Ever notice how Republicans liek to say how they are going to "run government like a business"? This article throws some cold water on that philosophy: Running government like a business? "Running government like a business" is one of those zombie Republican lines; no matter how dramatically it fails time after time, it always comes back. That it survived the "MBA Presidency" of George W. Bush was... [more]
Ever notice how Republicans liek to say how they are going to "run government like a business"? This article throws some cold water on that philosophy:
Running government like a business?
"Running government like a business" is one of those zombie Republican lines; no matter how dramatically it fails time after time, it always comes back. That it survived the "MBA Presidency" of George W. Bush was staggering enough, but the 2010 class of governors went right back to it: John Kasich, Rick Scott, and Nikki Haley are among those raising zombies.
In response to her governor's "run government like a business" moment, Laurin Manning at South Carolina Soapbox asked:
Don’t most—if not all—well-run businesses seek to grow? Don’t Republicans want to shrink government? Isn’t a business that is shrinking an unprofitable one?
Are the citizens of the businesstate of South Carolina the customers? Or the shareholders? Or both?
Do Haley campaign contributions = stock?
Businesses exist to turn a profit. They provide goods and services to others only insofar as it is profitable to do so, and they will set prices in a way that ends up prohibiting a significant sector of the population from obtaining those goods and services. And that, of course, is fine, because they're businesses. Governments, conversely, provide public goods and services—things that we have determined are people's right to possess. This is inherently an unprofitable enterprise.
http://www.dailykos.com/
Thoughts? How can Republicans claim to run government like a business, but then give tax cuts? What business is going to voluntary reduce its revenue? Any busienss that does that won;t be in existence for much longer.
[less]
Response by rb345
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 1273
Member since: Jun 2009
Socialist:
Your imbecilic cant is m
ore appropriate for the New York Times or The
Huffington Post than for a website whose average IQ is above 50 ...
Now that you've gotten what you want with ObamaCare take advantage of it
before it's repealed and get psychiatric help before you bore someone to
death here and subject yourself to mans laughter charges.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Riversider
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 13573
Member since: Apr 2009
Actually, running gov't like a business makes a great deal of sense.
This does not mean that government should earn a profit
It does mean they need to operate with a budget that considers revenue and expense and how to provide services efficiently, not unlike a well run charity. Too many people in the gov't machine cannot distinguish a debit from a credit or just use their time to gain political favor or a future job.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by columbiacounty
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 12708
Member since: Jan 2009
this is some dumb its painful.
what is the incentive to the individual of running the government like a business?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Riversider
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 13573
Member since: Apr 2009
Earning a salary, opportunity at higher office, not getting a bad rep with the controller, but you do make a good Ayn Rand point.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by columbiacounty
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 12708
Member since: Jan 2009
earning a salary? so that you can be ridiculed in the press?
higher office? like what?
bullshit.
people like you have effectively removed any incentive whatsoever for anyone to work for the government except the very people you don't want working for the government.
brilliant.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Riversider
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 13573
Member since: Apr 2009
There are good people in gov't and even ore who want to be in gov't.
Sheila Bair, Chris Christie, Gary Gensler, Harry Wilson
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by jason10006
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 5257
Member since: Jan 2009
Businesses generally also do NOT balance there budgets. Virtually every S&P or Fortune 500 company in fact has a significant amount of debt - often more than there equity market cap. So they do not "live within their means."
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Riversider
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 13573
Member since: Apr 2009
Also would add Elizabeth Warren, Spitzer(while he was A.G.), Carl Levin , Gingrich...
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by columbiacounty
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 12708
Member since: Jan 2009
Did spitzer need to earn a salary from the gov't?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by columbiacounty
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 12708
Member since: Jan 2009
Who pays Elizabeth Warren?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by columbiacounty
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 12708
Member since: Jan 2009
Do you propose to run businesses without havingto pay people?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Riversider
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 13573
Member since: Apr 2009
Businesses generally also do NOT balance there budgets.
Just like a home owner taking on a mortgage, IBM borrows money. The trick is not to over-leveraged. Where gov't drops the ball is that it's way too easy to raise taxes or not account for funds properly. An over-leveraged or poorly run business fails. An over-leveraged consumer goes bankrupt and a poorly run charity eventually loses donors, but a poorly run gov't just raises taxes.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by columbiacounty
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 12708
Member since: Jan 2009
Who decides if government is poorly run? On what basis?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Socialist
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 2261
Member since: Feb 2010
BUt how can you run govt. like a business when the politiicans who run it want to REDUCE revenue? How many CEOs tell their shareholders that their #1 priority is to REDUCE revenue and shrink the size of their business?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by huntersburg
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 11329
Member since: Nov 2010
Most want to maximize cash flow.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by NYCMatt
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 7523
Member since: May 2009
I'm a Republican, and I can't stand this "run government like a business" bullshit.
