Government Efficiency (3 Viewers)

[RobF]

I think this topic deserves its own thread, both to discuss generally the topic of government efficiency, and specifically the so-called 'Department of Government Efficiency' and the incoming Trump administration's aims to "dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure Federal Agencies".

The announcements have been covered in the The Trump Cabinet and key post thread, but to recap, Trump has announced that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will work together on a not-actually-an-official-government-Department of Government Efficiency, which is intended to work with the White House and Office of Management & Budget to "drive large scale structural reform, and create an entrepreneurial approach to Government never seen before," with the 'Department' to conclude its work "no later than July 4, 2026."

Musk has previously said that the federal budget could be reduced by "at least $2 trillion", and Ramaswarmy, during his presidential campaign, said he would fire more than 75% of the federal work force and disband agencies including the Department of Education and the FBI.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Not owned by the United States.

“Each local public television and radio station is independently owned and operated and can choose to be a member of PBS or NPR, but doesn't have to be.”

“WHAT IS THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING?

A private, nonprofit corporation created by Congress in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, committed toproviding high-quality content and telecommunications services that are commercial free and free of charge.

WHAT DOES THE CPB DO?

The CPB manages the money that is appropriated for public broadcasting (currently around $450 million annually)”

DOESN’T THE MONEY JUST GO STRAIGHT TO PBS AND NPR?

No. PBS and NPR are independent entities, and they are NOT the only organizations that receive money from the CPB. Other distributors include American Public Television, The Independent Television Service, Public Radio Exchange, Public Radio International and American Public Media.”

How do federal $$$ get to your local station?

It's not that simple.

www.pbs.org

Ok, what happens to PBS & NPR if the government dissolves its Board of Directors and repeals all funding? Their existence as non-profit corporation will cease and if these entities were to continue on, they would would not be recognizable because they will be a regular media corporations where its primary motivation would be their bottom line.

 

[superchuck500]

Narrator: It isn't actually real.

 

[SFIDC3]

Why is this even a thing? So that we can give more tax breaks to the super wealthy and corporations?
Warren Buffet recently said that if the super wealthy and corporations pay their share of taxes, then we can cut into the national deficit since we will have a budget surplus. Jaime Dimon also says the same thing.
The US tax codes need to bec changed but neither party has the balls to touch that issue because they are paid for.

I don't disagree with this....at all, it's not even really about tax rates, its really more about eliminating all the loopholes in the tax code that allow for this......

The R's wouldn't even consider an equitable tax code, they want the opposite.....the D's talk a big game but haven't done much.....as the wealth gap continues to grow in this country.....

 

[Sendai]

Ok, what happens to PBS & NPR if the government dissolves its Board of Directors and repeals all funding? Their existence as non-profit corporation will cease and if these entities were to continue on, they would would not be recognizable because they will be a regular media corporations where its primary motivation would be their bottom line.

Not necessarily.

https://cpb.org/sites/default/files/CPB_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Based on the above at 70% of $445 million going to 1,520 stations you’re looking at @ $205,000 per station. My local station took in over $7 million last year.

PBS and NPR make much of their money on fees from the stations. Plus contributions. Watch the opening of the PBS Newshour, the listing of foundations and corporations is quite impressive.

 

[Neworleansfan]

I don't disagree with this....at all, it's not even really about tax rates, its really more about eliminating all the loopholes in the tax code that allow for this......

The R's wouldn't even consider an equitable tax code, they want the opposite.....the D's talk a big game but haven't done much.....as the wealth gap continues to grow in this country.....

Yes. Just check the wealth equity chart starting from the 80s until now and it’s not even just the tax code alone.
There were Reaganomics, Clinton’s NAFTA, the banks and automakers bailouts. The outcome was a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the super wealthy. Meanwhile, the federal minimum wage stays the same since 2009 and at 7.25, it was a joke then.

 

[J-DONK]

I don't disagree with this....at all, it's not even really about tax rates, its really more about eliminating all the loopholes in the tax code that allow for this......

The R's wouldn't even consider an equitable tax code, they want the opposite.....the D's talk a big game but haven't done much.....as the wealth gap continues to grow in this country.....

