Program, commonly called Section 8. If you wish to abolish this program, what’s your proposed alternative? Do you figure the people who are using it to pay rent will figure out some other way to find their rent money? If so, I’d like to see the evidence to support this. Or do you figure they will go homeless? If so, I feel that’s short term thinking. The eventual cost of a large homeless population would exceed the cost of rent subsidies. In addition, I’d like to ask if you favor school vouchers and, if so, why you feel that subsidizing private school educations if a good use of federal money and subsidizing rents is not. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2019, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-government-functions-can-we-do-without-tim-r-mortiss/827090/103 "2019-01-04T16:49:13Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I don’t think SS is that bad a deal when you do the math. I did some simple spreadsheet calculations for a person who mad the maximum taxable income for each year 1978-2018, 41 years of working. For example, in 1978 you and your employer each put in 5.05% up to $17,700 of earnings, total $1787.70 for the year. 5% matching is pretty rare. If we assume no matching, which would be the case, then SS is much better. ---
**Author:** ![CelticKnot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/celticknot/32/3392_2.png) [@CelticKnot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CelticKnot)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2019, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-government-functions-can-we-do-without-tim-r-mortiss/827090/104 "2019-01-04T17:18:26Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I don’t think SS is that bad a deal when you do the math. I did some simple spreadsheet calculations for a person who mad the maximum taxable income for each year 1978-2018, 41 years of working. For example, in 1978 you and your employer each put in 5.05% up to $17,700 of earnings, total $1787.70 for the year. Do that for each year of the range, taking into account both the salary cap and the rate. In 2018 the employer and employee both kicked in 6.2% of wages up to $128,400, for a total contribution of $15,921.60. If you do it right, you should wind up with a total contribution over the 41 years of $364,803.88. What about interest, you might ask? OK, then at the end of each year tack on 5% interest on the amount on deposit at the start of the year. With simple interest, your balance would be $854,151.88. Then suppose you take out 5% starting in 2019. Then you’re taking out $42,707.59 per year. The max SS benefit in 2019 is $45,240. I don’t think the difference is that significant. What SS does do is ensure that if you become disabled before retirement age, that you have something to live on. Squirreling that cash in the bank every year wouldn’t do that. > … There seems to be an assumption that you will somehow get all that SS money back. I won’t hold my breath. The SS trust fund was plundered years ago, and sooner or later (I’m guessing sooner) the money meet demand won’t be there. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2019, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-government-functions-can-we-do-without-tim-r-mortiss/827090/105 "2019-01-04T17:27:11Z")
> [@CelticKnot](#): > > There seems to be an assumption that you will somehow get all that SS money back. I won’t hold my breath. > The SS trust fund was plundered years ago, and sooner or later (I’m guessing sooner) the money meet demand won’t be there. There wont be enuf rope to lynch all the congresscritters if that happens, and they know it. They will just raise the FICA tax. True, the annual CoL increase may be frozen. ---
**Author:** ![CelticKnot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/celticknot/32/3392_2.png) [@CelticKnot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CelticKnot)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2019, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-government-functions-can-we-do-without-tim-r-mortiss/827090/106 "2019-01-04T17:28:52Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You’re wrong on several levels. The entire budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development is well below fifty billion dollars a year, so it’s obvious you couldn’t save that much by eliminating it. > > On a bigger point, rental assistance is not the primary role of HUD. Its primary role is backing up mortgages - which are loans. > > It also works on ensuring that people are not discriminated against when seeking housing. > > What I believe you’re talking about is the Housing Choice Voucher Program, commonly called Section 8. If you wish to abolish this program, what’s your proposed alternative? > > Do you figure the people who are using it to pay rent will figure out some other way to find their rent money? If so, I’d like to see the evidence to support this. > > Or do you figure they will go homeless? If so, I feel that’s short term thinking. The eventual cost of a large homeless population would exceed the cost of rent subsidies. > > In addition, I’d like to ask if you favor school vouchers and, if so, why you feel that subsidizing private school educations if a good use of federal money and subsidizing rents is not. If we wanted to make it fair and quality, money would be attached to the recipient and paid to whoever the recipient decides to patronize. When choice is removed, quality tanks. Look at government housing, government schools, and government medical care. VA benefits, housing, and schooling ought to be like SNAP. A debit card that can be used most places for what benefits the recipient wants to utilize. The VA hospital waiting list catastrophe would not have happened because veterans could go to someone else for care. Once competition was allowed, things would improve. