"You got to fill out the form first and then you wait in the line." -- The Afterlife, Paul Simon

The forms are necessary. We could just trust people instead of verifying, but then there is fraud and the Republicans scream bloody murder and act generally like ill-behaved two year olds instead of their usual pattern of ill-behaved four year olds, and nothing gets done until the program is slashed into uselessness or tons of forms are put into place. This then allows the Republicans to scream that the program doesn't help and is government waste, or biatch about inefficient programs because of all the fraud protections we've put into place.

In short, the problem with government is Republicans.

"This book does not favor the right, nor the left," Gelles says. "Yes, it will make people angry. But change comes from conflict. This book is an original, unorthodox analysis of what ails us as nation and how we might regain our economic, social and political health."

I'm guessing someone didn't here read the article before posting this morning. But I'm sure an unemployed cartographer knows more than Penn professor.

From what I'm able to gather in that rather short article, I think he's got a couple/few good points. And he's being 'party neutral' in his approach too, which is going to get him yelled at for sure.

Weaver95: From what I'm able to gather in that rather short article, I think he's got a couple/few good points. And he's being 'party neutral' in his approach too, which is going to get him yelled at for sure.

His area of academic specialty is actually in domestic violence and child welfare and he is considered an expert in both. He has done extensive work on public policy in that area, but he is not directly involved, at least academically or professionally, in politics beyond that. I'm going to have to take a look at this book. I find it really odd when people get so defensive when someone tries to criticize bureaucratic inefficiencies. It seems to me wanting to make government services operate more smoothly would be in everyone's interests.

Many government programs designed to address societal ills fall short of their goals in sector after sector, and Richard J. Gelles, dean of the School of Social Policy & Practice, says these programs are predestined to fail because they create self-serving and self-protecting bureaucracies that keep them in business.

Actually what their goals is that they continue to keep the poor from rioting in the streets and storming the mansions with pitchforks while still keeping them in a state poorer than the lower working class. They do that just freaking fine. Oh and also politicians get to make their little speeches about helping the deserving poor like widows, children, and old people while not actually improving much.

I'm a MSW student and the first semester is a history of American social policy from the roots in the Elizabethan Poor Laws of 1601 through the present. It's all sorts of farked up.

Nabb1: I find it really odd when people get so defensive when someone tries to criticize bureaucratic inefficiencies. It seems to me wanting to make government services operate more smoothly would be in everyone's interests.

I don't think anyone has a problem with finding legitimate ways to reduce bureaucracy. The problem is that criticizing bureaucratic inefficiencies more often than not is used as a way to push for dismantling social programs entirely or replacing them with private systems. Conservatives like to use these reasonable sounding arguments to mask how terrible and anti-social their belief systems are.

Nabb1: It seems to me wanting to make government services operate more smoothly would be in everyone's interests.

you're thinking too logically. Yes, it would be a good thing to have these services operating smoothly by any measurement. But for those who want to get rid of them, making them as much of a beaurocratic mess as they can works in their favor, because then they can scream about how wasteful it is and how they'll get rid of it once in office, and the people who don't use it will nod and vote republican

bureaucratic even.

SilentStrider: Nabb1: It seems to me wanting to make government services operate more smoothly would be in everyone's interests.

you're thinking too logically. Yes, it would be a good thing to have these services operating smoothly by any measurement. But for those who want to get rid of them, making them as much of a beaurocratic mess as they can works in their favor, because then they can scream about how wasteful it is and how they'll get rid of it once in office, and the people who don't use it will nod and vote republican

See Medicare Part-D. They fought fixing the doughnut hole in HCR pretty hard.

Neal Stephenson explained it best years ago: our government is not in the business of solving problems, but managing them.

If you solve a problem, the funding goes away, and funding is power in Washington, or in any government position. How much cash you can swing at an issue. How much you can move to your whim. How much you can steer into your buddies' hands, how much you can keep out of other folks' hands. So long as you manage a problem, you can campaign on it. You can tout your record in managing it. If you solve it? That goes away. War on Drugs? Management. No one wants to win that one, because then police pensions go down, seizures stop, the prison industry goes down. No one wants to solve the issue of drug abuse, because if we do, then folks with vested interests in the management will starve off the vine, and they swing cash to Congresscritters too much for us to do the things that will make sense.