Buffet's remarks are more around getting rid of capital gains rates.

The most equitable solution is making capital gains progressive with any withdrawals over 100k in a single year being taxed as all other income.

We also need to start taxing loans on capital. Elon highlighted that loophole with his purchase of Twitter.

 

[Neworleansfan]

Buffet's remarks are more around getting rid of capital gains rates.

The most equitable solution is making capital gains progressive with any withdrawals over 100k in a single year being taxed as all other income.

We also need to start taxing loans on capital. Elon highlighted that loophole with his purchase of Twitter.

He is talking about corporate tax.

'Oracle of Omaha' says if top companies paid tax like his, Americans wouldn't pay anything

cbs2iowa.com

 

[Sendai]

Buffet's remarks are more around getting rid of capital gains rates.

The most equitable solution is making capital gains progressive with any withdrawals over 100k in a single year being taxed as all other income.

We also need to start taxing loans on capital. Elon highlighted that loophole with his purchase of Twitter.

A loan on unrealized stock options or grants should be counted as income, because it is.

A loan on assets that have been taxed, such as net stock value after taxes have been paid should not be taxed as income, cause it not.

Or a loan on an art work that exceeds the purchase price, the excess should be taxable.

 

[TampaJoe]

The National Public Radio organization is not a private organization.

Public Broadcasting Act of 1967

Download the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, as amended, in PDF format. Subpart D — Corporation for Public Broadcasting Sec. 396. [47 U.S.C.

cpb.org

If it does not require federal funds. As has been posted them maybe it should forgo those funds. I mean I am sure there are other higher priority needs that providing funds to sn organization that doesn’t require said funds.

 

[bird]

If it does not require federal funds. As has been posted them maybe it should forgo those funds. I mean I am sure there are other higher priority needs that providing funds to sn organization that doesn’t require said funds.

Sure, why not, $500 million will make an enormous difference.

 

[SFIDC3]

Buffet's remarks are more around getting rid of capital gains rates.

The most equitable solution is making capital gains progressive with any withdrawals over 100k in a single year being taxed as all other income.

We also need to start taxing loans on capital. Elon highlighted that loophole with his purchase of Twitter.

Agree with all of this.....

 

[MT15]

Not necessarily.

https://cpb.org/sites/default/files/CPB_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Based on the above at 70% of $445 million going to 1,520 stations you’re looking at @ $205,000 per station. My local station took in over $7 million last year.

PBS and NPR make much of their money on fees from the stations. Plus contributions. Watch the opening of the PBS Newshour, the listing of foundations and corporations is quite impressive.

Do you imagine corporate America sticking with PBS once the Trump Administration puts them in the crosshairs? We have seen plenty of corporate obsequious behavior toward Trump already.

I appreciate your efforts to temper our sometimes “hair on fire” moments, but at some point it just comes across as an effort to whitewash Trump, who is singularly awful in many, many ways.

 

[UriUT]

I don’t really see a problem with someone taking a look at government waste, fraud and abuse with the goal of looking for ways to operate government more efficiently and effectively.

But there is a way to go about that process so that the solution isn’t worse than the problem to begin with. There are people who do this kind of thing for a living. Professionals. Not politicians. They have no axe to grind. They analyze and make recommendations. It’s a process. An orderly process.

That is what I would like to see. I’m not interested in someone welding an ideological axe to programs they don’t like. That doesn’t mean there won’t be cuts. There probably will be. But at least there is a basis and a reasoning behind that decision.

