I guess not all government workers are bad people 👨🚒
Maybe it’s the field I work in — political communication — but the impression I get of most government workers is they are in for the money primarily, and that most government jobs are about patronage and unwarranted attention seeking. Maybe government workers fill a needed jobs, and some are competent at what they do, but they hardly are the noble public servants, helping those in need, that they use the mass media to portray themselves as. Maybe a necessary evil, but not as noble as they like to portray themselves.
But my views have softened a bit since the fire recovery efforts at John Wolcott’s house. With some careful negotiations with the fire inspector, and some help from current and former local elected officials, we were able to recover a lot of his files. The fire department was very sympathetic and helpful with the recovery effort, working to haul heavy, stinky, soggy wet boxes of files out of the house and ultimately allowed us to secure even more things from inside. They seemed genuinely caring and helpful, willing to go above the bare minimum of their jobs to help out the community. They took time they could have spent doing other activities, they spent actively assisting in the recovery efforts.
So maybe government workers do care about the communities they serve. There are good people in government, even if the incentive structures of government workers sometimes mislead them — be it campaign contributions, promotions, or other benefits from serving the politicians over the people. It’s good to know people in government sometimes actually serve the people, are willing to lend a helping hand to those in need. Not all government workers are just political hacks out for themselves.
People often argue that a high carbon tax — combined with the repealing of the income and investing taxes would be bad for the poor because it would raises prices on people who are already struggling to get by. That of course ignores the fact that they would be able to keep more of their paycheck, and if they invested rather spent their money, they would pay no taxes at all under such a system. Make it expensive to buy things, and people will buy less and invest more. There are essentials people need to have, but as prices go up, things move from essential to luxury, and people prioritize things that need in their budget.
I often hear that people complain that it’s anti-poor people to raise the prices at fast restaurants and other forms of unhealthy food, because then the poor people would have to pay more for McDonald hamburgers and Fried Chicken. But that kind of food is terribly unhealthy, and higher prices would motivate people to cook more at home and pack their lunch. Likewise, if a higher minimum wage means higher prices at fast food restaurants, and people avoid them, then it’s good for all. A peanut butter and jelly sandwich made at home might not be a healthiest option but it sure is cheaper and healthier then what you would get at a fat fryer pit. Plus then you can include carrots or celery with your lunch.
While I am not against helping the poor — good public parks, libraries and affordable or free public transit can be beneficial to the whole community — holding the line on prices of consumer goods shouldn’t come at the cost of a dirtier environment, lower wages, unsafe working environments, or reduced public health. While we all like cheap things, if we could stimulate the economy to preserve jobs by reducing taxes on economic growth, and focus more on taxes on bad things in society, we could have healthier and prosperous communities, even if folks grumbled more at gas pump or grocery store.
There is a lot of talk about infrastructure. Usually it involves building big highway bridges, wider roads, new electrical lines, or when they want to throw a bone to the greenies, maybe a stark-itect project like five miles of high speed rail or battery electric buses. Stuff that is great for ribbon cutting by the politicians but not really needed.
That’s all fine and dandy but I think the evidence is American infrastructure as it is pretty good today, we don’t need dramatic upgrades. Maybe some hardening to address climate change or integrate more renewable energy into the grid but there is already existing funding mechanisms to address that. Let individual agencies that have their own revenue sources and know best address these concerns – power companies, Department of Transportation and water authorities – not Washington politicians.
What I do think needs more investing in is the truly public infrastructure – things that can be utilized and enjoyed by all in a largely non consumptive fashion – for no charge or fee.
For example:
Supporting free, open source development projects. People should have access to quality, professional and free software that allows them to do advanced data processing and all other tasks to expand knowledge, grow their business and improve their quality of life.
Online learning – public colleges should put their lectures and teaching materials completely online. Video steaming, web storage are inexpensive these days and while there are costs associated with both generating and hosting such material – the public benefits of greater knowledge and credentialing exceed any taxpayer costs.
Public wilderness and forest areas that are largely primative except maybe for necessary roads, parking and primative campsites. Many of these improvements could be funded via timber and mineral extraction fees
Public libraries and free Wi-Fi so anybody can access the internet when they are in the public commons.
Public data repositories where government data collected in ordinary duties should be easy to obtain, download and process for all purposes public and private without copyright limitations or fees. If the government can help businesses grow by providing free data to them then they should be providing that data rather than collecting licensing fees.
I don’t believe government should be funding for profit or fee based institutions. Roads have the gas tax, power and water utilities have ratepayers fees. Many developed parks have user fees – if you pay to get in then the government shouldn’t be in the business of subsidizing them.
Let fee institutions decide what they should invest in not Washington Bureaucrats. Keep public funds for public purposes.
If only because it gives me a chance to do some analysis on the blog, crunch some numbers in R studio, make maps and other interesting content to fill space on the blog. People get all political about these kinds of things, but I enjoy just teasing out the data, without taking sides or even dulging into the politics behind all of it. Simple math and analysis.