We really want to solve our crime issues? We'd reinforce the social safety net. We'd promote stronger education. We'd dissolve the War on Drugs, and concentrate on issues of public health and education, and reduce the reasons folks turn to crime. No one wants to do that though, because there is little profit there. That it would reduce spending across the board is a horror show where legislators are concerned.

Seizures go down, then you see folks panicking about how they're going to afford their new boat. Their new house. How will they purchase new firearms? How are they going to slide new property to their buddies? New cars? That's no good. The War on Drugs has to continue, and be championed, and called patriotic. No one wants to "win" it because then the money goes away. That goes for defense. That goes for disease. That goes for poverty. That goes for the "war on Christmas" even. Manage issues, not solve them, because no one wants to solve sh*t...

7of7: The problem is that criticizing bureaucratic inefficiencies more often than not is used as a way to push for dismantling social programs entirely or replacing them with private systems.

Exactly. Its similar to the problem in forest/wildfire management. Everyone talks about how great it would be to clear underbrush and thin out areas to make them less fire-prone. But what actually happens is clear-cutting for profit. So next time people aren't receptive to the original premise because they reasonably assume its being made in bad faith. Without a basis of trust and verification to begin with, reasonable policy can't get made. Social programs are built to manage problems that come with society--you're not going to cure crime completely anymore than you're going to eliminate building fires. But we have mechanisms in place to mitigate and ameliorate both.

The author is right, in that the more subjective the targetting criteria (such as income), the greater administrative overhead a program will carry. This is not unique to government programs.

Programs that are universal in their design can remove so much of that bureaucratic overhead. But of course, despite their efficiency, universal programs smack of socialism, so you can't go doing that.

Nabb1: I find it really odd when people get so defensive when someone tries to criticize bureaucratic inefficiencies. It seems to me wanting to make government services operate more smoothly would be in everyone's interests.

I think the basic assumption is that the simplest solution to bureaucratic inefficiency is to eliminate the system entirely. I don't think that's too large a leap in logic in some ways when we have an entire political party promising to shut down entire departments of the government.

There is definitely inefficiency, I've seen it. I've been forced to work around it. I wish I could make it better. My complaints have fallen on deaf ears. Most organizations are run from a top-down perspective; you're as weak as your slowest rower, and you're as dumb as your dumbest manager.

clambam: I hope every FEMA worker who knocked on a door or distributed supplies or rescued stranded victims or otherwise made people's lives bearable in the aftermath of Hurricane Irene, the flooding along the Mississippi River, the January nor'easter and the half a dozen or so major natural disasters that struck the US this year prefaced his remarks with "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." And I'm curious to know how many boostrappy rock-ribbed individualists in the flyover states refused their assistance. My guess: zero.

Frank N Stein: GAT_00: In short, the problem with government is Republicans.

You just never tire, do you?

Of being right? Not really.

Nabb1: Weaver95: From what I'm able to gather in that rather short article, I think he's got a couple/few good points. And he's being 'party neutral' in his approach too, which is going to get him yelled at for sure.

His area of academic specialty is actually in domestic violence and child welfare and he is considered an expert in both. He has done extensive work on public policy in that area, but he is not directly involved, at least academically or professionally, in politics beyond that. I'm going to have to take a look at this book. I find it really odd when people get so defensive when someone tries to criticize bureaucratic inefficiencies. It seems to me wanting to make government services operate more smoothly would be in everyone's interests.

Oh, yes. I've been saying that here on and off for months. It's seldom either regulations or government agencies themselves that are the problem; it's the petty bureaucrats responsible for implementing them--the worthless drones who get to actually say "I'm sorry, you didn't fill out your paperwork correctly"--who cause about 90% of the problems with agencies.

But people would rather do away with the agencies themselves, seems like, than fix the minor problems; or else deny there's any problem at all.

Frank N Stein: GAT_00: Of being right? Not really.

Nah, I was getting at the "blame Republican" thing you do. I was gunna make a comment about how that's all you really say, but I do recall you being critical of Democrats at times.

Yeah, like saying the President needs to be primaried, that he had no right to kill an American citizen in Yemen without a trial, that he's a pansy ass who gave in on tax cuts and dozens of other things. I'm occasionally critical.