I'm self aware enough to understand that my writing style and approach can be abrasive, so don't take what I'm going to say to be anything more than me trying to be persuasive and to get you to see a different perspective. What you say here misses the points made in this thread by RobF and others (and I'll stand corrected if my interpretations are wrong). They have put in the thoughts and laid out sophisticated reasons why efficiency in government is deeply complex and, therefore, hasn't a simple solution, if any at all. Yet you keep repeating this same talking point without acknowledging what they argue and substantiating anything further than this superficial thought. My interpretation is that you are declaring the above because you think it's uniquely conservative, and therefore, liberals will spend spend spend and not care about waste etc. I can tell you that any sane person would declare your points here to be what they want. Even the communists and true socialists. No one, unless they're unscrupulous, wants government inefficiencies: corruptions, nepotism, redundancies, wastes, etc. No sane person wants to go into a dmv and say, "Hey, I like waiting 5 hours to correct my driver's license". We all want our government to serve us like we're dining at a 9 course restaurant. That is the role of a government after all: to serve the people within the boundaries of limited resources. That is the core of this thread! I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong RobF. It's also not a business. Let me repeat, THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT A BUSINESS! The goal of any corporation is maximizing profits. We need to stop looking at our government in simplistic terms of $. It's more complex than just, "Oh we spend x amount on this project".

What I believe RobF and others are asking in regards to this topic is whether the intentions are legitimately noble like what you stated, or for some other purposes.

So let's first examine the idea of government efficiency from a less skeptical view. It has been pointed out by those in this thread that the idea of efficiency is quite complex. To begin, what makes something inefficient? We first need to understand the function or role of that something. For example, we all are sufficiently aware of E=mc^2, I hope. That equation defines energy, and that's the most "efficient" given a mass that we can achieve to get energy. Knowing this, say we have an internal combustion engine (ice). I don't have the expertise, but I saw Buttigieg assign some percentage to it...I think 25%...i don't remember. The point though is this. We have a 100 years or more to understand that the ice won't be anymore efficient. That's the max amount it can give despite years of innovation and research. Yet it serves its purpose. It will never ever reach peak E=mc^2 efficiency because of the laws of physics. We always hope that we can improve upon the 25% but there is a reality and limitation inherent in ice such as lost energy due to friction/heat. We would also get some neophyte that would come in and challenge this max achievable efficiency despite those in the industry with years of experience concluding it's not feasible. They would break down the engine, twiddle with this and that, and the ice would break. That's what those in this thread are arguing about Musk and Vivek. And this is from a very non skeptical view that they are there for noble reasons. They don't even understand the government...ie the function, role, or purpose of each part of the government. Falling back on defining efficiency...that one must understand the role, purpose, or function of something, how would these people know what's efficient or not? How does anyone of us? You cannot solve something if you cannot first understand something, much less be convinced that the government is broken and claim it needs fixing. Further, suppose the engine has an added part that intentionally makes it inefficient, but serves a purpose. For example, something that maintains passenger safety, but makes the engine burn more fuel. It serves a purpose. That's what the civil service act is. It's intentional inefficiency, but serves another purpose: to protect the bureaucracy from political interference. It is to ensure that corruption, nepotism, waste, and other inefficiencies from hindering this machinery that is our bureaucracy. We accept small level of inefficiencies, so that the broader goals are achieved. We see this with the feds, right? Politicians should not have their buttons on the interest rates. Because in political hands, it can be used to great harm for the country. Think Turkey. Additionally, we see this in the legislative branch as well. To achieve compromise and forward progress, we accept small levels of pork so that some politicians can agree to a broader policy achievement. Now, you will inevitably say, "well according to your example of the ice, we now have a new approach in the electric engine that's much more efficient. We can apply that analogy to the government by breaking down the current bureaucracy and create a new form that is more efficient while serving the same function". That's what project 2025 is right? But let's leave the nefarious reasons behind that for later. The fundamental issue with that reasoning is we don't know what this new bureaucracy will be like. It's a shot in the dark; completely experimental. Tesla was near bankruptcy in the early years. It survived due to government subsidies, and in my opinion, manipulative financial transfers from spacex and market manipulation of bitcoins. In medicine, there's a subject called biostatistics. It's an approach that helps healthcare providers be more analytical in their decision making. Two concepts: Number needed to harm and number needed to treat.

The NNT, Explained – TheNNT

thennt.com

The idea behind this is at what point will the treatment be beneficial or harmful. The same goes with "finding inefficiencies". If you throw out a whole department to solve a problem, you may do more harm. Or make changes that eventually won't really matter. RobF gave us an example with the Tory rule. Broad cuts to the government were made in the name of "efficiencies", only to do more harm. These are all considerations. That is why, what you declare in your post is really meaningless, and won't address anything about the core topic of this well thought out thread. And let's not forget that other approach in our free country. Accountability via the free press, and the citizen's response can also affect how a department operates. Unfortunately, we've also veered on a dangerous path away from this.

