In 2001 I read an article by a conservative columnist, myself being far from the right usually. It was through this article I was introduced to a hazy concept that has been around for decades, and one that for whatever reason seems to have been largely associated with Ronald Reagan, and that is government waste. Inefficient government, i.e. "big" government, seems to be a favorite complaint of conservatives and Republicans, and in my observation it always leads to the argument for lower taxes, promising voters money no doubt the oldest and often most effective campaign method in many elections. But that doesn't mean on some levels the basic argument for efficient government does not carry weight. It does.
I've seen some of the same rhetoric thrown around lately in our Tribal political arena, at Council meetings, General Council sessions, and often from the mouths of my peers. I am not very sure that the root of this concept isn't also based on the same premise and belief as tax cuts, that is diverting the money spent on wasteful government into the pockets of members who vote, or voters, is always popular, and to do the opposite is equally unpopular. But that can be discussed later...
As in national politics, for all the arguments I hear for non-"big" government and efficiency, the answers to what some perceive as a real problem are about as well-defined as the actual complaint. In other words, not very much. When we talk about government efficiency, we are ultimately suggesting that there should be a quantifiable level of service(s) that citizens and in our case Tribal members are getting for their money. It is the proverbial "bang for the buck". Unfortunately, I've yet to find any sort of method by which to gauge whether or not the government is efficient. I've never heard anybody say that with a population of nearly 300,000,000 people the United States government should be able to run on "x" amount of dollars, including in those services education, police, a war overseas, highway maintenance and all the other things government does. In fact I don't see how the government of any population could be anything but "big", but then again "big" to me is probably not the same to those who would disagree with me.
On the Grand Ronde side, I've been told numerous times that the Tribal government is "too big" considering the services it provides. And for all I know it is, but once again, nobody has ever brought me a model that gets into specifics. Nobody has ever brought me the model of a Tribe that also has 5000 members, provides health care, per capita, disability, plays a role in local government, runs a community clinic, is developing local housing and community infrastructure, and said "Here Chris, see! They run provide all the same services you guys do and do it with half the employees and budget." I'd be thrilled if somebody did, as would some of my peers.
When I think back on the article from 2001, the writer had his version of waste. Being openly conservative, he of course took aim at environmental programs, and welfare. Had a liberal written the article, no doubt he would have focused on issues not rated very high by the left-leaning, like subsidies for oil companies. Which just goes to show, one man's garbage is another man's gold. What might be waste to one person is vital to another. Both might be right.
We are looking to make cuts on the government side, and not just to keep per capita at a respectable level. The revenues over the last 12 months have just not matched the previous two years. The money is just not there to spend. Somehow, we'll get it sorted out. We always do. We may not get the government efficiency part figured out though, but in my own opinion, I'm not sure anybody could.
No comments:
Post a Comment