Gore’s “Reinvening Government” was *not* successful. It’s primary outcome was reducing FTE headcount by hiring contractors at roughly 2x or 3x the cost. It shrank the size of government (according to an arbitrary and inaccurate standard) while increasing the cost. The only positive outcome was that it was easier to fire contractors.
This article is a much more balanced analysis of successes and failure of the Reinventing Government effort. It wasn’t a total success — because this is the real world— but was not the abject failure you portray it to be.
For example the improvements/modernization of the VA’s treatment of patients in its hospitals was a major accomplishments. The early use of bar codes on patients’ id bands and all the drugs administered to them significantly reduced medication mistakes — to a level lower than in those private hospitals Republicans want to force verterans to use. Electronic filing of taxes was another success.
It was Bush who pushed for privatization/outsourcing which is how FEMA was turned from a an agency that got bipartisan praise for its effectiveness into the disastrous agency that botched the response to Katrina. (FEMA was so bad under GHW Bush that Poppy had to replace his FEMA head with his chief of staff Andy Card to take over the response to Hurricane Andrew.)
I harken back to the Simpson Bowles committee, allegedly brought together to address the deficit, spent months working on programs to cut, and in the end failed to get one thing accomplished.
well, they did come up with a plan to cut Social Security which has nothing to do with the deficit. Congress and the President and the people and the pundits to this day are still convinced that it does. or maybe they are just lying about it because that was their intention all along. the tragedy here is the Left keeps cpming up with plans to "make the rich pay" which would make SS a driver of the deficit and easier for the rich to cut into irrelevance as insurance against poverty in old age. The Left is more interested in sticking it to the rich rather than actually making it work...which would require raising the payroll tax about one dollar per week per year for the average worker, less for low wage workers.
Paul Waldman, I followed you with pleasure in the American Prospect, and purchased your book about “White Rural Rage.” I would like to support you financially on Substack. However, I have two adult disabled sons who live in a group home supported by the government. I need to save every dollar I can to give them someplace to go when the government puts them out on the street. Or tries to murder them.
Clearly we have to work on reinforcing the historic American suspicion that "business guy" means crook who can't find his way out of a paper bag, regardless of whatever charm he may possess. This is the historic normal majority opinion. Reps been trying to erase it since Reagan, but there's promise in this with Musk providing evidence ...guy's a sicko.
I am old enought to remember when CEOs didn’t get obscene compensation and many of them really did see themselves as having an obligation to their communities and country. When Mitt Romney’s father George was the very successful CEO of American Motors he refused bonuses in years when the company was not making a profit and he strongly objected to excessive executive compensation. Mitt is not his father’s son. He had no qualms about taking making profit as a vulture capitalist.
Every other country in the world recognizes it can have corruption, and people say they don't like it.
Americans can recognize it and see it everywhere in foreign countries.
They have a hard time seeing it in their own country or community and calling it by that name.
It is no longer a question of corruption or not to them, it is a question of who's "owning" or "pwning" who, or which group faces "disparate impact" from decision x, y, or z.
There have been several commissions but the closest analogue probably is Reagan's "Grace Commission" made up of business leaders. No one remembers the commission ever existed which tells you all you need to know!
Reagan had the Greenspan Commision which put SS on a stable footing for at least the following fifty years and really forever if the people will just raise their own payroll tax about one dollar per week per year when needed. This was forseen by th Greenspan Commission, but Congress decided to raise the retirement age instead, and lie about SS ever since.
all fine with me. i would have thought the business of the Congress and the President had something to do with government efficiency. From what I have seen at least "social security commissions" are attempts to ram though policies the people don't want without any Congressman losing his job. "government efficiency" is just a political noise along with "the deficit" designed to fool the people into thinking they are being cheated by "the government." The Greenspan Commission must have surprised them when, I think, mostly Tip O'Neil and Robert Ball...and, honestly some Republicans I can't remember at the moment...came up with an actual plan that saved Social Security .
Thank you. very few do listen, And those that do seem to rush off and listen to the next guy who promises them they can have it for free. Not sure I how much I have said where you could hear it, but I'll just mention [again?] that SS has nothing to do with the debt, it can be made solvent forever just by raising the payroll tax one tenth of one percent per year while wages are going up one full percent per year. Congress lies about it being a cause of the debt, and completely ignores that its own internal "actuarial deficit" can be fixed entirely by just raising the tax about one dollar per week per year.
in case you don't know Medicaid is not Medicare. Medicaid is a welfare program with all the problems of welfare. Medicare is paid for by the workers who will get the benefits... or was, until a new generation came along and thought it would be a good idea to make "the rich" pay for it. Fixing Medicare is mostly a matter of fixing overcharging by doctors and insurance companies. It would cost workers a little more to pay for a "single payer" medicare-like program, but they would pay a lot less than they pay now for private insurance.
Gore’s “Reinvening Government” was *not* successful. It’s primary outcome was reducing FTE headcount by hiring contractors at roughly 2x or 3x the cost. It shrank the size of government (according to an arbitrary and inaccurate standard) while increasing the cost. The only positive outcome was that it was easier to fire contractors.
