Let’s run government like a business

For many decades, there have government critics who think government would be better if it were run like a business.  Be careful what you ask for; you might get it.

If government were run like a business, then the president (or governor) would be approved every year by the Senate.  This approval would be almost automatic every three years. The President would hold his position until he retires, quits, or is fired by the Senate.  If  the Senate fires him, there would be few if any hearings

The President would appoint new members to the board as previous members quit or die.

Every year, the voters would get to approve a third of the current members of the board.   They would have two choices: for or abstain.

Rather than have a variety of public services available to all citizens, there would be fees for every service.

You want to get mail, you would have to pay an annual fee or by piece each day.

You want to drive somewhere, you would have to pay an annual fee to each jurisdiction you drive in or pay a toll each time you drive in a certain jurisdiction.

You want to have a quick response if you have a medical emergency, a fire, or a robbery, you would have to pay an annual fee to each entity or pay before you get the help.

And on and on it goes to where we might have to put coins in our refrigerator to open it.

None of us really likes to pay taxes, but without taxes our lives would be chaos.  Supposedly, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said, “I like taxes, they buy me civilization.”  And he was a Republican!!

Do those calling for efficiency really want efficiency?

As I've said before, many who call for efficiency generally mean government agencies doing more for even less money.  But then some of these same people complain about the cost of doing something more efficiently.

For example, light rail is more efficient than bus service.  Except for articulated buses, buses with a single driver are limited to carrying about forty passengers.  On the other hand, a light-rail car can hold sixty passengers, and at peak times more cars can be added, greatly increasing driver efficiency.

However, many who want efficiency don't want to subsidize light rail or any public transportation.  They don't want to "take away" people's "freedom" to drive cars.  One vehicle, one driver: is that efficient?  In order to accommodate all these vehicles, their drivers expect government to build bigger, wider faster highways.  Oh yes, these drivers don't want them to be toll roads; that would make them more inefficient.  Of course, these roads are so convenient that more and more drivers use them eventually slowing traffic!  And of course, the taxes dedicated to the roads are insufficient, and so other taxes have to pay for them.  And the base for local taxes to pay for them has been reduced because houses and businesses have been removed to make way for ever wider highways.  Think of how many hundreds of houses would fit in an interchange like 35E and 694 in the Twin Cities.  And bulldozing houses in the cities means that houses have to be built farther out, which means more people have to drive longer distances to get anywhere, which means bigger highways have to be built, ...

Extreme anti-tax people think all roads should be privatized.  Let's see, the roads will need devices to scan for paid subscriptions, and toll booths to collect from non-subscribers.  Can you imagine having a toll booth every few blocks?  That would certainly decrease efficiency. Of course, over time all the toll roads in an area would be run by a company that does not answer to the public, only its shareholders.  To increase profits, the company would have to decrease maintenance.  Since the customers have no other choice, they will have to put up with the bad roads.

Be careful what you ask for!

This was inspired by Steve Elkins' "Not every enterprise can do more with less", Star Tribune, 2011-08-01.

Privileged pricing gets more public service?

One of the hot ideas for reducing congestion is to have congestion pricing for special lanes of highways. If you are willing to pay you can have access to supposedly less congested lanes. In other words, better public service is available to those willing to pay for it.

What's next? Those who are willing to pay get faster police and fire response. Your garage fire gets better response than someone's house fire? Your breakin while you were on vacation gets better response than someone being threatened by an intruder?