- GulMadred
- Oct 20, 2005
-
I don't understand how you can be so mistaken.
|
Is there a reason why I shouldn't support kids being allowed to choose which public school they want to attend? It seems like a really great idea and I'm surprised that my state (NC) is actually going through with it.
It also has the potential to quickly defund a troubled school:- school does poorly on a round of standardized tests (e.g. because of statistical variance; poo poo happens)
- parents of high-performing students are alarmed; they transfer their children to nearby schools
- $x of funding is lost from the school budget for each departure
- school is left with a smaller budget but its fixed costs (e.g. heating, maintenance) remain the same. It must reduce per-student spending (and/or teacher salaries) to make up the difference.
- Note that schools have some experience in dealing with demographic shifts and long-range planning. The difference here is that you could suddenly lose 10% or more of your enrolment after a bad year and it's very hard to plan for shifts of that magnitude.
- school now has a higher proportion of special-needs students; it can either neglect them (which will often lead to students becoming frustrated and disruptive) or allocate resources from its general funds (e.g. cutback on textbooks, phys ed, music, or whatever)
- either way, faculty morale is going to take a hit
- test scores decline further
- death spiral
Note: this is based on a five-minute reading of the issue; I'm not from NC and I certainly don't understand it well enough to cast a vote on the issue. I'm just trying to identify some reasons why you might decide to oppose the measure.
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 13:44
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2024 05:42
|
|
- GulMadred
- Oct 20, 2005
-
I don't understand how you can be so mistaken.
|
Is it "fiscally conservative" if I want government spending to be curbed slightly?
- Program X has a socially useful purpose/goal (e.g. feed the hungry, heal the sick)
- Purpose has not or cannot be fulfilled by private interests or charitable groups (e.g. due to limited bargaining power of service providers, systemic racism among service providers, natural monopoly, etc)
- Program X tends to have positive externalities or second-order benefits (e.g. poverty reduction --> crime reduction) which are not or cannot be included in its fiscal calculations (because the data is really loving noisy and lag times are enormous)
- Program X is generally effective at fulfilling its purpose (e.g. limiting pollution), but does not solve the problem completely.
- Program X includes some waste and inefficiency; its administrators may even be sitting on stacks of proposals for reform
- Program X could probably achieve more social good if its mission and/or funding were expanded
The fiscally realist's response is to optimize benefits versus costs. "SNAP is currently spending $1.50 to provide 2000 kCal of food to a poor child. By end of FY2020 I want to see that number reduced to $1.40." Hence, you're giving program administrators a few options:- reduce or discontinue service to isolated areas and communities which are difficult to serve (note that this option may be preclude by law; USPS can't just say "gently caress Hawaii")
- general cost-cutting: identify and eliminate minor inefficiencies
- renegotiate contracts with employees or suppliers
- ambitious reorganization: merge departments, amalgamate or cloudify databases, eliminate duplication of services, etc. This approach is dicey and has a considerable risk of deadline slippage, but can also yield significant long-term savings if done well.
- make greater use of the resources currently available/allocated (e.g. "we have expensive MRI machines sitting idle; let's hire a second shift and run them overnight")
- expand the program to achieve greater economy-of-scale (cf. Medicaid negotiation with pharma companies - if Congress allowed them to do their jobs)
- investment - expend capital to mechanize/automate/integrate work processes so that the program's long-term performance will improve
- game the metric. Eliminate fresh vegetables from SNAP, force poor people to eat soy and millet; ignore vitamin deficiencies; take credit for a 300% improvement in efficiency. This is always a risk if the reform champion focuses too heavily on metrics and does not scrutinize the proposed reforms.
A fiscal realist will worry about the efficiency of spending; he wants to balance costs and benefits. One key idea here is that the fiscal realist should be willing to temporarily give additional money to a troubled department if it can present a credible plan for reorganization, investment, and improvement; he doesn't just expect it to magically achieve capital goals via its operating budget. If a particular program has proven itself repeatedly incapable of improving its efficiency (e.g. because of lazy/corrupt leadership, union featherbedding, or whatever) then the fiscal realist might decide to stop listening to its excuses and simply cut funding.
There are few reasons why someone would care about raw cost numbers rather than cost/benefit ratios, but none of them are compelling:- belief that costs need to be reduced urgently (e.g. economy is facing hyperinflation due to out-of-control spending; 90% debt-to-GDP cliff will destroy the national credit rating). This is counterfactual.
- belief that government programs are an unconstitutial intrusion into [state's rights | personal liberties | religious freedom | etc]. This is insincere. If you want to remove these intrusive programs then convince voters that they're intrusive and get them abolished; don't just try to gradually budget-cut them into irrelevance.
- desire to pay less in taxes. This is a personal preference, not a public policy. Public policy needs to consider the balance of factors (e.g. cut SNAP today --> more poverty --> more crime --> tax hikes next year to pay for prisons).
- disbelief in the supposed benefits of the government spending. This is usually based on poor scholarship (e.g. Paul Ryan's report on generational poverty) or simple ignorance/privilege ("I didn't need food stamps, therefore nobody needs food stamps"). If you want to argue that a government program has outlived its mandate and deserves to be cut/discontinued, then let's talk about that specific program.
- Note that this forum isn't universally in favour of government spending per se. For instance, many posters bitched about corn ethanol subsidies (and continue to bitch, in spite of the subsidy being halted a while ago).
When you skip the nuanced discussion about productivity and spending-efficiency and regulatory capture and historical performance and statistical analysis and the various goals and metrics behind social programs, yet insist on cuts... yeah, we're going to label you a "fiscal conservative."
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 21:39
|
|
- GulMadred
- Oct 20, 2005
-
I don't understand how you can be so mistaken.
|
Great. However, private donations helped cover some of the cost in that article.
If we implemented this thing nationwide tomorrow, your tax bill would go down. Stop opposing it out of blind stubborn stupidity.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 00:00
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 13:44