This article is a much more balanced analysis of successes and failure of the Reinventing Government effort. It wasn’t a total success — because this is the real world— but was not the abject failure you portray it to be.
For example the improvements/modernization of the VA’s treatment of patients in its hospitals was a major accomplishments. The early use of bar codes on patients’ id bands and all the drugs administered to them significantly reduced medication mistakes — to a level lower than in those private hospitals Republicans want to force verterans to use. Electronic filing of taxes was another success.
It was Bush who pushed for privatization/outsourcing which is how FEMA was turned from a an agency that got bipartisan praise for its effectiveness into the disastrous agency that botched the response to Katrina. (FEMA was so bad under GHW Bush that Poppy had to replace his FEMA head with his chief of staff Andy Card to take over the response to Hurricane Andrew.)
https://www.govexec.com/management/2013/04/what-reinvention-wrought/62836/
I harken back to the Simpson Bowles committee, allegedly brought together to address the deficit, spent months working on programs to cut, and in the end failed to get one thing accomplished.
well, they did come up with a plan to cut Social Security which has nothing to do with the deficit. Congress and the President and the people and the pundits to this day are still convinced that it does. or maybe they are just lying about it because that was their intention all along. the tragedy here is the Left keeps cpming up with plans to "make the rich pay" which would make SS a driver of the deficit and easier for the rich to cut into irrelevance as insurance against poverty in old age. The Left is more interested in sticking it to the rich rather than actually making it work...which would require raising the payroll tax about one dollar per week per year for the average worker, less for low wage workers.
Paul Waldman, I followed you with pleasure in the American Prospect, and purchased your book about “White Rural Rage.” I would like to support you financially on Substack. However, I have two adult disabled sons who live in a group home supported by the government. I need to save every dollar I can to give them someplace to go when the government puts them out on the street. Or tries to murder them.
Clearly we have to work on reinforcing the historic American suspicion that "business guy" means crook who can't find his way out of a paper bag, regardless of whatever charm he may possess. This is the historic normal majority opinion. Reps been trying to erase it since Reagan, but there's promise in this with Musk providing evidence ...guy's a sicko.
I am old enought to remember when CEOs didn’t get obscene compensation and many of them really did see themselves as having an obligation to their communities and country. When Mitt Romney’s father George was the very successful CEO of American Motors he refused bonuses in years when the company was not making a profit and he strongly objected to excessive executive compensation. Mitt is not his father’s son. He had no qualms about taking making profit as a vulture capitalist.
I too am that old.
Every other country in the world recognizes it can have corruption, and people say they don't like it.
Americans can recognize it and see it everywhere in foreign countries.
They have a hard time seeing it in their own country or community and calling it by that name.
It is no longer a question of corruption or not to them, it is a question of who's "owning" or "pwning" who, or which group faces "disparate impact" from decision x, y, or z.
There have been several commissions but the closest analogue probably is Reagan's "Grace Commission" made up of business leaders. No one remembers the commission ever existed which tells you all you need to know!
Reagan had the Greenspan Commision which put SS on a stable footing for at least the following fifty years and really forever if the people will just raise their own payroll tax about one dollar per week per year when needed. This was forseen by th Greenspan Commission, but Congress decided to raise the retirement age instead, and lie about SS ever since.
True but I was talking about general "government efficiency" commissions. Greenspan Commission was about one program, albeit the biggest one.
all fine with me. i would have thought the business of the Congress and the President had something to do with government efficiency. From what I have seen at least "social security commissions" are attempts to ram though policies the people don't want without any Congressman losing his job. "government efficiency" is just a political noise along with "the deficit" designed to fool the people into thinking they are being cheated by "the government." The Greenspan Commission must have surprised them when, I think, mostly Tip O'Neil and Robert Ball...and, honestly some Republicans I can't remember at the moment...came up with an actual plan that saved Social Security .
Is it rising Medicaid costs that are the fiscal challenge as opposed to social security.
Just want to let you know coberly that somebody has been listen to you.
Thank you. very few do listen, And those that do seem to rush off and listen to the next guy who promises them they can have it for free. Not sure I how much I have said where you could hear it, but I'll just mention [again?] that SS has nothing to do with the debt, it can be made solvent forever just by raising the payroll tax one tenth of one percent per year while wages are going up one full percent per year. Congress lies about it being a cause of the debt, and completely ignores that its own internal "actuarial deficit" can be fixed entirely by just raising the tax about one dollar per week per year.
in case you don't know Medicaid is not Medicare. Medicaid is a welfare program with all the problems of welfare. Medicare is paid for by the workers who will get the benefits... or was, until a new generation came along and thought it would be a good idea to make "the rich" pay for it. Fixing Medicare is mostly a matter of fixing overcharging by doctors and insurance companies. It would cost workers a little more to pay for a "single payer" medicare-like program, but they would pay a lot less than they pay now for private insurance.
I meant to say medicare
Spot on, as always.