Privatizing state resources to save money?

[PLAYER57832]

click to hear the interview:
http://wpsu.org/radio/single_entry/LL-4 ... enoteradio
(There is no transcript of the main program, at least yet.. so follow the link to listen. Below are a few related articles posted with the interview.)

Take Note Radio: Privatization
Posted in Take Note Radio, 2013-04-07

A number of privatization initiatives have been proposed in Pennsylvania in recent years. A combination of state and local budget crises has prompted these so-called public-private partnerships that seek to transfer ownership of public assets or services to the private sector in exchange for lump sums of money. Everything from the state lottery to liquor sales and even prisons are up for grabs. The belief among proponents of these deals is that the private sector can do many things better—and usually for less money—than governments can. Critics say privatization often exploits financial hardship, undermines democracy and, in the long-run costs taxpayers money. Here to talk about that is Ellen Dannin, a law professor at Penn State and a leading legal expert on these public-private deals.

Some accompanying citations:
http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/predat ... ermining-d

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1776350

http://articles.philly.com/2012-06-20/n ... trol-board

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index. ... _in_t.html

A cynic could see a pattern here... get people to oppose higher taxes, let the structures fail until people are desperate enough to agree to privatization, of in quick deals... and then sit back and laugh while you collect the money.

[BigBallinStalin]

Can you explain your last paragraph more?

I don't understand why an organization would want to lose control (thus commanding a smaller budget) over their assets. If they need to justify taxation/deficit spending, then having stuff to actually finance helps.

[thegreekdog]

Can you explain your last paragraph more?

I don't understand why an organization would want to lose control (thus commanding a smaller budget) over their assets. If they need to justify taxation/deficit spending, then having stuff to actually finance helps.

Oh please... she doesn't even know what her last paragraph means.

[oVo]

Is this because private contractors has been so cost effective
in the Iraq War. absolute sarcasm

It seems like just one more way to corrupt a democratic system
as private corporations scramble to influence elected officials
and gain large contracts. There's no reason why a truly effective
government can't hire responsible & qualified people to manage
these public assets in a practical way.

[Lootifer]

HEY US TOO!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mighty_River_Power#Future

[thegreekdog]

Is this because private contractors has been so cost effective
in the Iraq War. absolute sarcasm

It seems like just one more way to corrupt a democratic system
as private corporations scramble to influence elected officials
and gain large contracts. There's no reason why a truly effective
government can't hire responsible & qualified people to manage
these public assets in a practical way.

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but why does this bother you (and Player) but not government spending generally?

[PLAYER57832]

Can you explain your last paragraph more?

I don't understand why an organization would want to lose control (thus commanding a smaller budget) over their assets. If they need to justify taxation/deficit spending, then having stuff to actually finance helps.

Oh please... she doesn't even know what her last paragraph means.

You are a true piece of work.

Or, more likely too heavily vested in the system to even bother to question it.

You think all this family values and cut taxes came out of no where? Ask yourself what would really happen if the so-called "conservative agenda" is really fulfilled.

You yourself have stated many times that most proclaiming conservativism are not really conservative. That part is correct, sort of.. if you think conservative means specific values. If you think conservative has the more traditional meaning of maintaining the status quo, then that is exactly what they are doing. Or rather, not so much "maintaining" as shoring up the power of those already at the top, already in power, with money. THAT is the ultimate goal of those behind the Republicans and, to a very slighltly lesser extent, the Democrats... and basically every other political movement out there that is actually achieving anything today.

The only real counter is the green party and its a joke.

[PLAYER57832]

Is this because private contractors has been so cost effective
in the Iraq War. absolute sarcasm

It seems like just one more way to corrupt a democratic system
as private corporations scramble to influence elected officials
and gain large contracts. There's no reason why a truly effective
government can't hire responsible & qualified people to manage
these public assets in a practical way.

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but why does this bother you (and Player) but not government spending generally?

There is no such thing as "government spending generally"

You seem to be buying into the rhetoric that the government is some kind of remote entity. The government is us.. and like us, it is made up of many people with many, many, many different goals.

Most of what is done through government is needed, valuable and not profitable when put in the private sector. That doesn't mean the private sector is bad, it means that it is fundamentally different from the government/public sector and should be.

Beyond that, the government, like business certainly has areas where it needs to be more efficient.

