Government Spending...

Listening to NPR the other day, I was inspired to write about "Government Spending". Some don't want Government Spending, some do. Some think it's excessive, some don't. Some think it stimulates the economy, some think it is a wet blanket, due to the implied increases in debt, and resulting increase in  interest rates.

So my two cent's worth is illustrated as follows: Government spending is spending, so how can it be bad? "Stuff" - airplanes, reams of paper, ink cartridges, automobiles - the "stuff" never needs the money. What the money is for is to pay people - people who find and produce raw materials, people who convert raw materials into goods, people who ship goods to end users. So every time you hear "Government Spending", think "paychecks". Paychecks are for people - somewhere, somehow, some way.

So, if "Government Spending" results in paychecks, then how can any of it be "bad"? Why wouldn't we side with some, and just spend all we can?

In a word - competition.

This is what the spenders either don't consider, or don't tell you. How many times does government spending pay for someone to be "not productive" or how often is that paycheck provided to procure a deadbeat who is not adding value?

Here's an example. I recently returned from on overseas trip through one of our international airports, where customs was backed up. I had a two hour lay-over, and still missed my connecting flight to my US destination. Why? Because there were only a couple of Customs Employees to clear 4 international flight's worth of passengers, who happened to arrive, due to weather delays and such" at the same time. Maybe a bunch of people called in sick? Maybe there was a scheduling snafu with coverage being there for the anticipated arrival of the flights, but being let go before the weather-delayed jets actually arrived? Maybe there were union "problems"?

Now, imagine if there had been allowed, for the sake of example, a couple of competitive commercial contractors to provide this clearance service. And suppose that one ran a business model that was "free of charge", using only the government revenue for its services, and another one also had this government revenue, but also charged a premium for the faster clearance it was able to legally deliver, due to some innovative employee scheduling technology, scanning equipment, or some other innovation.

I would have opted to pay the fee to get through the quicker line. Many would have that day I was stuck in this line.

If enough people did this, then the "free" business model would, well, go out of business.

The point being that a free market has been established, in which there is competition, with government over-sight as to a fair playing field and the adherence to a minimum level of service quality. And the market has now driven the business model to develop those innovations and tools that would allow it to be competitive, and to succeed where some fail.

Typically, with 'Government Spending" we don't get to see that competition model enter into the provision of goods and services. If the government is incompetent or inefficient in its service model, there is nothing to prompt change, improvement or  innovation. It is, in effect, a monopoly, where only one source of provision is available.

And therein, is the gripe. The government may forever function inefficiently or incompetently, using dated technologies (or none at all) simply because it is a monopoly in that service category, and is not motivated by any competition to thrive or survive.

Granted, the government has to be the provider of some items, as we aren't going to float particular services out to the capitalist market places. In some case, though, there is room to challenge why some goods and services are not privatized, with the government providing oversight as to the fairness of the playing field and the provision of a minimum level of competent and qualified service.

Imagine two organizations within government having to compete with each other to provide a given service, with the one running the best business model, which adds the most value, as measured by actual customer choice and preferences, being the one which gets funded the next year. Why not?

I'd like to hear those that are yelling for less government spending to change their mantra. Nobody minds government spending, as long as it is efficient, effective, and subject to competition, somehow and someway.

And I wish those who want more spending would realize that to continue to throw money at archaic, broken provision systems, which have not been subject to some kind of scrutiny, with an eye to that provision being competitive and able to survive privatization intact, might be a welcome offer to the other side, in terms of gaining additional spending where the government does this provision really well.

At a time when private schools are more effective (based on test scores) than public ones at providing education, for example, it begs a visit into "Government Spending". May be a bad example, because the public schools have to take all the kids, the private ones don't, but...

It's not the spending that is the problem; it's the way of spending and the what of spending that is the problem.

If any spending is inherently unproductive and does not add value in excess of the spending, then competition should assure that the archaic way of provision dies out, in favor of greater efficiency, quality and competence at the same cost. This is just basic market mechanics, and it is sometimes missing in the general category of spending known as "Government Spending".

Let's think of "Government Spending" in these terms, rather than "too much / not enough". After all, all spending goes in someone's pocket. Let's just make sure that the pocket it goes in is working their butt off for their customer everyday, and trying to continually improve efficiencies and quality.