Just like austerity budgets from faux-libertarian conservative liars have destroyed Kansas and Louisiana and entire nations in Europe. But the obscenely wealthy are even fatter while desperate workers submit to serfdom, so: win!
When Governor Lying Coward talks about "shared sacrifice" and "tough love," remember that neither he nor any of his billionaire buddies are going to be sacrificing anything or feeling any kind of love but the cock-sucking of more tax cuts.
Many
say we should "run government like a business" and "save money" by
"cutting spending" and "making government smaller." Does this work? Do
We the People really save money by doing these things?
Infrastructure
SNIP
After
the Reagan tax cuts we "made government smaller" in several ways that
are coming back to bite us now. One way we "saved money" by not
"changing the oil" was by deferring maintenance of the country's
infrastructure – the water systems, levees, dams, roads, bridges,
airports, ports, rails systems, electrical systems, and the rest of the
things we all rely on to bring us safe water, get us to work, ship
products and generally move our economy and live our lives.
Now the American Society of Civil Engineers' (ASCE) most recent "
Infrastructure Report Card"
estimates we need to spend $3.6 trillion just to bring the
infrastructure up to where it should be, never mind catching up to the
rest of the word with high-speed rail and smart electrical grid systems.
The bill is getting more expensive every year, and people are dying as
bridges, roads and other important infrastructure components fail.
Thousands died in New Orleans when the levees failed.
SNIP
Flint
The Flint tragedy shows how much money "big government" actually saves us.
Michigan Republicans tried to "save money," "make government smaller" and run the city of
Flint "like a business."
Thousands of human beings ended up being poisoned. Now someone is going
to have to pay to cover the health care needs of all those people. That
someone might be the people themselves or maybe all of us will pitch in
through our government, but a cost is a cost.
Someone
will need to cover either the remedial education cost for all the kids
whose brains were affected by lead, or the societal costs if this is not
done. Then there is the cost to replace Flint's water pipes, the cost
of plunging property values, the cost of all the businesses that will
choose to leave or not locate in Flint.
Costs,
costs, costs, some borne by government, most borne by individuals but
costs nonetheless – because Republicans said we should "run government
like a business" and "save money."
Flint
shows how basic government spending saves all of us from paying the
enormous costs of living with the danger of unsafe water.
Cutting Senior Nutrition Programs
The post "
Here's A Sequester Cut You'll Feel In Your Gut"
described the results from budget cuts forced by Republicans wanting to
make government "smaller." The "sequester" cuts in senior nutritional
programs caused seniors to need to be hospitalized for malnutrition –
which costs government a tremendous amount more than the "savings" from
cutting.
[F]or
all the damage these cruel cuts do to actual, real people, they don’t
even actually “cut” spending, they increase spending. Because doing
cruel things to actual, real people leads to cruel results.
If
government "saves money" by cutting nutritional programs, government
ends up paying a lot of money to treat malnutrition. If government won't
pay those costs because it is "saving money" by denying health care
services those costs don't go away, they are just shifted onto
individuals. The affected people have to pay, one way or another, with
their money or their health. The communities they live in have to pay as
its members suffer or become impoverished.
SNIP
Privatization
Local,
state and Federally, government "save money" by privatizing services
and selling buildings and other assets. But studies have shown what
really happens when governments "save money" by privatizing.
What
really happens when, say, a city "saves money" by privatizing, for
example, its waste pickup services? The current employees, paid an OK
salary, probably with good benefits, are laid off. The contractor hires
people at low or minimum wage with few or no benefits. The business
"saves money" by cutting back on personnel costs, services and
maintenance of equipment.
The
former city employees, if they can find jobs at all, will be paid very
little, homes go into foreclosure – which lowers property values
citywide. They stop being able to do much shopping, hurting the local
economy. They likely will need public assistance, which means costs were
shifted to another branch of government instead of being "saved." Their
kids will need special services in the schools, as poor kids often do.
And on it goes. Of course, they are no longer paying taxes.
Meanwhile
the new workers won't be paid enough to purchase homes, do much
shopping, or pay much in taxes. They probably will qualify for public
assistance; their kids will need special attention in the schools.
The
privatization scheme forces people into poverty and onto public
assistance, eroding the tax base, forcing local wages and property
values down and generally putting all of us further under the thumb of
those who have convinced people who “private companies always do
everything better than government.” The contractor companies are often
specialists in avoiding taxation themselves. One thing private companies
are good at is driving every benefit of our economy upwards to a
concentrated and privileged few.
SNIP
Cost Shifting
Running
government like a business doesn't take something important into
account: Businesses try to shift costs onto others. When government
"saves money" by cutting budgets the costs are still there, but they are
shifted onto individuals. And often the total cost paid by all those
individuals is much higher than if government took care of things,
because of the rule of economy of scale as well as the government's
negotiating power.
For
example, government can "save money" by not funding a fire department,
and not having a fire inspector. Of course, many of us will have to
spend a lot of our own money to either pay for our own fire protection
or risk the cost to rebuild our houses. And all of us would have to
spend a lot of money if the whole town burns down. But hey, we "saved
money" not paying for a fire department.
What
about government "saving money" by cutting back on education budgets?
Not only does this hurt local businesses, but property values are higher
when there are "good schools" nearby. So the cost is shifted onto the
businesses and individuals, when you "run government like a business."
Because that's what businesses do.
Shifting costs from government onto the rest of us actually costs us more money than we save on taxes.
What Is Government's Job?
What
is our government for? Is it to operate like a business and make a
profit off of We the People? Or is it a mechanism for all of us to
decide to get together to do things that make our lives better?
If
government cuts corners, tries to do things "on the cheap" like a
business, we end up with results that cost more than we would have paid
to do something right. When government "saves money" by shifting costs
onto individuals, economies of scale and negotiating power are lost and
aggregate costs go up, like what has happened in our health care system.
And government cutting corners often leads to bad, even cruel results
in people's lives.
SNIP
There is often a good reason for those "big government" budgets.