A worthy counterargument on government spending

In the swirling hurly-burly of what passes for today’s political discourse I do enjoy this offering from KAXE’s Republican commentator Charles Marohn. He’s leading people toward a conservative argument without actually making a specific call. I would contrast this kind of argument with the more shrill diatribes against government spending you often see posted to the bottom of online news stories. His question, “is our current level of overall government spending viable long term?

That’s a fair question. I tend to argue a holistic view of government and the private sector. Some like to pretend like they’re different things, Goofus and Gallant. But I’d argue that they’re far more intertwined in our modern society than most conservatives are willing to admit. What’s the difference whether we write a check to an insurance company or a state for health care? What’s the difference whether we pay taxes for home delivery of mail or buy gas to drive to a P.O. Box in town. It’s all money out the door for a service we need. Why not make the system more efficient, following the private sector model for operational cost savings and the public sector mandate for universal service to all citizens.

So yes, while our politics may differ slightly, I appreciate Marohn’s argument. It suggests that there might exist a compromise that maintains Minnesota’s quality of life through government services (the top priority of many liberals) while enacting meaningful entitlement reform to reign in spending (the top priority of many conservatives). Unfortunately, negotiating with Gov. Pawlenty seems to yield no such way forward.

Comments

  1. Anonymous says

    Certainly some government spending comes with future costs that need to be considered. We have over-invested in roads with the costs outweighing benefits.

    But a lot of government spending is investment that more than pay for itself with future benefits. How does investing in early childhood education create a “bubble” of future costs? To the contrary, it provides an enormous return in reduced costs and higher productivity. The same is true of almost all education investments.

    Are there government inefficiencies and waste? Sure. But cutting spending often doesn’t attack those. Instead, it reduces the services provided while paying the same overhead costs. The result is less efficient government, not more.

    The real danger is not a bubble. Its that we fail to invest for the future.

    Its increasing productivity, based on our investments today, that will give the next generation a better life. If we continue to underfund investment in things like education and communication infrastructure, we are going to have a hard time even maintaining current productivity.

    This debate is really between short-sighted business people who look at their balance sheet each day and those who look at the big picture and plan for the future. Its the short-sighted business people who continuously struggle. Which makes them even more short-sighted.

  2. Anonymous says

    There is one difference between sending a check to an insurance company vs. the state for health care: We get to vote for the people running the state system.

    Granted, in private industry there’s competition, which is supposed to solve all evils. How’s that working out with greedy subprime lenders, by the way?

  3. There’s another difference between an insurance company vs. state – PROFIT. I’d just as soon have a bloated payroll of public employees than tax dollars going to profit some lobbying political friend. At least people are working, and the dollars aren’t likely hiding in the Cayman Islands.

Speak Your Mind

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.