Raise taxes (Archbishop Flynn)

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Again, we are apparently on the same side here. In fact, progressive government requires, if anything, MORE vigilance and MORE demands for accountability than limited, weak-government models…

Which is why progressive government is to be avoided – it’s like keeping a full-grown python in the house. Unless you are unceasingly vigilent, it will eat the children.
Philip P:

I am very much in favor of measures to make government more transparent and keep it more accountable, as indeed most progressives are. Hence calls for electoral reform (no, I don’t believe

Ohio was “stolen,” but the fact that thousands of votes are regularly unverifiable in elections should trouble anyone who cares about good government). Hence also calls for less secrecy in government. Hence also calls for non-partisan redistricting to make elections more competitive and candidates more representative (both parties are more ideologically extreme than the population at large, thanks in large part to safe districts)…

When your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails, eh?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Philip P:

As for cost-cutting measures, of course that is part of the solution, but once costs have been cut and there is STILL a deficit (as appears to have been the case in Minnesota, as was the case in NYC a couple years back, as has been the case in many states recently), raising taxes often also must be part of the solution. .

When your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails, eh?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Philip P:
I can work with that analogy. If you’re going to put me in the trenches and you take away my gun, you better have a reason. “We took it away to avoid raising taxes” ain’t gonna fly. (or maybe more to the point, “we couldn’t get armor for your humvee…”).

Actually, the delay in armoring them was due to the cumbersome federal contracting system. There are two ways to do something like that – the fastest is to find a company already doing something for the government and modify the contract. The government did that and got beat up for it.

The other way is to novate – make a new contract, which under law takes a long time. The government did that and got beat up for it.
Philip P:

Free lunches, perpetual motion machines, and other things that sound too good to be true, usually are. But go ahead and post a link to your plan and I’ll take a look at it.

So a man with admittedly no experience in the field, even before he sees the numbers calls it “Free lunches, perpetual motion machines.”

If we were talking about race or religion, that would be called “prejudice.”

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

Which is why progressive government is to be avoided – it’s like keeping a full-grown python in the house. Unless you are unceasingly vigilent, it will eat the children.

So you’re basically saying that good government is impossible, better to kill it than even try? How very optimistic.
vern humphrey:

When your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like nails, eh?

My position allows for tax cuts, when justified, as well as tax increases, when justified. Yours is ideologically wedded to opposition to taxes. Whose is the more flexible?
vern humphrey:

So a man with admittedly no experience in the field, even before he sees the numbers calls it “Free lunches, perpetual motion machines.”

If we were talking about race or religion, that would be called “prejudice.”

I don’t see how race is a proper analogy, unless you’re trying to claim there’s something essential to race? I reject that notion. As far as a religion, if you were trying to sell me a religion that promises all sorts of rewards with little or no work or commitment, I’d be just as suspicious. But like I said, post your link and I’ll take a look.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

So you’re basically saying that good government is impossible, better to kill it than even try? .

Not at all – I’m saying what Jefferson said, Government is like fire, a fearful servant and a dreadful master.

Unlimited government is not a good thing – look at those nations that have tried it.
Philip P:

My position allows for tax cuts, when justified, as well as tax increases, when justified. Yours is ideologically wedded to opposition to taxes. Whose is the more flexible?.

Aside from misstating my position, you assume there is no waste in government.

For if there is waste in government, no tax increases are justified.
Philip P:

I don’t see how race is a proper analogy, unless you’re trying to claim there’s something essential to race? I reject that notion. As far as a religion, if you were trying to sell me a religion that promises all sorts of rewards with little or no work or commitment, I’d be just as suspicious. But like I said, post your link and I’ll take a look.

Prejudice is the pre-judging of some person or group. And when you refer to plans to improve education as “perpetual motion” you show prejudice.

 

[2shelbys]

Wow, I find that very surprising. I wonder why he feels that personal taxes are something he as a Bishop needed to be concerned about to begin with.

 

[Philip_P]

Vern:

Not at all – I’m saying what

Jefferson said, Government is like fire, a fearful servant and a dreadful master.

And you’d rather put out the fire rather than take up the challenge of using it for the greater good? Democratic, progressive government requires a lot of work – more than any other form. It also has much greater potential dividends for society. If it’s too much work, maybe we should go back to the era of absolute monarchies, which were certainly much simpler.

Vern:

Unlimited government is not a good thing – look at those nations that have tried it.