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2019, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-government-functions-can-we-do-without-tim-r-mortiss/827090/107 "2019-01-04T17:29:10Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > You’re wrong on several levels. The entire budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development is well below fifty billion dollars a year, so it’s obvious you couldn’t save that much by eliminating it. > > On a bigger point, rental assistance is not the primary role of HUD. Its primary role is backing up mortgages - which are loans. Here’s my source for that: “[85% of HUD Budget Goes for Rental Assistance](https://www.cbpp.org/85-of-hud-budget-goes-for-rental-assistance)”. It shows line items for $41.1B, $3.3B, $2.1B, and $1.7B. If I’m doing my math right, those add up to $48.2B, or “something like $50B”. Now, I’m certainly open to the possibility that my source, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which seems to me to be a left-leaning outfit, is wrong, but would you mind telling us how wrong they are? What was HUD’s actual spending last year? > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > … If you wish to abolish this program, what’s your proposed alternative? > > Do you figure the people who are using it to pay rent will figure out some other way to find their rent money? If so, I’d like to see the evidence to support this. … Yes, I think the vast majority of them would find some other housing arrangement or alternative means of paying their rent. What we’re discussing is a hypothetical that isn’t going to happen. What sort of evidence would you find convincing? > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > … In addition, I’d like to ask if you favor school vouchers and, if so, why you feel that subsidizing private school educations if a good use of federal money and subsidizing rents is not. Not at the federal level. If individual states want to do it, that’s fine. The Department of Education should be abolished too, but that wasn’t one of the choices in the OP’s poll. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2019, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-government-functions-can-we-do-without-tim-r-mortiss/827090/108 "2019-01-04T17:40:33Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I don’t think SS is that bad a deal when you do the math. … [HuffPost - Social Security: Maybe a Ponzi Scheme, Definitely a Bad Investment](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jodi-beggs/social-security-maybe-a-p_b_946004.html) (this article is from 2011, but from a source I figured you’d be inclined to trust) > [@](#): > > … Economist Martin Feldstein makes this point even more clear by comparing the return on Social Security investment to that of private investments: > > With a 3% payroll deduction, someone with $50,000 of real annual earnings during his working years could accumulate enough to fund an annual payout of about $22,000 after age 67, essentially doubling the current Social Security benefit. That assumes a real rate of return of 5.5%, less than the historic average return on a balanced portfolio of stock and bond mutual funds. Someone who was extremely risk averse could instead choose to put all of his personal retirement account into Treasury Inflation Protected Securities, accumulating enough with a 5% savings rate for an annual payout of about $13,000. Different combinations of savings rates and investment strategies would produce different expected benefits in retirement. > > So people can get the same result from a 3% per year fairly conservative investment as they can from a 15.3% payroll tax? Thanks, government! (Granted, Social Security has the advantage of continuing indefinitely until a person dies, but it’s still not a great deal.) … A more up-to-date article, “[Social Security Makes Millennials Less Financially Responsible](https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/11/social-security-millennials-bad-deal-no-choice/)” in the National Review a little over a year ago, said this: > [@](#): > > … > > Social Security was intended to help Americans finance their retirements, but the data suggest that young workers would be better off doing almost anything else with that money. A report by the Urban Institute, a liberal think tank, found that workers earn a paltry rate of return on their Social Security investment. A young woman born in 1995 who starts working at 22, making $47,800 per year, will pay $466,000 into the program by the time she retires (the Urban Institute, like the Brookings Institute, assumes that the employee will pay both her share and her employer’s share). She’ll only receive $569,000 in current dollars — which means a 22.1 percent increase over 43 years. And that’s assuming that Social Security benefits don’t fall, even though funding shortages make that a real possibility. > > Social Security was intended to help Americans finance their retirements, but the data suggest that young workers would be better off doing almost anything else with that money. > > If she put her money into a typical retirement account, by contrast, she would receive over twice as much: $1.3 million by the time she retired. The government prevents us from responsibly investing in our retirement, instead forcing us to invest at low returns. > > … > > Without Social Security to offer Americans a false sense of security, most people would save more for retirement. A study published in the prestigious American Economic Review found that for every additional dollar that households expect to earn from Social Security benefits, they save $0.60 less. The more we believe that we can rely on a government program, the less incentive we have to rely on ourselves. > > In fact, without Social Security, Millennials might even have a more comfortable retirement, because we would be investing our money in more lucrative accounts. If the young woman didn’t pay Social Security, and instead put 60 percent of that money in an investment account, she would have over $800,000 by the time she retired. > > … ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2019, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-government-functions-can-we-do-without-tim-r-mortiss/827090/109 "2019-01-04T17:44:08Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > [HuffPost - Social Security: Maybe a Ponzi Scheme, Definitely a Bad Investment](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jodi-beggs/social-security-maybe-a-p_b_946004.html) (this article is from 2011, but from a source I figured you’d be inclined to trust) > > A more up-to-date article, “[Social Security Makes Millennials Less Financially Responsible](https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/11/social-security-millennials-bad-deal-no-choice/)” in the National Review a little over a year ago, said this: Jesus H. Christ, Social Security isn’t an investment. You might as well compare homeowners insurance to a savings account. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2019, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-government-functions-can-we-do-without-tim-r-mortiss/827090/110 "2019-01-04T17:50:28Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Jesus H. Christ, Social Security isn’t an investment. You might as well compare homeowners insurance to a savings account. And yet, here we have our very own **BobLibDem** “doing the math”, as well as a couple of national publications, prominent economists, etc. It’s not like this is just some **HurricaneDitka** lone-man-in-the-wilderness routine. LOTS of people have wondered something along the lines of “I wonder how SS compares to other retirement planning options” (and at least some of them have come to the conclusion that it’s not very favorable). ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2019, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-government-functions-can-we-do-without-tim-r-mortiss/827090/111 "2019-01-04T18:01:10Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > And yet, here we have our very own **BobLibDem** “doing the math”, as well as a couple of national publications, prominent economists, etc. It’s not like this is just some **HurricaneDitka** lone-man-in-the-wilderness routine. LOTS of people have wondered something along the lines of “I wonder how SS compares to other retirement planning options” (and at least some of them have come to the conclusion that it’s not very favorable). Lots of people wondered why Americans would elect a Kenyan secret Muslim. Regardless of common misconceptions, facts still matter. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2019, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-government-functions-can-we-do-without-tim-r-mortiss/827090/112 "2019-01-05T00:01:23Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I certainly never claimed everyone is a rational player. Hell, there are two Dopers that I used to think of as pretty smart arguing right here in this very thread that Social Security is a good investment, against all rational thought. We’ve established that you don’t understand about risk. You’re hardly the only one to have this problem. I was assuming that your position was that forced retirement savings was unnecessary since everyone would do it voluntarily. I guess I’m wrong, and your real position is it’s not a problem if the elderly starve to death on the streets. If not, please explain how those who don’t save will survive. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2019, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-government-functions-can-we-do-without-tim-r-mortiss/827090/113 "2019-01-05T01:32:48Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > We’ve established that you don’t understand about risk. … I don’t think we have. > [@Voyager](#): > > … I guess I’m wrong, and your real position is it’s not a problem if the elderly starve to death on the streets. … I guess you’re wrong twice now, or is this three times? I’m having a hard time keeping up with your errors. > [@Voyager](#): > > … please explain how those who don’t save will survive. Family, friends, neighbors, charities, state or local assistance programs, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2019, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-government-functions-can-we-do-without-tim-r-mortiss/827090/114 "2019-01-05T01:35:48Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Family, friends, neighbors, charities, state or local assistance programs, etc. Hahahahahahahahah ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2019, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-government-functions-can-we-do-without-tim-r-mortiss/827090/115 "2019-01-05T06:24:51Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t think we have. A major, if not the major, cause of the Great Recession was the delusion of many investors that they could get high returns with minimal risks, and the work by the banks to feed this delusion. There is nothing wrong with risk as long as it’s managed. But wishing it away, especially for other people, is not too smart. > [@](#): > > I guess you’re wrong twice now, or is this three times? I’m having a hard time keeping up with your errors. > > Family, friends, neighbors, charities, state or local assistance programs, etc. Thanks for proving me correct. We’re not talking about taking someone out to dinner here. We’re talking about providing money to live on. Family? Odds are that the family, especially kids, of people who can’t afford to save won’t have money to support them either. All the kids moving in with their parents sure will be able to support those parents. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Hahahahahahahahah Friends? Yeah, right. Poor people have tons of millionaire friends. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Hahahahahahahahah Charities? They’ll do what they can, but where will this money come from? And will it be even close to the money lost? But I’m sure the Trump Foundation will jump in and pick up the slack. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Hahahahahahahahah State or local assistance programs? Like in Kansas? I’m sure the Republicans will be right on raising taxes to support this. And today, with less of a need than there would be in Libertopia, the states and cities have gotten it all covered. Yeah, right. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Hahahahahahahahah Flat Earthers are rational compared to libertarians. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2019, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-government-functions-can-we-do-without-tim-r-mortiss/827090/116 "2019-01-05T14:46:17Z")
> [@CelticKnot](#): > > There seems to be an assumption that you will somehow get all that SS money back. I won’t hold my breath. > The SS trust fund was plundered years ago, and sooner or later (I’m guessing sooner) the money meet demand won’t be there. The trust fund was NOT plundered. When SS runs a surplus, the law requires it to buy T-bills. When it runs a deficit, it can cash in those T-bills like any other investor. The money was NOT stolen, it is safely invested as required by law and the system is working exactly as it was supposed to. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2019, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-government-functions-can-we-do-without-tim-r-mortiss/827090/117 "2019-01-05T15:26:02Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > The trust fund was NOT plundered. When SS runs a surplus, the law requires it to buy T-bills. When it runs a deficit, it can cash in those T-bills like any other investor. The money was NOT stolen, it is safely invested as required by law and the system is working exactly as it was supposed to. When the United States government cashes in a T-bill, who is giving it the money? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2019, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-government-functions-can-we-do-without-tim-r-mortiss/827090/118 "2019-01-05T15:30:12Z")
The three legged stool model is predicated on the idea that SS exists and is required. If that were not the case, and folks were not so required, I think it’s pretty clear that for some individuals it would not be a wise choice to enroll. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2019, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-government-functions-can-we-do-without-tim-r-mortiss/827090/119 "2019-01-05T16:01:40Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > When the United States government cashes in a T-bill, who is giving it the money? I’m not sure the question makes sense. The T-bill is a liability for the US treasury no matter who the bearer is. There’s no reason to believe that the SS trust fund is any less entitled to redeem its bills than any other purchaser. ---
**Author:** ![Bruce\_Wayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bruce\_Wayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bruce_Wayne)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2019, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-government-functions-can-we-do-without-tim-r-mortiss/827090/120 "2019-01-05T16:20:48Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’d be stupid not to. I’m assuming your closer to retirement age and wouldn’t get much of a return if you opted out of social security now seeing as how you’ve been paying into it most of your working life. Suppose you could opt out when you started your career. That money could go into an IRA instead. If you broke or came close to six figures during your career you could max out your IRA and still have money left over. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-government-functions-can-we-do-without-tim-r-mortiss/827090.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-government-functions-can-we-do-without-tim-r-mortiss/827090.md?page=7)