GOVERNMENT IS NOT A BUSINESS!!! Never was, never should be.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by mutombonyc
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 2468
Member since: Dec 2008
Simply implying, the government is a business.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Riversider
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 13573
Member since: Apr 2009
The profit comparison is a red herring. There is nothing wrong with expecting gov't to be accountable and operate under a sound book keeping, managerial and budget plan. Delivering services efficiently and promptly should not be seen as earth shattering , controversial or radical.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by NYCMatt
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 7523
Member since: May 2009
Thank you, Riversider.
Of course government should be efficiently run. But to compare it to a BUSINESS is folly.
It's like saying a charitable foundation should be run like Citibank.
Oops, maybe that's a bad example. NOTHING should be run like Citibank. Not even Citibank.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by LICComment
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 3610
Member since: Dec 2007
When people say government should run like a business, that means it should be accountable for delivering quality services efficiently and within its cost constraints. It doesn't mean that government should be trying to make profits. Why is this so hard for liberals to understand?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by columbiacounty
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 12708
Member since: Jan 2009
so...how do you decide if the motor vehicles department is delivering quality services efficiently? what is the acceptable length of the line? in a business, the answer is determined by the marketplace and competition (sometimes). what would the equivalent be for the MVB? wouldn't it be more efficient from the taxpayer's point of view to have really long lines and no down time for clerks? no extra staffing to handle peak demand?
Socialist:
Your imbecilic cant is m
ore appropriate for the New York Times or The
Huffington Post than for a website whose average IQ is above 50 ...
Now that you've gotten what you want with ObamaCare take advantage of it
before it's repealed and get psychiatric help before you bore someone to
death here and subject yourself to mans laughter charges.
Actually, running gov't like a business makes a great deal of sense.
This does not mean that government should earn a profit
It does mean they need to operate with a budget that considers revenue and expense and how to provide services efficiently, not unlike a well run charity. Too many people in the gov't machine cannot distinguish a debit from a credit or just use their time to gain political favor or a future job.
this is some dumb its painful.
what is the incentive to the individual of running the government like a business?
Earning a salary, opportunity at higher office, not getting a bad rep with the controller, but you do make a good Ayn Rand point.
earning a salary? so that you can be ridiculed in the press?
higher office? like what?
bullshit.
people like you have effectively removed any incentive whatsoever for anyone to work for the government except the very people you don't want working for the government.
brilliant.
There are good people in gov't and even ore who want to be in gov't.
Sheila Bair, Chris Christie, Gary Gensler, Harry Wilson
Businesses generally also do NOT balance there budgets. Virtually every S&P or Fortune 500 company in fact has a significant amount of debt - often more than there equity market cap. So they do not "live within their means."
Also would add Elizabeth Warren, Spitzer(while he was A.G.), Carl Levin , Gingrich...
Did spitzer need to earn a salary from the gov't?
Who pays Elizabeth Warren?
Do you propose to run businesses without havingto pay people?
Businesses generally also do NOT balance there budgets.
Just like a home owner taking on a mortgage, IBM borrows money. The trick is not to over-leveraged. Where gov't drops the ball is that it's way too easy to raise taxes or not account for funds properly. An over-leveraged or poorly run business fails. An over-leveraged consumer goes bankrupt and a poorly run charity eventually loses donors, but a poorly run gov't just raises taxes.
Who decides if government is poorly run? On what basis?
BUt how can you run govt. like a business when the politiicans who run it want to REDUCE revenue? How many CEOs tell their shareholders that their #1 priority is to REDUCE revenue and shrink the size of their business?
Most want to maximize cash flow.
I'm a Republican, and I can't stand this "run government like a business" bullshit.
GOVERNMENT IS NOT A BUSINESS!!! Never was, never should be.
Simply implying, the government is a business.
The profit comparison is a red herring. There is nothing wrong with expecting gov't to be accountable and operate under a sound book keeping, managerial and budget plan. Delivering services efficiently and promptly should not be seen as earth shattering , controversial or radical.
Thank you, Riversider.
Of course government should be efficiently run. But to compare it to a BUSINESS is folly.
It's like saying a charitable foundation should be run like Citibank.
Oops, maybe that's a bad example. NOTHING should be run like Citibank. Not even Citibank.
When people say government should run like a business, that means it should be accountable for delivering quality services efficiently and within its cost constraints. It doesn't mean that government should be trying to make profits. Why is this so hard for liberals to understand?
so...how do you decide if the motor vehicles department is delivering quality services efficiently? what is the acceptable length of the line? in a business, the answer is determined by the marketplace and competition (sometimes). what would the equivalent be for the MVB? wouldn't it be more efficient from the taxpayer's point of view to have really long lines and no down time for clerks? no extra staffing to handle peak demand?