But, one reason why the government is inefficient is inherent to why it works. Its part of the checks and balances. The EPA is not in cohoots with the Office of Surface mining or the Forest Service, None of them are in cahoots with the IRS or transportation departments, never mind the bureau of tobacco and firearms. None of those agencies have much of anything to do with NOAA... etc,. These competitions lead to natural inefficiencies. That is just one of many fundamental differences between government and business. A business can diversify, but always has one essential goal.. making money. Government has multiple goals and gets pulled in multiple directions, not only because people have very different goals, wants and needs, but also as people change their minds, conditions change, etc.

[Night Strike]

Is this because private contractors has been so cost effective
in the Iraq War. absolute sarcasm

It seems like just one more way to corrupt a democratic system
as private corporations scramble to influence elected officials
and gain large contracts. There's no reason why a truly effective
government can't hire responsible & qualified people to manage
these public assets in a practical way.

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but why does this bother you (and Player) but not government spending generally?

There is no such thing as "government spending generally"

You seem to be buying into the rhetoric that the government is some kind of remote entity. The government is us.. and like us, it is made up of many people with many, many, many different goals.

Most of what is done through government is needed, valuable and not profitable when put in the private sector. That doesn't mean the private sector is bad, it means that it is fundamentally different from the government/public sector and should be.

If the government were us, it would actually balance its budget or have actual repercussions for going into massive amounts of debt. And I don't think we need so much from the government that they need to spend $4 trillion a year.

[PLAYER57832]

[
If the government were us, it would actually balance its budget or have actual repercussions for going into massive amounts of debt. And I don't think we need so much from the government that they need to spend $4 trillion a year.

The government doesn't balance because too many people have the idea that they are just supposed to fight for what THEY want and that any kind of compromise, listening to the "other side", or even listening to facts that disagree with their ideas means failure.

In short, the government is failing becuase it does represent a lot of people who think pretty much like you.

[/]

Unfortunately the system is current set so that it's an enormous pain to hire public employees, and it's even worse at firing them.
So they turn to contractors who essentially exist in a shadow world free from any scrutiny, public or private.

A main problem is the disconnection between the varied experts within the system. If the system was working properly, contracts would look like actual contracts. "Build X with in X days; we estimate this can be budgeted within X dollars." Failure to work within these limits would hold the contractor liable, just like in the real world.

Instead, the government just looks at the bottom line without putting in the needed preparation. An expert company has been in business for 50 years, they've done thousands of projects like this globally, and they say it will take seven million dollars, on the other hand, this new upstart company says they can do it for five million!
Ten years later the underbidders have run out of money for the fourth time and the government's solution is to throw more money and more idiots at it.

[Night Strike]

[
If the government were us, it would actually balance its budget or have actual repercussions for going into massive amounts of debt. And I don't think we need so much from the government that they need to spend $4 trillion a year.

The government doesn't balance because too many people have the idea that they are just supposed to fight for what THEY want and that any kind of compromise, listening to the "other side", or even listening to facts that disagree with their ideas means failure.

In short, the government is failing becuase it does represent a lot of people who think pretty much like you.

ROFLMAO!!!! So it's the fault of people who want a smaller government that the government is massive and its spending is out of control?! You are a true piece of work.

[PLAYER57832]

Unfortunately the system is current set so that it's an enormous pain to hire public employees, and it's even worse at firing them.

This is true, though ironically, it is also true for any large corporation.
In fact, public entities tend to get around this by hiring temps, temporary and seasonal workers in true professional positions. Because its the government, they can do this in ways that no private company or corporation could.

Contracting has more to do with money.. but see below.

So they turn to contractors who essentially exist in a shadow world free from any scrutiny, public or private.

Those last three have far more to do with use of contractors than any inability to hire or fire.
A lot of it is a political game. A contractor means that someone is running a private business, and none of the workers appear on government roles as government employess. In a LOT of circles.. from the "Nightsrikes" (just cut government!!!) to the BBS (private enterprise is king), that alone is enough to make it a popular move. When you add in the vested interest of all those businesses eagerly waiting those lucrative contracts.. you have heavy pressure. The losers are inevitably the public, but they get sold the "look we lowered government size" bill (no.. just ignore that bald man in the corner, he is not the wizard --- aka the money it costs overall).

Some of the reasons contracts are more ironically have to do with rules meant to protect competition. Government contracts, for example, must pay either union rate or "prevailing wage" so they don't undercut independent private enterprise. However, in recent years some of the better rules, such as mandates about safety and who is hired, have not been enforced as much -- that, in part because enforcement has been a target of cuts or at least has not been expanded to match the demand. So, we see more abuses. We also see more cuts in quality. That was always something of a problem, but again, lack of oversight and heavy government hands with vested interests(Cheney, Haliburton, for example) have all made for an even bigger mess.