Who’s proposing unlimited government? Which democratic nations do you have in mind when you say to look at those who have tried it? Thus far in our argument, I’ve said that when necessary to bridge a budget deficit, raising taxes must not be off the table. I’ve also defended several government programs, including NCLB. How do you get “unlimited government” out of this?

Vern:

For if there is waste in government, no tax increases are justified.

That’s a ridiculous standard. Reduced to its absurd conclusion, it follows that no government whatsoever is justified. Somalia has very little government, and thus very little government waste – perhaps this is your model state?

Vern:

Prejudice is the pre-judging of some person or group. And when you refer to plans to improve education as “perpetual motion” you show prejudice.

A policy proposal is not a person or group. When you suggest that you can radically alter our current system at little or no additional cost, I think skepticism is justified. But I’m willing to be convinced. Post your link to your proposal.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

And you’d rather put out the fire rather than take up the challenge of using it for the greater good? .

Whereas you would throw gasoline on it?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

(See how easy it is to come up with flip remarks like this?)

I notice we have been talking past each other – I’ve been talking about taxes, spending, education and so on. You’ve been talking about me – and ascribing to me things you imagine I believe.
Philip P:

That’s a ridiculous standard. Reduced to its absurd conclusion, it follows that no government whatsoever is justified…

Eliminating waste and corruption in government is a “ridiculous standard?”

 

[vern_humphrey]

**The Three-Paper Solution

**

For Improving Education

This paper addresses the issue of education in America. It is based on four principles:

• We, the public, should pay for the education of each child in the nation.
• If we pay for a child’s education, the child should get an education – one commensurate with the amount we pay (which is to say, a world-class education).
• There should be no disparity among children, either in what we pay, or the quality education they receive.
• America works best when we have free and open competition among suppliers – and that applies to suppliers of education as much as to any other thing.

The Three-Paper Solution is a framework for applying these four principles. In practice, it is quite simple – first of all, get three sheets of blank paper:

On the first sheet: write the standards which you feel every school should meet. If you want a school to serve a hot lunch, write it down, and set standards so we can determine if the school is meeting the requirement. Similarly, if you want integrated schools, write standards for integration. Continue until you feel you have described all the standards a publicly-funded school should meet.

When writing, remember – all schools which receive public funds will have to meet your requirements, not just “public schools” and not just “private schools receiving public funds.” Schools which cannot meet your standards – whether public or private – will not be eligible to receive public funding. Also remember – these will be the only public funds the school receives.

On the second sheet: write the standards which you feel every student should meet. Specify how well children should read at the end of each grade. Set standards for electives as well as mandatory subjects – for example, if a school has a course in carpentry or automotive repair, set standards for courses in those subjects.

Write your standards as objective, measurable standards. Tell what the students must do to prove the standards have been met.

On the third sheet: list those things for which you are willing to pay extra and set a price tag beside them.

 

[vern_humphrey]

How it works: any agency or business can open a school and receive ninety percent of the per-pupil share of the state’s educational expenditures for each pupil the school attracts. This is the only source of public funding any school will receive; public, private non-profit, or private for-profit.

**But won’t that drive the public schools out of business?

**Only if you assume the public schools cannot compete in an open market – a market in which the same standards are applied to all schools. Schools which cannot attract enough children will go out of business – and they should go out of business. Any school – public, private non-profit, or private for-profit, which can attract enough children will have enough funding to continue operations.

**Won’t poor children suffer?

**No. Poor children will be better off under this plan than under the present “public school” system, because they will be able to attend any school they wish,. just as the children of more affluent parents can.

**What about children trapped in a declining school as other children leave?

**No one will be “trapped” in a declining school. All children will have the same opportunity to move. Children whose parents do not move them at first can be moved later, at any time – because their parents will have the same funding the other children’s parents had.

**Would parents be allowed to supplement the public funds?

**Of course! Look at it this way – I open a school that gets $5,000 of public funds per child (the national average is closer to $6,600, but we’ll use $5,000 in this example), and the parents kick in an extra $10,000 per child. I successfully recruit nine affluent children. But in your First Sheet of paper, you said that to receive public funds I have to have at least 10% poor minority enrollment. So now I have to recruit a poor minority child, or lose $45,000 in public funding.

How do I do that if the poor parents can’t afford to pay the extra $10,000?

I give the child a $10,000 scholarship, of course – and the public funds kick in another $5,000 for that child. So for a $10,000 scholarship, I get $50,000 in public funds.

Who loses?

Not me – I qualify for $50,000 in public funds in return for a $10,000 scholarship.

