So..... the House of Representatives has 435 members, the Senate 100 members. In 2010, 13,000 lobbyists spent $3.5billion to influence decision makers' thinking. That's 24 lobbyists per member, and $6.5million per member.
And Just When You Think It Couldn't Get Any Worse
- Thread starter Steve Williams
- Start date
Compared to a $4 trillion annual budget, $3.4 billion is a rounding error. Lobbying money flows to where power and influence reside. If you want to reduce the influence of lobbying on the government, the answer is to shrink the government the power and influence of government.
Illogical. The $3.4 billion is not meant to influence the $4 trillion budget directly, it is meant to influence Congressmen, Senators, staff, regulators, etc. Shrink the size of government and private interests will just have more money to bribe fewer people and exert greater influence in a smaller sphere. That doesn't mean, of course, that govenment shouldn't shrink, it just means that you haven't yet articulated a reason to shrink it that will make it any better.
Tim
Hi
Sincere inquiry. I have heard a lot about the notion of "shrinking" the Government .. Seems to be a popular theme in the USA.. What does that really mean? Do we expect people to voluntarily become well-behaved and to fend all for themselves and for the betterment of society ..All by themselves . I would expect that for such a large nation it is only logical to have a large government.. I mean ..really .. everyone for themselves, the meek and weak be damned, no social nets, no social mechanisms to establish some equity.. I do understand the need to spend only what you have and to live within the mean of the your own coffers ..But what really is that constant clamor to "reduce" the government? To what level? Isn't that one of those romantic notions that sound nice on the campaign trail but are utterly unrealizable? or even desirable? By all means there must be more efficiency in the public sector, in government in general but is that the same thing as "shrinking" it. We in the USA must seek efficiency and sustainability. Does that mean "shrinking" the government?
..
Sincere inquiry. I have heard a lot about the notion of "shrinking" the Government .. Seems to be a popular theme in the USA.. What does that really mean? Do we expect people to voluntarily become well-behaved and to fend all for themselves and for the betterment of society ..All by themselves . I would expect that for such a large nation it is only logical to have a large government.. I mean ..really .. everyone for themselves, the meek and weak be damned, no social nets, no social mechanisms to establish some equity.. I do understand the need to spend only what you have and to live within the mean of the your own coffers ..But what really is that constant clamor to "reduce" the government? To what level? Isn't that one of those romantic notions that sound nice on the campaign trail but are utterly unrealizable? or even desirable? By all means there must be more efficiency in the public sector, in government in general but is that the same thing as "shrinking" it. We in the USA must seek efficiency and sustainability. Does that mean "shrinking" the government?
..Frantz,
Sincere reply.
What is your limiting principle, i.e. what should government not do?
How do you judge the effectiveness of federal programs? (I will grant you that if you spend a billion dollars someone will be helped, if only the administrators hired by the government to serve the program.)
What is your conception of the appropriate size of government and why?
Sincere reply.
What is your limiting principle, i.e. what should government not do?
How do you judge the effectiveness of federal programs? (I will grant you that if you spend a billion dollars someone will be helped, if only the administrators hired by the government to serve the program.)
What is your conception of the appropriate size of government and why?
Last edited:
Jazdoc
I think you or someone else raised the idea of "shrinking" the government. There must be a rationale to that and it is that rationale that I am asking you to justify or at least about. I am not sure I can answer your questions. Not ducking them.
Government is a lot more than the politician but they comprise a good portion of it as I understand it, in any country. In a democracy, people (strangely enough that seems to include corporations now at least in the USA, very strange to me) elect or try to elect a group of persons (Soon that may have to include corporations too ) to represent their interests. Humans interests (perhaps I should include that of corporations too) are dynamic, not static, not fixated in time and space. They evolve, yet they follow certain guidelines. For example I am not sure we do find “elevated” to abandon those too weak to fend for themselves on the premises it is not good for us.. We attribute worth and values to behaviors attitudes and conducts. One can try to reduce these sets to simple things or to look at these in term of simple mechanical or biological processes, i-e just using energy or trying to make sure that the species survives but it seems more complex than that. So we organize ourselves or some find it more “civilized” that we do so and somehow delegate these affairs to a group of people. This group of people is bound to follow and act upon or even to modify the trends, actions, activities and behavior of an ever changing spectrum and number of wants, needs, behavior, actions and activities. There would be a few people in society who would like , try and succeed into influencing this group of personalities for their own benefits, often at odds with that of the greater number. That is part and parcel of democracy and of the imperfection of human nature and spirit. The more people, the more complex the society/nation/country the more complex the apparatus to govern, that is to steer the affairs of that group of people thus bigger it becomes.. It can be made more efficient, in fact it has to be made more efficient to survive and strive but grow it will grow it seems to have to So how do we shrink a government in a world of a increasing complexity? Do we revert to an ad-hoc society? How do we steer such a complicated, ever more complicated construct with less? I repeat my former question is that desirable?