I did plan on addressing the more skeptical views and how a simplistic declaration and view can be manipulated to further goals beyond "efficiencies", but I fear that the effort put forth would eventually not spur deep contemplation to this topic.

tl;dr: the declaration made is a non answer to the question: is there sufficient evidence that our government is inefficient and should we make changes.

 

[Sendai]

Do you imagine corporate America sticking with PBS once the Trump Administration puts them in the crosshairs? We have seen plenty of corporate obsequious behavior toward Trump already.

I appreciate your efforts to temper our sometimes “hair on fire” moments, but at some point it just comes across as an effort to whitewash Trump, who is singularly awful in many, many ways.

The people, foundations, and businesses that donate to PBS, NPR, and the 1,500 stations don’t care what trump think. And I doubt trump would have a clue as well.

 

[MT15]

The people, foundations, and businesses that donate to PBS, NPR, and the 1,500 stations don’t care what trump think. And I doubt trump would have a clue as well.

We shall see. I don’t have your faith for sure - I think there is already some caving to Trump, and I only see it getting worse.

Plus Trump does vindictive bullying better than anything else he does. And as president, there will be multitudes of ways he can hurt businesses, foundations and people. Do you disagree with either of those statements?

 

[TampaJoe]

I'm self aware enough to understand that my writing style and approach can be abrasive, so don't take what I'm going to say to be anything more than me trying to be persuasive and to get you to see a different perspective. What you say here misses the points made in this thread by RobF and others (and I'll stand corrected if my interpretations are wrong). They have put in the thoughts and laid out sophisticated reasons why efficiency in government is deeply complex and, therefore, hasn't a simple solution, if any at all. Yet you keep repeating this same talking point without acknowledging what they argue and substantiating anything further than this superficial thought. My interpretation is that you are declaring the above because you think it's uniquely conservative, and therefore, liberals will spend spend spend and not care about waste etc. I can tell you that any sane person would declare your points here to be what they want. Even the communists and true socialists. No one, unless they're unscrupulous, wants government inefficiencies: corruptions, nepotism, redundancies, wastes, etc. No sane person wants to go into a dmv and say, "Hey, I like waiting 5 hours to correct my driver's license". We all want our government to serve us like we're dining at a 9 course restaurant. That is the role of a government after all: to serve the people within the boundaries of limited resources. That is the core of this thread! I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong RobF. It's also not a business. Let me repeat, THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT A BUSINESS! The goal of any corporation is maximizing profits. We need to stop looking at our government in simplistic terms of $. It's more complex than just, "Oh we spend x amount on this project".

What I believe RobF and others are asking in regards to this topic is whether the intentions are legitimately noble like what you stated, or for some other purposes.