Not the public – they’re paying $5,000 per child, just as they would at any other school.

Not the students – they’re attending a first-class school (and if it weren’t first class, their parents wouldn’t be willing to kick in an extra $10,000 per pupil).

Not the poor minority students – they’re getting the same first-class education and making all the connections the children of the affluent are making, and it isn’t costing them a cent.

Nobody loses, everybody wins.

 

[vern_humphrey]

**But wouldn’t the private schools “cherry pick” – take the best students and leave the problem students for the public schools?

**Of course not! After all, you’re the one writing the rules. If you’re smart enough to figure they might do this, you’re also smart enough to write a standard to prevent them from doing it.

**But wouldn’t the private schools avoid ghetto areas?

**That’s what your Third Sheet of paper is for – if private industry or non-profit organizations aren’t willing to open a school in a particular area for $5,000 per child, bid $5,100 – and keep bidding until you get a good school there. You have the money because you held back 10% of the funds, remember?

**What about rural areas, or parents in areas where there are no alternative schools? How will these children get to school?

**When the money accompanies the child, schools will be where they are needed – aren’t there gas stations and fast food joints wherever they are needed? In addition, there are many alternatives to the traditional method of schooling. A good example is the Arkansas Virtual School. This is now linked to the public school system, and currently offers a complete curriculum up thorough the eighth grade via the internet. This technology – already available throughout the state – will allow any child to attend a quality school.

**But can it be done at the figures you use?

**Absolutely! I have worked for a for-profit company as a training analyst, developer and program manager. I have costed out, bid on, and won contracts. In the commercial training industry, the “burden rate” – the cost of overhead, administration, benefits, profit, and so on – is about 100%. That means that for each dollar the company pays a professional (like myself) it must charge the customer two dollars to cover rent, salaries for administrative personnel, social security, benefits and the like, and still make a profit.

If we maintain one teacher for each 25-student classroom and assume $5,000 for each child (Arkansas currently spends about $6,200 per child), that teacher is generating $125,000 per year, and we can afford to pay the teacher about $62,500 a year in salary.

But in a competitive market, we can do innovative things. For example, instead of starting school once a year, we could start school every quarter. This would generate a one-third increase in efficiency, so now the teacher is generating a little over $165,000 a year.

We can do other things – for example, I mentioned the Arkansas Virtual School earlier. I have extensive experience with this type of technology. My company developed Computer-Based Instruction (CBI) programs in basic educational subjects for the Department of Defense. These programs were designed for military personnel who had graduated from the Public School System without the necessary reading, writing and math skills they needed.

 

[vern_humphrey]

We can use such programs combined with live classroom instruction to further increase the efficiency of the professional teacher, and raise the income generated to well over $200,000 per year – which means we could afford to pay teachers an average annual salary of about $100,000. Of course, starting teachers would receive less, while experienced, star-quality teachers would receive much more.

**But what would happen to the public schools?

**They would become part of the Public Education System – a system in which every child receives the same funding, and can attend any school the parents choose.

Bad public schools – and bad private schools – would fail. Good schools – public and private – would prosper.

What about rapidly-growing areas? How would they get schools?

Very easily. It typically takes the current bureaucracy-ridden system about five years to establish a new school.

But it doesn’t take private industry five years to put a shopping mall near a new subdivision, complete with fast food outlets, grocery and drug stores, video stores and gas stations. Private industry has shown that it can meet all the needs of the public, no matter how fast they change, if the profit is there.

Open up the Public Education System to private industry, and stand back and watch our schools improve.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

Whereas you would throw gasoline on it?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

(See how easy it is to come up with flip remarks like this?)

Well that’s the problem with analogies, isn’t it?

Vern:

I notice we have been talking past each other – I’ve been talking about taxes, spending, education and so on. You’ve been talking about me – and ascribing to me things you imagine I believe.

I don’t believe I’ve been making ad hominems, and I’m sorry if you feel that I’ve been attacking you personally (though ascribing of beliefs has been working both ways - you’ve accused me of pushing “unlimited government” several times). However, within the context of this thread, you do seem to be arguing from an a priori opposition to raising taxes. It is the notion of adopting an anti-tax mentality as an a priori position that I’m trying to argue against.

Vern:

Eliminating waste and corruption in government is a “ridiculous standard?”

No, as I’ve repeatedly stated, we both agree that waste and corruption should be fought. The difference is that I don’t believe that waste and corruption are in and of themselves an argument against government. You stated that “For if there is waste in government, no tax increases are justified.” It is this absolutist position, and not the desire to fight waste and corruption, that I find ridiculous.