A main problem is the disconnection between the varied experts within the system. If the system was working properly, contracts would look like actual contracts. "Build X with in X days; we estimate this can be budgeted within X dollars." Failure to work within these limits would hold the contractor liable, just like in the real world.

There is no alternate "real world". THAT is the real problem. Government provides services not inherently condusive to profit, not inherently open to competition. Once a road is built, its built and cannot just be moved elsewhere. This is one reason why government needs to do roads. When they don't, as noted in the interview I referenced, then you get artificially imposed "non compete" or adverse action clauses. If a company builds a nice road, then they will require the government to either not maintain nearby public roads or will require the government to pay for any supposed losses.

Instead, the government just looks at the bottom line without putting in the needed preparation. An expert company has been in business for 50 years, they've done thousands of projects like this globally, and they say it will take seven million dollars, on the other hand, this new upstart company says they can do it for five million!
Ten years later the underbidders have run out of money for the fourth time and the government's solution is to throw more money and more idiots at it.

This is not correct. Its not lack of preparation, its a populace of folks who cannot be bothered to look at details if they are promised lower taxes.

Its a population of folks demanding to pay less... and wel's vote you out if you don't comply. Its a population of people very much like many of those posting here who refuse to admit that a lot of what the government does is actually needed, good, important AND far cheaper than it would be in the so-called "private" arena.

[PLAYER57832]

[
If the government were us, it would actually balance its budget or have actual repercussions for going into massive amounts of debt. And I don't think we need so much from the government that they need to spend $4 trillion a year.

The government doesn't balance because too many people have the idea that they are just supposed to fight for what THEY want and that any kind of compromise, listening to the "other side", or even listening to facts that disagree with their ideas means failure.

In short, the government is failing becuase it does represent a lot of people who think pretty much like you.

ROFLMAO!!!! So it's the fault of people who want a smaller government that the government is massive and its spending is out of control?! You are a true piece of work.

It is when you make demands without bothering to understand the consequences.
Privatization mostly does NOT save money, doesn't really save tax dollars, but it does, technically reduce the size of government.

So.. you are all for it, and ignore the fact that it won't really wind up saving taxpayers money at all. So, yes.. it is very much the fault of those people.. people very much like you.

And... it doesn't seem as if you even bothered with the interview, which pretty much addressed your very point.

[BigBallinStalin]

HEY US TOO!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mighty_River_Power#Future

Yeah, but only 10% of the shares/ownership is allowed to go to foreigners.

[BigBallinStalin]

Can you explain your last paragraph more?

I don't understand why an organization would want to lose control (thus commanding a smaller budget) over their assets. If they need to justify taxation/deficit spending, then having stuff to actually finance helps.

Oh please... she doesn't even know what her last paragraph means.

You are a true piece of work.

Or, more likely too heavily vested in the system to even bother to question it.

You think all this family values and cut taxes came out of no where? Ask yourself what would really happen if the so-called "conservative agenda" is really fulfilled.

You yourself have stated many times that most proclaiming conservativism are not really conservative. That part is correct, sort of.. if you think conservative means specific values. If you think conservative has the more traditional meaning of maintaining the status quo, then that is exactly what they are doing. Or rather, not so much "maintaining" as shoring up the power of those already at the top, already in power, with money. THAT is the ultimate goal of those behind the Republicans and, to a very slighltly lesser extent, the Democrats... and basically every other political movement out there that is actually achieving anything today.

The only real counter is the green party and its a joke.

So, where's that explanation on that last paragraph of yours?

[BigBallinStalin]

Is this because private contractors has been so cost effective
in the Iraq War. absolute sarcasm

It seems like just one more way to corrupt a democratic system
as private corporations scramble to influence elected officials
and gain large contracts. There's no reason why a truly effective
government can't hire responsible & qualified people to manage
these public assets in a practical way.

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but why does this bother you (and Player) but not government spending generally?

There is no such thing as "government spending generally"

You seem to be buying into the rhetoric that the government is some kind of remote entity. The government is us.. and like us, it is made up of many people with many, many, many different goals.

You're thinking of the "State." The government is a particular organization distinct from civil society. Economic life, civil society/social institutions, and government are considered by many to be the main parts of a "State." Others call it "society," but both of those words have different meanings for different thinkers and are generally silly.