What should be the level … I don’t honestly know. I do however believe that in this world of growing complexity and interdependence “shrinking” the government is nostalgia a backward look at times when things were or seemed to be more simple … It is not the way forward… Efficiency, transparency accountability and a heightened concern for the welfare and well-being of the larger number are.
I think you or someone else raised the idea of "shrinking" the government. There must be a rationale to that and it is that rationale that I am asking you to justify or at least about. I am not sure I can answer your questions. Not ducking them.
Government is a lot more than the politician but they comprise a good portion of it as I understand it, in any country. In a democracy, people (strangely enough that seems to include corporations now at least in the USA, very strange to me) elect or try to elect a group of persons (Soon that may have to include corporations too ) to represent their interests. Humans interests (perhaps I should include that of corporations too) are dynamic, not static, not fixated in time and space. They evolve, yet they follow certain guidelines. For example I am not sure we do find “elevated” to abandon those too weak to fend for themselves on the premises it is not good for us.. We attribute worth and values to behaviors attitudes and conducts. One can try to reduce these sets to simple things or to look at these in term of simple mechanical or biological processes, i-e just using energy or trying to make sure that the species survives but it seems more complex than that. So we organize ourselves or some find it more “civilized” that we do so and somehow delegate these affairs to a group of people. This group of people is bound to follow and act upon or even to modify the trends, actions, activities and behavior of an ever changing spectrum and number of wants, needs, behavior, actions and activities. There would be a few people in society who would like , try and succeed into influencing this group of personalities for their own benefits, often at odds with that of the greater number. That is part and parcel of democracy and of the imperfection of human nature and spirit. The more people, the more complex the society/nation/country the more complex the apparatus to govern, that is to steer the affairs of that group of people thus bigger it becomes.. It can be made more efficient, in fact it has to be made more efficient to survive and strive but grow it will grow it seems to have to So how do we shrink a government in a world of a increasing complexity? Do we revert to an ad-hoc society? How do we steer such a complicated, ever more complicated construct with less? I repeat my former question is that desirable?
What should be the level … I don’t honestly know. I do however believe that in this world of growing complexity and interdependence “shrinking” the government is nostalgia a backward look at times when things were or seemed to be more simple … It is not the way forward… Efficiency, transparency accountability and a heightened concern for the welfare and well-being of the larger number are.
Frantz,
I think you have really done an excellent job summarizing the heart of the current debate. IMO, it's not simply a political spat, but really does involve fundamental principles on both sides of the argument. I'll do my best to answer your core question because there it crystallizes the fundamental principles involved:
"That is part and parcel of democracy and of the imperfection of human nature and spirit. The more people, the more complex the society/nation/country the more complex the apparatus to govern, that is to steer the affairs of that group of people thus bigger it becomes.. It can be made more efficient, in fact it has to be made more efficient to survive and strive but grow it will grow it seems to have to So how do we shrink a government in a world of a increasing complexity?"
I completely agree that the nature of human nature is fundamentally imperfect. That is why I am adverse to allowing others steering my affairs, no matter how well intentioned that claim to be. Indeed, as societies become more complex, the ability of a small group of 'experts' to appropriately allocate that societies resources becomes less, not more efficient. Can you name any government program that is operating more efficiently than it was 20 years ago? Conversely, can you name any government program that has been phased out for inefficiency or lack of tangible results over the past 20 years?
Our founder's ideal, as enshrined in the Declaration, is that each person had the inalienable right to decide their own destiny. This does not just mean maximizing economic worth, it might mean finding fulfillment as an artist or a community organizer. (As an aside, why do we assume that someone's political self interest is purer than pursuing economic self interest?) Everyone claims to want a more efficient government. I want a date with Mila Kunis. Neither one of them is going to happen.
Once you get beyond the Rawlsian left and the hard core libertarian right, I do think that there is a broad consensus, that we have a duty as a society to provision for the truly unfortunate/unable in our society. What we can't afford either financially or for society's spiritual good is to have government provide for everyone's wants (as opposed to their absolute needs).
I'll conclude by quoting at length from the greatest observer of America, DeToqueville. He wrote these words almost 170 years ago and they seem even more prophetic today:
"I think therefore that the kind of oppression with which democratic peoples are threatened will resemble nothing that has preceded it in the world. The thing is new, therefore I must try to define it, since I cannot name it...
I see an innumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Each of them, withdrawn and apart, is like a stranger to the destiny of all the others...