Regarding your education plan, I will read your proposal and provide my response, probably tomorrow.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

However, within the context of this thread, you do seem to be arguing from an a priori opposition to raising taxes. It is the notion of adopting an anti-tax mentality as an a priori position that I’m trying to argue against…

I argue from the position that anyone who demands money ought to be able to both show how it will give value in proportion to what we pay, AND show how they have taken serious steps to reduce waste and corruption.
Philip P:

No, as I’ve repeatedly stated, we both agree that waste and corruption should be fought. The difference is that I don’t believe that waste and corruption are in and of themselves an argument against government. .

But they ARE an argument against expanding a wasteful and corrupt government.
Philip P:

You stated that “For if there is waste in government, no tax increases are justified.” It is this absolutist position, and not the desire to fight waste and corruption, that I find ridiculous.

You find it ridiculous to hold government accuntable?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

vern humphrey:

Philip P:

You stated that “For if there is waste in government, no tax increases are justified.” It is this absolutist position, and not the desire to fight waste and corruption, that I find ridiculous.

You find it ridiculous to hold government accuntable?

Especially if given the fact that if government could cut the waste then they would have more money to spend without having to raise taxes.

 

[vern_humphrey]

ByzCath:

Especially if given the fact that if government could cut the waste then they would have more money to spend without having to raise taxes.

Bingo! They don’t NEED more taxes. They need to cut out the waste and they’ll have plenty of money for essentials.

 

[Philip_P]

ByzCath, two points, one abstract and the other more concrete.

On the abstract/philosophical level, I think there needs to be a realization that a certain amount of waste is inherent in democratic government. This stems from its very nature, which requires compromises in order to reach consensus. Many wasteful programs come out of this negotiating process. For instance, Senator A may really want to pass an energy bill, but needs Senator B’s vote to ensure it passes. Senator B wants a road (or a slackwater port, or an airfield, or whathaveyou) built in his state, something concrete he can point to having delivered his constituents next election season. Since he knows that his vote is critical to passage of Senator A’s bill, he holds out until his road is added. Such is the nature of democratic governance, and short of replacing our current government with absolute rule by an infallible philosopher-king, there’s not much we can do about it.

On the more concrete level, when it comes time to cut spending, it’s often very subjective what counts as waste, and what counts as essential. For instance, a couple years ago, when NYC was facing a budget crunch, we severely cut back the hours our library branches were open and closed fire houses. Are fire houses luxuries? Are libraries? To some extent, yes, but there comes a point at which it become increasingly difficult to justify further cuts (how many fire houses can you close before endangering public safety? How many days a week can a library be shut before it ceases serving a useful public good?) In fact, we reached that point, and in addition to these cuts, we had to raise taxes. In an ideal world a budget crisis could be fixed simply by cutting; but in the real world there is a point at which you are no longer trimming the fat but cutting into the muscle of a society.

Vern: I ended up with a bit of extra time and was able to look at your proposal earlier than I thought. My response on the following posts.

 

[Philip_P]

As I’ve admitted, I have no expertise in the educational field. Therefore, beyond what’s presented in your paper, I have no specific experience to bring to bear, and my critique is respectively incomplete. No doubt an education professional would have far more to say than myself. I approach this in the spirit of what I as a regular citizen might ask were a candidate running on an education platform with this plan.

Your first three points seem sound. Implicit in this is the concept of accountability as well – that there exists a uniform high standard which all schools are measured against. This is the core principle behind NCLB, which I also support.

The concept that free and open competition I can accept as a general but not absolute principle. Depending on specific circumstances, it must be qualified.

As far as the basic concept of using the private sector for schools, there are a number of such experiment currently going on (for instance, Edison schools in Philadelphia, expanded charter and specialty schools in NYC). Results so far have been mixed; we’ll need more time before we can draw firm conclusions.

The core of your proposal, and possible objections to it, turns on the funding, for you have claimed that this can be accomplished with current funds. If I’m understanding you correctly, what you’re proposing is that the state education budget be one pool, determined by the per-pupil cost times the number of pupils, plus 10%. I assume the per-pupil cost is determined by taking papers one and two into account, as well as factors such as building construction and maintenance, tutoring for learning disabled children, language classes for non-native speakers, and so forth, to arrive at an average per pupil cost.