So let's first examine the idea of government efficiency from a less skeptical view. It has been pointed out by those in this thread that the idea of efficiency is quite complex. To begin, what makes something inefficient? We first need to understand the function or role of that something. For example, we all are sufficiently aware of E=mc^2, I hope. That equation defines energy, and that's the most "efficient" given a mass that we can achieve to get energy. Knowing this, say we have an internal combustion engine (ice). I don't have the expertise, but I saw Buttigieg assign some percentage to it...I think 25%...i don't remember. The point though is this. We have a 100 years or more to understand that the ice won't be anymore efficient. That's the max amount it can give despite years of innovation and research. Yet it serves its purpose. It will never ever reach peak E=mc^2 efficiency because of the laws of physics. We always hope that we can improve upon the 25% but there is a reality and limitation inherent in ice such as lost energy due to friction/heat. We would also get some neophyte that would come in and challenge this max achievable efficiency despite those in the industry with years of experience concluding it's not feasible. They would break down the engine, twiddle with this and that, and the ice would break. That's what those in this thread are arguing about Musk and Vivek. And this is from a very non skeptical view that they are there for noble reasons. They don't even understand the government...ie the function, role, or purpose of each part of the government. Falling back on defining efficiency...that one must understand the role, purpose, or function of something, how would these people know what's efficient or not? How does anyone of us? You cannot solve something if you cannot first understand something, much less be convinced that the government is broken and claim it needs fixing. Further, suppose the engine has an added part that intentionally makes it inefficient, but serves a purpose. For example, something that maintains passenger safety, but makes the engine burn more fuel. It serves a purpose. That's what the civil service act is. It's intentional inefficiency, but serves another purpose: to protect the bureaucracy from political interference. It is to ensure that corruption, nepotism, waste, and other inefficiencies from hindering this machinery that is our bureaucracy. We accept small level of inefficiencies, so that the broader goals are achieved. We see this with the feds, right? Politicians should not have their buttons on the interest rates. Because in political hands, it can be used to great harm for the country. Think Turkey. Additionally, we see this in the legislative branch as well. To achieve compromise and forward progress, we accept small levels of pork so that some politicians can agree to a broader policy achievement. Now, you will inevitably say, "well according to your example of the ice, we now have a new approach in the electric engine that's much more efficient. We can apply that analogy to the government by breaking down the current bureaucracy and create a new form that is more efficient while serving the same function". That's what project 2025 is right? But let's leave the nefarious reasons behind that for later. The fundamental issue with that reasoning is we don't know what this new bureaucracy will be like. It's a shot in the dark; completely experimental. Tesla was near bankruptcy in the early years. It survived due to government subsidies, and in my opinion, manipulative financial transfers from spacex and market manipulation of bitcoins. In medicine, there's a subject called biostatistics. It's an approach that helps healthcare providers be more analytical in their decision making. Two concepts: Number needed to harm and number needed to treat.

The NNT, Explained – TheNNT

thennt.com

The idea behind this is at what point will the treatment be beneficial or harmful. The same goes with "finding inefficiencies". If you throw out a whole department to solve a problem, you may do more harm. Or make changes that eventually won't really matter. RobF gave us an example with the Tory rule. Broad cuts to the government were made in the name of "efficiencies", only to do more harm. These are all considerations. That is why, what you declare in your post is really meaningless, and won't address anything about the core topic of this well thought out thread. And let's not forget that other approach in our free country. Accountability via the free press, and the citizen's response can also affect how a department operates. Unfortunately, we've also veered on a dangerous path away from this.

I did plan on addressing the more skeptical views and how a simplistic declaration and view can be manipulated to further goals beyond "efficiencies", but I fear that the effort put forth would eventually not spur deep contemplation to this topic.

tl;dr: the declaration made is a non answer to the question: is there sufficient evidence that our government is inefficient and should we make changes.

I hear what you are saying especially that government is not a business. Okay. Understood.

Our government is a bureaucracy and it is no different than any other large bureaucracy. Just like any large bureaucracy they ALL have inefficiencies. ALL of them. They are run by humans. So to tell me that government should get a forever pass on inefficiencies because they don’t have a profit motive is a weak excuse.

I actually have been part of numerous reorganizations. They are done routinely in this country. It’s a process. It’s not taught in school but there are people out there who know how to do these things.

I can’t tell you how many times people have told me I don’t understand. Told me that there is nothing to cut. Nothing to improve. Everything is necessary. I get it. But here’s the thing. The numbers have to work. We don’t have unlimited resources. Debits have to equal credits.

I don’t pretend to know these areas and these processes better than the people in the field. I don’t come up with the list of efficiencies or process improvements. That’s managements job. If a manager can’t find 10% in his process then maybe the manager is part of the problem. The turnaround guy challenges, pushes management to make hard choices and hard decisions. Thats how you force people to set priorities. Otherwise they will tell me just what you told me. That it can’t be done. And it can. Government is no different than any other thing run by man. To say it can’t be done because it’s government is just an excuse not to try.

That being said. I have heard what you said. It isn’t the first time I have heard that. I get it. I’m just saying that everyone says that and I do mean everyone. But it’s not impossible. And if done right, it’s healthy.