They're sometimes used to gloss over the important details, e.g. "There is no tension between the government and the people. Within the State, we the people maintain control and are supreme and/or counterbalance."

[thegreekdog]

Can you explain your last paragraph more?

I don't understand why an organization would want to lose control (thus commanding a smaller budget) over their assets. If they need to justify taxation/deficit spending, then having stuff to actually finance helps.

Oh please... she doesn't even know what her last paragraph means.

You are a true piece of work.

Or, more likely too heavily vested in the system to even bother to question it.

You think all this family values and cut taxes came out of no where? Ask yourself what would really happen if the so-called "conservative agenda" is really fulfilled.

You yourself have stated many times that most proclaiming conservativism are not really conservative. That part is correct, sort of.. if you think conservative means specific values. If you think conservative has the more traditional meaning of maintaining the status quo, then that is exactly what they are doing. Or rather, not so much "maintaining" as shoring up the power of those already at the top, already in power, with money. THAT is the ultimate goal of those behind the Republicans and, to a very slighltly lesser extent, the Democrats... and basically every other political movement out there that is actually achieving anything today.

The only real counter is the green party and its a joke.

Are you for real?

Red - You accuse me of being a shill of the "system."
Blue - You note where the family values and tax cuts come from.
Green - Note the alternative and dismiss it.

But, wait, there's more!

You seem to be buying into the rhetoric that the government is some kind of remote entity. The government is us.. and like us, it is made up of many people with many, many, many different goals.

Whazzat? How can you do red and blue and then talk about how the government is not really bad and it's a bunch of competing people and it's all about us? Do you understand how inconsistent you are? And I'm the shill? I'm the status quo guy? Please Player, grow up.

As I said before in another thread, you defend the way our government works when the government does what you want it to do; on the other hand, when the government doesn't do what you want it to do, you denigrate the way our government works. You've done it here in the same thread... in two posts... both in response to two of my posts. You literally took hypocritical positions in two consecutive posts. How do you not see this? Either accept the use of soft money, lobbying, and the like and don't use it as an argument against laws you don't like or don't accept the use of soft money, lobbying, and the like and use it in arguments against all laws, including the ones you like.

[BigBallinStalin]

Unfortunately the system is current set so that it's an enormous pain to hire public employees, and it's even worse at firing them.
So they turn to contractors who essentially exist in a shadow world free from any scrutiny, public or private.

A main problem is the disconnection between the varied experts within the system. If the system was working properly, contracts would look like actual contracts. "Build X with in X days; we estimate this can be budgeted within X dollars." Failure to work within these limits would hold the contractor liable, just like in the real world.

Instead, the government just looks at the bottom line without putting in the needed preparation. An expert company has been in business for 50 years, they've done thousands of projects like this globally, and they say it will take seven million dollars, on the other hand, this new upstart company says they can do it for five million!
Ten years later the underbidders have run out of money for the fourth time and the government's solution is to throw more money and more idiots at it.

I know that in the US military, this isn't the case. The 'good ol boys,' i.e those companies which have been in the game for a long time, get the contracts, and "run out of money for the fourth time and the government's solution is to throw more money and more idiots at it."

It's not a competitive process. Underlying those exchanges is 'political clout', not superior quality or performance. It's an "old boy network."

[Lootifer]

HEY US TOO!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mighty_River_Power#Future

Yeah, but only 10% of the shares/ownership is allowed to go to foreigners.

You want to buy our shit?

I dont see why you would view that limitation as a bad thing; sure its pretty nationalist but the practical impact of it should be fairly meaningless (unless theres a difference between local and foriegn investers?).

[BigBallinStalin]

HEY US TOO!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mighty_River_Power#Future

Yeah, but only 10% of the shares/ownership is allowed to go to foreigners.

You want to buy our shit?

I dont see why you would view that limitation as a bad thing; sure its pretty nationalist but the practical impact of it should be fairly meaningless (unless theres a difference between local and foriegn investers?).

I view it with interest--but neither with scorn nor approval. I am neutral, impassive, and observant--like a stoner.

IIRC, they're only selling 49% of the shares, so it's not really "privatization" (which is a word thrown around a lot with random abandon).

I kind of like the 39% to 'locals' policy because it may limit that principal-agent problem, in that if the owners are local, and if the producer creates local problems, then the owners would have a greater chance of stemming that kind of bad behavior. If your dog crapped on someone's yard 1000 miles away, and you weren't even there, then how much would you care?