What is not addressed here, though, is the funding. Now that we’ve figured out the budget, how do we make sure the funds are there to meet it? Say we’ve concluded (for the sake of argument) that the per pupil cost to taxpayers is $5000 ($4500 per pupil plus $500 for the surplus). How do we collect this $5000 per student, and ensure that it’s taxed progressively (i.e. a childless, affluent, double-income couple can afford $5000 per pupil more than a lower income family of five, and should accordingly pay more)?

Also, the budget will change from year to year. If the number of school-age children suddenly increases, for instance, or there is an increase in percentage of high needs students (say there’s a baby boom, or an influx of immigrants), the budget will increase significantly – how does this translate to funding/taxes? On the opposite end, if there is a decline in number of students, how do we make sure the ensuring surplus isn’t squandered?

Regarding students being trapped, you claim that all students will have an opportunity to move. Is the cost of transportation included in your per-student budget? That is, if the parent wants to transfer the child to a better school on the other side of town, is busing budgeted in, for instance? A little later you claim that “when money accompanies the child, schools will be where they are needed – aren’t there gas stations and fast food joints wherever they are needed?” Actually, there are often far fewer services in poor/ghetto areas. For instance, there are far fewer supermarkets and other basic service providers in central Harlem than on the Upper West Side.

You do try to address this with your 10% budget surplus, which you can use to up the per-pupil bid. However, what if this is still not enough to entice a private-sector group to open a school? From a profit perspective, the best school is one with a high number of low-cost students. After this population has been exhausted, though, who will want to run a school with a high proportion of high-cost students? Perhaps this can be worked around by mandating a high percentage of high-cost students per school (30%? 50%?).

In any case, what I would be most interested in is the question of funding.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

The concept that free and open competition I can accept as a general but not absolute principle. Depending on specific circumstances, it must be qualified.

How do you qualify free and open competition?
Philip P:

there are a number of such experiment currently going on. Results so far have been mixed; we’ll need more time before we can draw firm conclusions. .

That’s because we don’t have free and open competition – no bad schools close.
Philip P:

If I’m understanding you correctly, what you’re proposing is that the state education budget be one pool, determined by the per-pupil cost times the number of pupils, plus 10%.

That is almost correct. I’m proposing we set the standard tuition at 90% of the current per-pupil average.
Philip P:

What is not addressed here, though, is the funding. Now that we’ve figured out the budget, how do we make sure the funds are there to meet it? Say we’ve concluded (for the sake of argument) that the per pupil cost to taxpayers is $5000 ($4500 per pupil plus $500 for the surplus)…

Since we ALREADY average more than $6,600 per student (even in Arkansas, the poorest state in the union, we average $6,200), we already have the funds, no?
Philip P:

How do we collect this $5000 per student, and ensure that it’s taxed progressively (i.e. a childless, affluent, double-income couple can afford $5000 per pupil more than a lower income family of five, and should accordingly pay more)?

How do we collect the $6,600 we currently pay per student?
Philip P:

Also, the budget will change from year to year. If the number of school-age children suddenly increases, for instance, or there is an increase in percentage of high needs students (say there’s a baby boom, or an influx of immigrants), the budget will increase significantly – how does this translate to funding/taxes? On the opposite end, if there is a decline in number of students, how do we make sure the ensuring surplus isn’t squandered?

We pay the school based on the number of students. Unspent money is turned back to the treasury – because there is no way to spend it EXCEPT through per-pupil payments.

If we have more students this year than last year, we have plenty of lattitude between the current $6,600 per pupil we spend and the $5,000 per pupil in the model.
Philip P:

Regarding students being trapped, you claim that all students will have an opportunity to move. Is the cost of transportation included in your per-student budget? That is, if the parent wants to transfer the child to a better school on the other side of town, is busing budgeted in, for instance?

Transportation is included – but note that there are more ways of bringing education to a child than bussing the child across town.
Philip P:

A little later you claim that “when money accompanies the child, schools will be where they are needed – aren’t there gas stations and fast food joints wherever they are needed?” Actually, there are often far fewer services in poor/ghetto areas. For instance, there are far fewer supermarkets and other basic service providers in central Harlem than on the Upper West Side.

And there are currently worse schools in these areas, too. But when we equalize funding (by paying on a per-pupil basis), we correct that problem. When we add in additional funds from your third sheet of paper, we solve the problem.
Philip P:

You do try to address this with your 10% budget surplus, which you can use to up the per-pupil bid. However, what if this is still not enough to entice a private-sector group to open a school? From a profit perspective, the best school is one with a high number of low-cost students. After this population has been exhausted, though, who will want to run a school with a high proportion of high-cost students? Perhaps this can be worked around by mandating a high percentage of high-cost students per school (30%? 50%?).

The beauty of this proposal is if YOU see a problem, you are free to correct it. So you write on your first sheet of paper rules to correct the problems you see.

Did you propose that schools be integrated on a socio-economic basis, as well as a racial basis?
Philip P:

In any case, what I would be most interested in is the question of funding.

How have we not addressed funding? We have shown how schools can be operated at $5,000 per pupil, versus the current average of over $6,600.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

On the abstract/philosophical level, I think there needs to be a realization that a certain amount of waste is inherent in democratic government. This stems from its very nature, which requires compromises in order to reach consensus. Many wasteful programs come out of this negotiating process.

I suspect a lot of people don’t know how the Federal Budget works. It’s build around a system that was designed in the days of steel-nibbed pens, when no on could keep track of everything the government did.

Suppose you have a government building with a pothole in the parking lot. How do you budget to get it fixed?

Your pothole is rolled up in “paving” which becomes part of “maintenance” which becomes part of “operations and maintenance.”

Only at the lowest levels can anyone actually “see” what the budget covers. The higher it goes, from one level to the next, the lower the resolution. When it gets to Congress, they are FAR above the potholes level of resolution! Congress wheels and deals with no real knowledge of what most of the money will be spent for. So they do two things – they “color” the money (that is, each category of money can only be spent for things in that category), and they give officials the authority to move money around within categories.

Now the high-ranking officers don’t know what the money will buy either, nor can they find your pothole in the records they have. So they hold back some money for “emergencies” and pass the rest down. At every level some money is held for “emergencies.”

And near the end of the fiscal year, every year, there is a panic – there is UNSPENT money floating around! SPEND IT QUICK OR THEY’LL CUT OUR BUDGET NEXT YEAR.

The irony of this is, we pay for “emergencies” that don’t occur! I can show you a military base with gazebos all over the place – bought with year-end “emergency” funds. I can take you to government offices and show you storage closets full of computers – obsolete computers, never unpacked – bought with year-end funds.

What causes all this waste? Two things – an obsolete system of budgeting (so we can’t tell what the money is really needed for) and the Service-based Budget, which works by adding a few percentage points to last year’s budget in every program, and only cutting those programs which turn money back.

 

[jlw]

vern humphrey:

I suspect a lot of people don’t know how the Federal Budget works. It’s build around a system that was designed in the days of steel-nibbed pens, when no on could keep track of everything the government did.

Suppose you have a government building with a pothole in the parking lot. How do you budget to get it fixed?

Your pothole is rolled up in “paving” which becomes part of “maintenance” which becomes part of “operations and maintenance.”

Only at the lowest levels can anyone actually “see” what the budget covers. The higher it goes, from one level to the next, the lower the resolution. When it gets to Congress, they are FAR above the potholes level of resolution! Congress wheels and deals with no real knowledge of what most of the money will be spent for. So they do two things – they “color” the money (that is, each category of money can only be spent for things in that category), and they give officials the authority to move money around within categories.

Now the high-ranking officers don’t know what the money will buy either, nor can they find your pothole in the records they have. So they hold back some money for “emergencies” and pass the rest down. At every level some money is held for “emergencies.”

And near the end of the fiscal year, every year, there is a panic – there is UNSPENT money floating around! SPEND IT QUICK OR THEY’LL CUT OUR BUDGET NEXT YEAR.

The irony of this is, we pay for “emergencies” that don’t occur! I can show you a military base with gazebos all over the place – bought with year-end “emergency” funds. I can take you to government offices and show you storage closets full of computers – obsolete computers, never unpacked – bought with year-end funds.

What causes all this waste? Two things – an obsolete system of budgeting (so we can’t tell what the money is really needed for) and the Service-based Budget, which works by adding a few percentage points to last year’s budget in every program, and only cutting those programs which turn money back.

That is perhaps the best explanation of our government I’ve read in years. Thank you.

 

[vern_humphrey]

jlw:

That is perhaps the best explanation of our government I’ve read in years. Thank you.

About ten years ago, I did a project for the Army Corps of Engineers Real Property Division. Their problem was, they budget to fix a roof, and don’t get the money – although at very high levels, officials tell them “Well, we gave you 90% of what you asked for!”

They needed a system to build a budget and to track the money once the warrant is signed – and we built one. In the age of computers and artificial intelligence, there is no excuse for such an obsolete and wasteful system.