 

[RobF]

I hear what you are saying especially that government is not a business. Okay. Understood.

Our government is a bureaucracy and it is no different than any other large bureaucracy. Just like any large bureaucracy they ALL have inefficiencies. ALL of them. They are run by humans. So to tell me that government should get a forever pass on inefficiencies because they don’t have a profit motive is a weak excuse.

I actually have been part of numerous reorganizations. They are done routinely in this country. It’s a process. It’s not taught in school but there are people out there who know how to do these things.

I can’t tell you how many times people have told me I don’t understand. Told me that there is nothing to cut. Nothing to improve. Everything is necessary. I get it. But here’s the thing. The numbers have to work. We don’t have unlimited resources. Debits have to equal credits.

I don’t pretend to know these areas and these processes better than the people in the field. I don’t come up with the list of efficiencies or process improvements. That’s managements job. If a manager can’t find 10% in his process then maybe the manager is part of the problem. The turnaround guy challenges, pushes management to make hard choices and hard decisions. Thats how you force people to set priorities. Otherwise they will tell me just what you told me. That it can’t be done. And it can. Government is no different than any other thing run by man. To say it can’t be done because it’s government is just an excuse not to try.

That being said. I have heard what you said. It isn’t the first time I have heard that. I get it. I’m just saying that everyone says that and I do mean everyone. But it’s not impossible. And if done right, it’s healthy.

You're misrepresenting what you're responding to, and missing the points being made entirely accordingly. That is, "improving efficiency is complex and requires deep understanding," is not, at all, the same as, "it can’t be done."

And the thing is, your response heads towards the flip side of that blunt, and wrong, misrepresentation of "it can't be done", i.e., "it can always be done." This type of thinking: "If a manager can’t find 10% in his process then maybe the manager is part of the problem," is the exact kind of crude thinking that leads to attempts at improving things not only failing, but being counterproductive.

That should be obvious; you can't always find 10%. Think about it. Say you start with your 100%, and you find 10%. So now you're at 90% of what you started with. But you can always find 10%! So you can find another 10%! So now you're at 81% of what you started with. And you can do it again! And again! And again! At which point, "you can always find 10%" becomes "you can always find approaching 100%". And as that's obviously false, so is "you can always find 10%" false.

Which brings us back to the point; knowing whether you can find 10% requires actually understanding the current processes, their purposes, their outcomes, and the impacts of changing those processes. The manager who says, "No, we can't find 10%," may know that and be correct. Or he may not. But knowing whether he is requires understanding. Not just "challenging and pushing". That doesn't change reality, and if misapplied, while it'll still result in "hard choices and hard decisions," those will also be wrong choices and wrong decisions.

I have also been part of reorganizations, as well as studying them academically, and seen that in action. It does not go well.

 

[bird]

Perhaps the question to be asked is “what is inefficiency?”

Is it duplication of effort? If that is the answer then why is that inefficient? Where is the duplication? Why is the duplication automatically inefficient?

Bureaucracies of any sort are not arbitrarily inefficient. They may be inefficient or they may not be. If removing redundancy in one area places burden elsewhere resulting in inefficiency then the exercise becomes not merely fruitless but destructive.

Is it about costs? If so, to use Social Security as an example, it is claimed that Social Security administrative costs are very low compared to the private sector.

I have seen and worked in the private sector all of my career as well. In addition, much of my career has involved dealing with the government on a local and state basis. In the private sector I have seen multiplied “reorganizations” that were, for the vast majority of the time a cycle of decentralization/centralization. There was also “flattening” the organization and “empowering” the workforce. None, repeat, none of these things ever actually improved efficiency. They did cut costs which generally resulted in upper management getting bonuses and pleased Wall Street “analysts” who generally know nothing to start with. The reason the rewards were made was about profitability and not efficiency.

On the government side of my interactions the cutting of personnel, usually the only acceptable definition by consultants of increasing efficiency, resulted in inefficiency because interactions would inevitably take longer.

One thing that generally is sacrificed on the altar of “efficiency” is institutional memory. That rarely results In increased efficiency.