Above these an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, regular, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep the fixed irrevocably in childhood; it likes citizens to enjoy themselves provided that they think only of enjoying themselves. It willing works for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that; it provides for their security, foresees and secures their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances.... can it not take away from them entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living?
So it is that every day it renders the employment of free will less useful and more rare: it confines the action of the will in a smaller space and little by little steals the very use of free will from each citizen."
I think you have really done an excellent job summarizing the heart of the current debate. IMO, it's not simply a political spat, but really does involve fundamental principles on both sides of the argument. I'll do my best to answer your core question because there it crystallizes the fundamental principles involved:
"That is part and parcel of democracy and of the imperfection of human nature and spirit. The more people, the more complex the society/nation/country the more complex the apparatus to govern, that is to steer the affairs of that group of people thus bigger it becomes.. It can be made more efficient, in fact it has to be made more efficient to survive and strive but grow it will grow it seems to have to So how do we shrink a government in a world of a increasing complexity?"
I completely agree that the nature of human nature is fundamentally imperfect. That is why I am adverse to allowing others steering my affairs, no matter how well intentioned that claim to be. Indeed, as societies become more complex, the ability of a small group of 'experts' to appropriately allocate that societies resources becomes less, not more efficient. Can you name any government program that is operating more efficiently than it was 20 years ago? Conversely, can you name any government program that has been phased out for inefficiency or lack of tangible results over the past 20 years?
Our founder's ideal, as enshrined in the Declaration, is that each person had the inalienable right to decide their own destiny. This does not just mean maximizing economic worth, it might mean finding fulfillment as an artist or a community organizer. (As an aside, why do we assume that someone's political self interest is purer than pursuing economic self interest?) Everyone claims to want a more efficient government. I want a date with Mila Kunis. Neither one of them is going to happen.
Once you get beyond the Rawlsian left and the hard core libertarian right, I do think that there is a broad consensus, that we have a duty as a society to provision for the truly unfortunate/unable in our society. What we can't afford either financially or for society's spiritual good is to have government provide for everyone's wants (as opposed to their absolute needs).
I'll conclude by quoting at length from the greatest observer of America, DeToqueville. He wrote these words almost 170 years ago and they seem even more prophetic today:
"I think therefore that the kind of oppression with which democratic peoples are threatened will resemble nothing that has preceded it in the world. The thing is new, therefore I must try to define it, since I cannot name it...
I see an innumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Each of them, withdrawn and apart, is like a stranger to the destiny of all the others...
Above these an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, regular, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep the fixed irrevocably in childhood; it likes citizens to enjoy themselves provided that they think only of enjoying themselves. It willing works for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that; it provides for their security, foresees and secures their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances.... can it not take away from them entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living?
So it is that every day it renders the employment of free will less useful and more rare: it confines the action of the will in a smaller space and little by little steals the very use of free will from each citizen."
The thing you have to understand about the "small government" debate in America, Frantz, is that it is not sincere. It is an argument made by "conservatives," but when they had all three branches of the government, under the Bush administration, government grew. Of course now they just claim that administration, Congress and Senate, which they enthusiastically elected, twice, was not really "conservative," but it hasn't been radically different under any other modern "conservative" US government. The smallest US government post WWII? Clinton's. The biggest? As a percentage of GDP (the only measure that matters), smaller than Reagan's, George W's, George HWs...
A smaller government may or may not be a good thing, but we've never had one, or even a sincere effort to get one, under the leadership of small government's proponents. What the political debate in the US is really about is what government will or will not do, who will pay for it, and who will benefit from it. But that is a debate that is very difficult and uncomfortable to have, so instead, we BS about "small government."
Tim
A smaller government may or may not be a good thing, but we've never had one, or even a sincere effort to get one, under the leadership of small government's proponents. What the political debate in the US is really about is what government will or will not do, who will pay for it, and who will benefit from it. But that is a debate that is very difficult and uncomfortable to have, so instead, we BS about "small government."
Tim
Tim,
Thank you!! Couldn't have said it better with 100 tries. It's like "privatization". That is NOT an effort to reduce government size, it's an effort to re-channel the spending to lobbyist interests, and in many documented cases, increase said spending.
Thank you!! Couldn't have said it better with 100 tries. It's like "privatization". That is NOT an effort to reduce government size, it's an effort to re-channel the spending to lobbyist interests, and in many documented cases, increase said spending.
Tim,
Thank you for an explanation that even foreigners like me understand.
In terms of Government spending as a percentage of GDP (19.9%), the US already has a small government:
http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/03/government-spending-as-percentage-of.html
In terms of tax as a percentage of GDP, it is about in the middle (26.9%):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
There should be some efficiency for the size of the economy, and when I compare the two lists, I see that tax can go down, and Government spending can go up. May be it's where the tax is collected, and where the revenue is spent that is the political debate that will never be resolved!
