Tuesday, September 14, 2010

So what's worse??? Paying for bureaucrats to be employed or having them on the dole?

Okay, so driving home yesterday I was listening to 890 AM (WLS).  Unfortunately Roe Conn was on--I swear I just leave it on the station by habit because I think I'm getting a more balanced view from NPR--at least NPR is bias you can be sure of.  In any case, he's bringing up the liberal point that if the federal government starts cutting programs, then all of those overpaid feds riding on our tax dollars will then be out of work and will be on the dole like a whole lot of Americans from the private sector. 

And it started me thinking....  would that be cost effective?  And my answer is 'yes'.  Because we'd be paying a flat fee, no benefits, no retirement, and there would eventually be an end to it once their unemployment runs out (in 2305, the way they keep extending it).  And once they start downsizing the federal government then a whole lot of other institutions (higher ed for example) could start cutting because a lot of the administrative bloat in higher education is a direct response to increased demands from the feds, the state, and various accredititing bodies.

The way I figure it, with the tax savings from the downsizing going to the folks who need it (small business owners--yes, those who, on paper, make more than $250,000/year) then the private sector can gear up and hire these people to do productive work rather than paper pushing.  Of course many of those highly educated folks will think that regular work may be beneath them and won't take advantage of new opportunities, but they are the folks that need to be thinned from the herd anyway.

So am I missing some crucial economic point or have I just busted the new liberal meme regarding the downsizing of the federal government??

No comments: