Danny Westneat's column in the Seattle Times reminds us that there's more to cutting programs than just looking at the name of the program. While the Migratory Waterfowl Art Committee sounds like wasteful spending, it only costs $1,000 a year, which is paid for by the thousands the committee brings in annually.
Of course, one could still argue that this committee is not the proper business of government. But we can't argue it will save money to cut it. We should cut a lot of the state and federal governments, but we shouldn't do it blindly.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at February 11, 2009 11:27 AM | Email ThisSometimes you can even teach old dogs new tricks:
http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/9205684/'Stump'-wins-Westminster-show-as-oldest-dog?MSNHPHMA
Posted by: correctnotright on February 11, 2009 11:34 AMI don't care if this is cut or not. Just don't say it is to be cut to save money, and don't merely cut based on the committee's name, but what it actually does.
Posted by: pudge on February 11, 2009 12:16 PMWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 11, 2009 12:25 PMIn this case it is wildlife stamp artwork. The postal service, as an example at the Federal level, issues commemorative stamps that convert paper and ink into collectables with value.
Is that wrong? Should the government NEVER do anything that is profitable? If you think so, why?
This seems to be part of the core argument for privatizing the liquor stores. (I enjoy most the argument that privatization will create jobs...meaning the private sector can't sell booze as efficiently as the government?)
I'd kind of like the government, when they sell property for example, to receive the market price, even if it means they (we) have made a profit.
In this particular case, perhaps they really are producing revenue for the program - I wonder if the overhead costs to support the committee are fully identified and accounted for.
In the case of the government "making" money off of commemorative stamps, this is just not true. The post office sells the stamp(s) for their face value--ostensibly to cover the costs of printing the stamp and handling the mail that the stamp will be placed upon. The stamps get increased value when they get to the private sector--based upon demand, rarity, etc.
As to your question about whether government should ever do anything profitably, the answer is no. When the government is making a profit from its activities, the are competing with the private sector, which is not why our government was established.
Posted by: Devil Dawg on February 11, 2009 03:07 PMThe government takes some paper, prints an image on it, sells it to a collector that never uses it for postage.
If the face value of the stamp embodies the cost of delivering a letter, and that stamp is never used to deliver a letter - then in fact they just made a profit - and probably a very large one at that.
Since profit is the measure of success in the private sector, eliminating that incentive in government means another methodology and definition has to be used to measure success.
I don't disagree overall that if there's a task that government is doing that purely creates a profit it should be spun off. But if, as a minor side line, some activities generate a profit - great.
Posted by: BA on February 11, 2009 03:37 PM- GOP wants smaller and more limited Govt.
- Governor wants Govt. committee that makes a profit thereby reducing size of Govt.
GOP minions want to keep big Govt. only if it makes a profit? I'm not sure why your complaining here Pudge, Gregoire is doing what you've been asking the Dem's to do since Reagan.
Who here said they wanted to keep the program? I certainly didn't.
Government's proper role is to:
1. Protect Citizens from harm - this is why we give the Government the ability to use extreme violence - be it the military, the police, or the courts that can impose death.
2. Provide a court system to adjudicate relationships (contracts) consistently.
3. Levy taxes in a manner that supports roles 1 and 2 so that there are no "free riders" benefiting from these two roles.
That's it.
It gets more complex very fast, of course. Take a look at transit. While most of the world and all major cities (and myself) apparently feel that it is cost-effective. No one will argue that light rail or buses are cheap, but I say that they're cheaper than the pollution, road construction, insurance, injuries, and congestion that come from a car-exclusive transportation network.
I'm sure most of the folks on Sound Politics completely disagree with me, but unlike the arts group you speak about above there's no balance sheet for some of the more abstract and social costs I spoke about. Most government programs don't directly generate revenue and instead their benefits come from reducing the social cost.
Posted by: John Jensen on February 11, 2009 05:19 PMCommerce, up until the digital age, has been most efficient when concentrations of humans get together in both planned and accidental ways. Transit provides for higher concentrations of interaction to occur relative to any other means of transportation, so there's a strong driver to create it to encourage commerce.
Government doesn't have to provide these services, transit, roads, etc. and historically much of this was done privately. But, once Government stepped in meddled (or assisted...) one, that bias affected all others usually to their detriment.
I wonder if digital based communication might allow for the concentration of humans in both planned, and accidental ways, without truly requiring physical presence. If so, it will have a profound affect on how our cities and communities are shaped.
For now, I know that companies like Microsoft, plan their physical facilities (like cafeterias and circulation spaces) to encourage physical interaction and concentration of their folks - because it makes good business sense.
1. it is no business of government as you state. That in itself is enough to cut it, end it, kill it, and make it cease to exist.
2. It may not cost much now, but it is a seed that can grow with time. let people get used to the idea that government has a role in water fowl art commisions and down the road you find people argueing for ever more imposing waterfowl art at tax payer expense in the future. Or argueing for some other government incursion and pointing out it is less intrusive than the waterfowl art commision.
3. small cuts are better than no cuts.
4. any cut needs to be praised. Positive feedback for doing the right thing can only lead to more cuts by politicians in the future. They are trivial people that like approval from people. Give it to them when they do the right thing! It is a rare event!
I think conceptual and principled arguments have their place - but selecting the right place to have the argument is important too.
This may not be the right place.
Posted by: BA on February 11, 2009 06:41 PMEspecially when the democrats are not wanting to debate it either! Conservatives want to cut government and the democrats are saying okay, and pudge is finding something to complain about! Unbelievable if you ask me!
Posted by: Lysander on February 11, 2009 07:00 PMIn one way. But in others, their office spaces are interrupted by massive parking lots and the concentration of people is limited to 40-foot tall buildings.
Posted by: John Jensen on February 11, 2009 11:19 PM