(I wonder if the locals can buy those shares them sell them to non-locals after some given time... Hey, Loot. I may have a favor to ask... )

[Lootifer]

I think its only the initial offering that is limited to residents. Pretty sure once the 49% is all sold and the company is listed on the NZX then as long as you can trade on the NZX you can buy shares.

But it is a utility; I imagine trading volume will be pretty small so it may take a while to accumlate a decent shareholding.

[PLAYER57832]

Can you explain your last paragraph more?

I don't understand why an organization would want to lose control (thus commanding a smaller budget) over their assets. If they need to justify taxation/deficit spending, then having stuff to actually finance helps.

Oh please... she doesn't even know what her last paragraph means.

You are a true piece of work.

Or, more likely too heavily vested in the system to even bother to question it.

You think all this family values and cut taxes came out of no where? Ask yourself what would really happen if the so-called "conservative agenda" is really fulfilled.

You yourself have stated many times that most proclaiming conservativism are not really conservative. That part is correct, sort of.. if you think conservative means specific values. If you think conservative has the more traditional meaning of maintaining the status quo, then that is exactly what they are doing. Or rather, not so much "maintaining" as shoring up the power of those already at the top, already in power, with money. THAT is the ultimate goal of those behind the Republicans and, to a very slighltly lesser extent, the Democrats... and basically every other political movement out there that is actually achieving anything today.

The only real counter is the green party and its a joke.

So, where's that explanation on that last paragraph of yours?

The agendas being put forward today by those claiming to be "conservative", pretend to be a lot of things, but are really just about boosting further the powerful, the biggest business and those who already have a lot of cash. Some do it out of a kind of "eyes open" idea that they will benefit ; some, most notably many of the Tea Partiers, have deluded themselves into thinking they are pursuing some other ideal. It doesn't really matter. By failing to really look forward they are just allowing themselves to be manipulated.

When I was younger, I can remember arguments by the John Birch Society and then the Liberaterians. I had a teenage penchant for debating politics. That their arguments sounded fairly similar did not bother me at all. In retrospect, it does.


Or, to put it even more simply.. it doesn't matter if you want to cut taxes so much that government cannot do its jobs or just want to cut government itself so they cannot operate as it should, the result is that others wind up taking over, excercising the control and power that, in a democratic type government (democratic hybrids, of course, since there is no real 100% democracy) rightfully belongs with the elected representatives of the people.

Cutting back government leaves plenty of room for big business to do as it will, to ride over anyone in its way. For all greekdog, et al talk about wanting freedom, you are all more than happy to just hand it over so someone else can make a profit.

You BBS have the illusion that business left alone will somehow control itself and result in something that will somehow be beneficial for society. That is just false, not based on facts at all.. no matter how much you pretend it is. The fact is that the market is great at putting sugar coatings on pills once pills are invented, sometimes at discovering the idea of a pill... but not at finding the basic powders that need to go into the pill and not at discovering the harm that will come from the additives to the coating, unless the harm is very quick.

You asked me earlier what brought the 1950's. The answer is really a strong government. A strong government people believed in led to the 1960's, the moon, more college educated adults than ever before, civil rights, women's rights, and many other benefits we now just take for granted.

[BigBallinStalin]

A cynic could see a pattern here... get people to oppose higher taxes, let the structures fail until people are desperate enough to agree to privatization, of in quick deals... and then sit back and laugh while you collect the money.

The agendas being put forward today by those claiming to be "conservative", pretend to be a lot of things, but are really just about boosting further the powerful, the biggest business and those who already have a lot of cash. Some do it out of a kind of "eyes open" idea that they will benefit ; some, most notably many of the Tea Partiers, have deluded themselves into thinking they are pursuing some other ideal. It doesn't really matter. By failing to really look forward they are just allowing themselves to be manipulated.

Summary:
So, 'conservatives' are self-seeking agenda-pushers who bolster the powerful, biggest business.
The Tea Party is deluded.

When I was younger, I can remember arguments by the John Birch Society and then the Liberaterians. I had a teenage penchant for debating politics. That their arguments sounded fairly similar did not bother me at all. In retrospect, it does.

Summary:
The John Birch Society and the Libertarians make fairly similar arguments.

Or, to put it even more simply.. it doesn't matter if you want to cut taxes so much that government cannot do its jobs or just want to cut government itself so they cannot operate as it should, the result is that others wind up taking over, excercising the control and power that, in a democratic type government (democratic hybrids, of course, since there is no real 100% democracy) rightfully belongs with the elected representatives of the people.