What you don't want is a political dictatorship like in Singapore with "big" government (tax 14.2% of GDP and Govt 16.3% of GDP).
The Government controls everything - they tell us where to live by building roads to nowhere and infrastructure in the swamps, and then expect the private sector to build homes at the end of those roads and where they have already built infrastructure. Education is compulsory and the Govt tells you which school your kids can go to and what subjects they have to learn. Medicare is compulsory and the Govt takes money out of your paycheck every month to pay for it. Retirement planning is compulsory with the Govt taking 20% of your paycheck every month to pay for it.
They impose curbs on how many credit cards each person can have, and the amount of credit that the banks can give. Damn! They even limit the amount of profit that the banks can make. Just recently, they hurt the growth of property prices by imposing increasing the minimum downpayment before I managed to take advantage of the housing bubble and selling one of my condos at a huge profit.
Thank you for an explanation that even foreigners like me understand.
In terms of Government spending as a percentage of GDP (19.9%), the US already has a small government:
http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/03/government-spending-as-percentage-of.html
In terms of tax as a percentage of GDP, it is about in the middle (26.9%):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
There should be some efficiency for the size of the economy, and when I compare the two lists, I see that tax can go down, and Government spending can go up. May be it's where the tax is collected, and where the revenue is spent that is the political debate that will never be resolved!
What you don't want is a political dictatorship like in Singapore with "big" government (tax 14.2% of GDP and Govt 16.3% of GDP).
The Government controls everything - they tell us where to live by building roads to nowhere and infrastructure in the swamps, and then expect the private sector to build homes at the end of those roads and where they have already built infrastructure. Education is compulsory and the Govt tells you which school your kids can go to and what subjects they have to learn. Medicare is compulsory and the Govt takes money out of your paycheck every month to pay for it. Retirement planning is compulsory with the Govt taking 20% of your paycheck every month to pay for it.
They impose curbs on how many credit cards each person can have, and the amount of credit that the banks can give. Damn! They even limit the amount of profit that the banks can make. Just recently, they hurt the growth of property prices by imposing increasing the minimum downpayment before I managed to take advantage of the housing bubble and selling one of my condos at a huge profit.
Franz, I think part of this is deep in our culture -- call it the cowboy ethos that celebrates the individual making it on his own, by his bootstraps out on the rough frontier. Government doesn't have a whole lot to do w/that iconography, nor does the attempt to level the playing field to equalize opportunity, but that's another story.
Hey, Rick Perry, the Gov. of the cowboy state and likely presidential candidate (he feels he's being 'called' to run) floated seceding from the union. Who needs the federal govt.?
Yeah, but the facts don't matter. And partly because of our relative geographic isolation vs. other developed nations, comparisons to others don't have much play here. Their history has nothing to do with ours.
Listen, right now we can't even agree that more efficient light bulbs are a good thing. Restricts our freedom of choice to have to buy CFLs or LEDs. Freedom is the freedom to waste apparently, regardless of how that impacts society as a whole.
Last edited:
Anyone have any thoughts about the talk that the Fed will start raising the lending rate to control inflation. Are we starting to see an inflationary rise now? If so I am not seeing it
2011 has seen some rising prices, but the two prior years were well below the inflation average. We'll see what happens.
Not an interest rate expert, so won't comment on that Steve except to say that raising interest rates usually means the stock market takes a hit. Your thoughts?
Not an interest rate expert, so won't comment on that Steve except to say that raising interest rates usually means the stock market takes a hit. Your thoughts?
Yes, we do. We also have one of the lowest shares of "socialism" among the countries of the world that consist of some hybrid of market capitalism and social progressivism (which, by the way, describes every first world nation on the planet). But don't tell that to my many fellow Americans who believe we are teetering on the edge of a Marxist abyss.
Government inflation figures don't include food and fuel, because they're so volatile and can skew the figures too much. The trouble with that under an economy like this one (the one we're likely to have for some time) is that they haven't been volatile so much as they have been steadily trending upward. If they (food and fuel) were included in the figures, inflation would be a very real threat. But this economy we have is too weird and almost none of the old rules apply, when your house can be worth much less than you paid for it while gas is $4 a gallon, which drives up everything that goes into building a new one. This is real pain, but it's not a real economy, it's a post-financial implosion nightmare. If this is the new normal it is too strange for words.
So...anybody panicked yet? I'm seriously considering pulling every dollar out of the market until further notice. I'm really glad I didn't do it when things first got scary, but it's looking smarter every day....
Tim
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |