Maggie's Farm

Ok lets not cut any spending then because of the indigent elderly!! Or indigent children, or single mothers, or. . . .

It's a problem of this debate. People who don't want to cut spending (not saying that's you) can just whack you with some moral blackmail. Because everybody getting welfare is entitled to your money - now - or you're immoral - mean - greedy!

Future generations can't speak up for themselves. The burden on them - generally diminished prospects, in the entirety of their lives - what kind of moral, foreward-thinking society binds them down that way? How are you going to make that up to them? Give 'em free college educations?

No. The moral burden is on those who either support either increased spending or what's already in place.

Prove we need the spending. Every cent of it.*

Prove there's not a better way - in every instance - to get the desired result** without increased spending, or better yet, any government action.

Prove that the agencies spending our money will operate with maximum efficiency, low administrative cost, minimum necessary staff - and will stay that way.

Prove that every program is structured so that if, say in ten year's time, it either isn't working or has only a negligible positive impact, it will be shut down and its resources directed elsewhere.

Prove that effective administrative mechanisms will be in place to prevent tendency of all bureaucracies to serve their own ends rather than the ends for which they were created.

Finally, promise that you yourself are willing to spend a substantial part of your personal time every year ensuring that we get "good government" - making sure that the administrative welfare state you've supported hasn't gone off the rails.

If that all sounds like a pain in the rear, tough. People want bigger government and more spending, they should take responsibility for having their political way - that is the moral thing to do when you use state power to extract wealth from other citizens.

*Same goes for fans of Ag subsidies & the myriad forms of corporate welfare. . . .

**Prove that the result is actually desirable, and that you've truly wracked your brains thinking about unforeseen negative consequences.

Perfectly willing to continue Medicaid spending. Don't you think what I asked for can be provided, first? I think it could even be done - or something within barking distance. Why on earth would anyone tolerate anything less?

In any case, I guess you think what I asked for is impossible to provide, and you would continue spending as it is - without regard to the consequences.

"we"?

Hey, barking distance - I was trying to accommodate a little bureaucratic sag in standards because you're right, "that's situation normal, even in business".

But that problem gets even worse in government. The government isn't a business. In government politics and not profit (or even breaking even) becomes the bottom line. In politics the ultimate value of a program like Medicare isn't measured by whether it succeeds in its goals, or whether it does so in a rational or efficient manner. It becomes an institutionalized vector for political power. Whether it's run well or not is beside the point.

The phenomena is predictable as sunrise. That's why I want what I asked for above.

I doubt you believe that Medicare is run as well as even a badly run business. Suggest what to cut? What's the point in suggesting when your status quo posture is to accept that "a lot of money is wasted". Well, how much? Aren't you interested in finding out before we re-authorize spending or add more?

The arrow points - or ought to point - the other way: you justify what shouldn't be cut and if you can't, it goes.

Aw, you shouldn't be held hostage by that kind of dilemma. Just cut the top half. Or what's closest to what the administrators squeal loudest about. That's probably where the waste is.