January 29, 2001

3:48 PM

Government waste.While the report had very libertarian leanings, John Stossel's special on how royally inept our government is at accomplishing anything is an indictment of the entrenched ways of doing things. There must be some sort of crossroad where liberal social policies can meet with real accountability without bureaucracy.
posted by owillis (21 comments total)

Poor John! He makes a healthy living now giving his speeches to the CEO's he so lavishly defends and uphold when not on tv condeming each and everything the government has done, is doing, might do.
When will he badmouth social secuity and medicare?
Of course govt is wasteful in its programs. But they also get lots of money (handouts) from the government and waste this too as the many overruns on military items shows us.
I have no quarrel with the capitalism we now enjoy and that has given so many of us so much. On the other hand, there are many who go hungry, can not afford medicines, have sub-standard schools and housing. Will the private sector take care of this are of need?
posted by Postroad at 3:56 PM on January 29, 2001

But couldn't we at least hold those in the bureaucracy responsible? And lessen the red tape shackling those who want to do good?
posted by owillis at 4:43 PM on January 29, 2001

The red tape is exactly what holds them responsible. That's why its there. So which one do you want? More accountability or less red tape? You can't have both.
posted by thebigpoop at 4:48 PM on January 29, 2001

Red tape is silly government regulation, like "you must give hungry children milk to drink, even if they don't like milk - then the milk is wasted" (real example from the show).

Accountability is "you're a bad teacher. your students consistently score way below their peers. you're fired".
posted by owillis at 4:54 PM on January 29, 2001

I don't know that I'd really take John Stossel's word for anything; this FAIR report points out where data was manipulated & even fabricated to support his stories' claims. Not that I don't believe that government is wasteful, but I'd take it with a grain of salt..
posted by zempf at 5:06 PM on January 29, 2001

I'm using Stossel more as a springboard. We've all experienced some facet of government inefficiency, where we've seen the profit motive push people to provide better service, although it doesn't always work.
posted by owillis at 5:13 PM on January 29, 2001

A hornet's nest opened up! Why not priavatize our military since govt agencies and organizations are so inefficient?
The FBI, CIA, NASA, space program--all of them. Close them down and let the private secotr run things better.
posted by Postroad at 5:21 PM on January 29, 2001

I think my favorite was John Stossel's attack on welfare, demonstrating with one sole example why welfare doesn't work. The couple in question fraudulently used welfare money to supplement their expensive lifestyle.

Of course, for every case of fraud, there are a thousand people who very seriously need that money to survive. I can't find a transcript, but here's one that represents his "the poor have it great" view. (Search for "cadillac.")
posted by waxpancake at 5:22 PM on January 29, 2001

Postroad: I believe we can run our government as effeciently as the private sector without turning it over to soulless corporate entites.

waxpancake: the idea behind welfare is great, but it's execution, exploitation, and lack of accountability are terrible.
posted by owillis at 6:01 PM on January 29, 2001

That program was awful! It was shot full of distortions. Did anyone living in/around LA recognize the private tollroad featured as an example of how privatization can cure pesky traffic jams (which, by the by, only happen on interstates.) It goes from a small strip of exclusive beach-front real-estate to downtown LA. Now, even you libertarians must admit that this kind of egregious framing of information is no way to prove a point. I thought, however, he was big on charity. This is in contrast to his usual "free-markets + self-discipline and responsibility = utopia" schtick. He changing his tune, and just in time for his new best friend's rise to power
In fact, I did something new in response to this sham -- I wrote a response: Here it is
posted by rschram at 6:08 PM on January 29, 2001

Like I said, there's a middle road between Stossel's free markets and way-left social programs. Government with accountability. What a concept!
posted by owillis at 11:45 PM on January 29, 2001

Today, "if Jesus Christ wanted to start Christianity, he wouldn't be able to do it," says Mimi Silbert, ... "because there are too many regulations."

Funnily, the one thing government has done right...
posted by krisjohn at 11:55 PM on January 29, 2001

Postroad: I believe we can run our government as effeciently as the private sector without turning it over to soulless corporate entites.

pixelate: the idea that big corporation entities has less soul than big beaurocracy is a huge illusion; there are no guarantees for efficiency (or even humanity) in either constellation of people. that's 'people' as in 'you and me'..

waxpancake: the idea behind welfare is great, but it's execution, exploitation, and lack of accountability are terrible.

pixelate: the idea behind welfare is bad. it caters to the worst in people, such as idleness and envy. at the same time it "dehumanizes" specifically human actions like charity. other peoples' money is always easier to spend than your own. solidarity is NOT the same as socialism.

take it from me: i live in norway: the whole country has been on welfare since the marshall plans..
posted by pixelate at 12:48 AM on January 30, 2001

Stossel is a buffoon. His attacks are fine as long as you hate what he's degrading. When you know something about the subject matter he is pursuing, you realize he takes a lot of cheap shots.
posted by fleener at 6:12 AM on January 30, 2001

Stossel has an excellent point, i.e. that there's a lot of waste in the government (like any big bureaucracy), but his examples leave a lot to be desired.

The real problem with government waste is that if you eliminated it, you'd cause massive unemployment because you just fired half the people the government employs.
posted by kindall at 10:11 AM on January 30, 2001

When will he badmouth social secuity and medicare?

In case he takes a while, would you like me to start? :)
posted by daveadams at 11:34 AM on January 30, 2001

Kindall: while your number of "half the people" may be an exaggeration, should we continue to keep useless or underperforming government employees employed? No. They have to go. Maybe they can be trained to do real jobs with the money going towards them right now.
posted by owillis at 11:38 AM on January 30, 2001

Should we continue to keep useless or underperforming government employees employed? No. They have to go.

I agree, but it's going to make whoever swings the axe extremely unpopular. Somehow I don't think someone telling you "You should be happy, now you can go do something useful with your life" is going to make up for getting fired.
posted by kindall at 4:09 PM on January 30, 2001

No, but government isn't there to make people happy. It's there to make things work.
posted by owillis at 5:48 PM on January 30, 2001

No, but government isn't there to make people happy.

And they do such a good job of not making people happy...
posted by kindall at 6:00 PM on January 30, 2001