Cutting back government leaves plenty of room for big business to do as it will, to ride over anyone in its way. For all greekdog, et al talk about wanting freedom, you are all more than happy to just hand it over so someone else can make a profit.

Summary:
By limiting government spending (federal government, I presume) and its power, then "others take over" somehow without having access to the 'legitimate' monopoly of force, i.e. the use of violence. Well, that makes no sense because without state-mandated monopoly and privileges, then the Old Guard of business face extremely deadly competition for themselves. Pretty hard to 'force' people to buy your product when the gates to more markets have been fully opened to competitors.

You BBS have the illusion that business left alone will somehow control itself and result in something that will somehow be beneficial for society. That is just false, not based on facts at all.. no matter how much you pretend it is. The fact is that the market is great at putting sugar coatings on pills once pills are invented, sometimes at discovering the idea of a pill... but not at finding the basic powders that need to go into the pill and not at discovering the harm that will come from the additives to the coating, unless the harm is very quick.

Summary:
1. Markets are not self-enforcing, nor can they--if left alone--will be beneficial for society. (What about competitive certification agencies, FOCJs? What is the optimal scope and amount of government? I digress).
2. Markets can't find basic powders for making a pill. (um wut. The government dumps money into that market to discover these innovations..., and others can do this without government funding, but I digress).
3. Pill Producers are oblivious to the lawsuits concerning their coating of pills--unless the harm is quick. (Well, that's a statute of limitations issue, which is problem with the government. It's also a certification problem, which is monopolized by the federal government (FDA). Apparently, you have a problem with government-provided courts and the FDA, yet characterize that as the 'doings' of the market. Given this misunderstanding, it doesn't seem clear that you can really offer a strong criticism against markets).

You asked me earlier what brought the 1950's. The answer is really a strong government. A strong government people believed in led to the 1960's, the moon, more college educated adults than ever before, civil rights, women's rights, and many other benefits we now just take for granted.

Summary:
Big Government creates the 1960s, the trip to the moon, more college education, civil rights, and women's rights.

You do know that some of these were strongly resisted by those within the government--and through the means of government, right?
Anyway, correlation != causation. Civil society != Big Government. The relevant ideas, institutions, and market-backed processes of production of space ships, music, education, marketing of such ideas, etc. are not solely within the realm of Big Government. All of this is implicit within your claim, but obviously it's incorrect. Finally, it's not wise to leave out the costs of a 'benefit-only' analysis. That would lead to a jaded view...

A cynic could see a pattern here... get people to oppose higher taxes, let the structures fail until people are desperate enough to agree to privatization, of in quick deals... and then sit back and laugh while you collect the money.

What's that mean?
Agenda-setting 'conservatives' and presumably 'libertarians' and John Birchers get people to oppose higher taxes, let unknown structures fail (government programs, I guess)--somehow they have this power to make them fail, and not at all is it due to bureaucratic incompetence, and then people seek privatization (but not 'more government spending' or 'higher taxes'), and then THEY sit back and laugh while THEY collect the money--whoever THEY are. 'Conservatives' I guess, whoever they are too.

1. Obviously, the unmentioned, who are pro-big government, attain the same outcomes (helping big business). Others who can't be crammed into black-and-white views (conservative, liberal, etc.) also appeal to the government to attain similar outcomes which you dislike (via rent-seeking). So, steps toward bigger government attain the outcomes which you dislike, but it's interesting that you omit this. I already mentioned many other problems in the parentheses, so good luck

2. Ideally, I'm for free markets, less/zero government, I'm morally libertarian with a helping of consequentialism, which in turn makes me, Practically, a person who wants more people to become more cognizant of the actual political process and the market process, and basically smaller, centralized government. This entails battering down one's ideology, which apparently blinds people like you and JB (note the Unmentioned portion of your argument).

[Night Strike]

Or, to put it even more simply.. it doesn't matter if you want to cut taxes so much that government cannot do its jobs or just want to cut government itself so they cannot operate as it should, the result is that others wind up taking over, excercising the control and power that, in a democratic type government (democratic hybrids, of course, since there is no real 100% democracy) rightfully belongs with the elected representatives of the people.

Except that what happens in your world view, and that has already happened in this nation, is that the government grows so big that it can no longer operate as it should. A government that is too small and a government that is too big are both bad things. The issue here is that we're already at the too big part and you progressives want to grow it even more, while the Tea Partiers, conservatives, and libertarians want to keep the size the same or try to pull it back a little bit.