For those that want to point out the Gov. Patrick has witness first hand the tragedies of heroin addiction in his own family…I’ve heard the speech, but it is the actions of his administration that matter.
johnksays
of pointing to one thing, like the DC office, and talk about cuts that have been made in many different programs. The dollars don’t equal. We have a DC office but we cut, then you can list 100 items that got cut. But you know what? The dollars don’t match.
<
p>The DC office is not going to put us in the black, and maybe those 100 programs get cut anyway, even without the DC office. You have no idea.
johnksays
what about the Medicaid waiver? We’re talking about “B”illions of dollars. Would we have received millions less? The fact of the matter is that the office likely paid for itself many times over already. Let’s not screw ourselves over by not getting additional millions and cut more programs because of some false symbol created by the House Republicans.
frankskeffingtonsays
…or the state aviation board (we do have the freaking FAA after all). I don’t give a rat’s *ss if I use a Republican symbol. I think it’s foolish for you to defend the closing of a treatment center that saves lives (and money) because I use a Republican symbol of gov. waste.
<
p>Again, it’s a question of priorities and we have a $27 billion or so budget and are you saying that keeping a former campaign worker employed at the State House should be bigger priority that keeping a substance abuse counselor employed down in Bridgewater? Because that is what’s happening.
frankskeffingtonsays
I could have mentioned spending money on the Franklin Park zoo and a zillion other budget priorities that are apparently more important to the Patrick Administration than this treatment center–so the only trap I fall into is brevity for to get my point across.
<
p>And please note, this facility that treats 1500 people a year, has not been cut…it is scheduled to be eliminated. So we do in fact have a pretty good idea of what has or has not been slated to be closed, as opposed to experiencing budget cuts.
<
p>I have one simple point to make…budget actions reflect the true values of the Governor. The Executive branch apparently feels that restoring budget cuts to the zoo are more important than keeping a substance abuse center open. Every decision that the Patrick Administration makes in terms of budget cuts reflects their values, and right now I deeply question their priorities.
johnksays
You have a beef with the legislature not Patrick. I think you have gone a little far to trying to push this argument. The fact of the matter is that Patrick’s actions like the DC Office have probably spared more cuts than we face today. Including those who are most vulnerable.
frankskeffingtonsays
…that within a $27 billion budget that all other items have a greater priority that a last resort substance abuse treatment center for 1500 people…
johnksays
I’m just highlighting the Patrick’s values bull you are shoveling. Not the programs themselves.
<
p>Where do you think some of that medicaid waiver goes towards?
<
p>Yes, the situation stinks, the country is trying to pull itself out of a near depression and we do not have the money that we used to. We cannot pay for everything that we once did and valid and needed programs are cut or ended.
<
p>But the fact of the matter is that Patrick and some of his policies have prevented additional cuts.
working with the recovery community to close the sales tax loophole on alcohol last spring. The original intent and hope of the Governor and the substance abuse community was to direct the entire proceeds (estimated about $90 million) to substance abuse line item which had already suffered two rounds of 9C cuts in FY 09.
<
p>In the end the legislature authorized a 6.25 sales tax on alcohol sold in package stores and dedicated about $20 million to a level funded substance abuse line item (about $85 million) which does include some “new services”, but had already forced cuts in some of the programs that so offend Judge Coven. Of course he has to see them every day. Most of us with substance abuse problems have families to support us and/or are more discreet.
<
p>Recovery advocates now have three fights on their hands — making sure the governor does not make further 9c cuts in the substance abuse line item in October, making sure the Governor’s House 1 budget maintains current levels (approx $85 million) which is not nearly enough, hence does not begin to address the long waiting lists and organizing a Vote No Committee on the repeal of the alcohol tax being waged by the package store owners.
<
p>Do the Judge and all of us a favor and don’t sign the petition.
frankskeffingtonsays
The bottom line is that, according DPH #s, deaths from substance abuse have not declined during the Patrick Administration. Sure they claim progress because the year to year increases in fatal overdoses have not been as substantial as in the past, but the number still goes up.
<
p>Again, it’ all about priorities and frankly, if the Patrick Administration had put as much time and focus on tackling the substance abuse problems in the state, as they did the CORI issue, there would have a lot less dead people in Massachusetts and the problem would have improved, instead of “stabilized”. (Yes, the two issues are somewhat related, that’s why I compared them…it’s all about choosing priorities and I think the Patrick Administration picked the wrong priority to focus on.)
be standing in a place that judges which of the multiple barriers to to our friends and neighbors living successful lives need to be removed first.
<
p>And besides you are correct, the two issues, substance abuse and CORI are related, since many of the population in our state prisons are young people (under 25) who are there because they abused or sold addictive substances. They (sometimes) get clean in prison, and get out and can’t get a job because of their record. Of course they can go back to their old life.
<
p>Do you think your death data includes information on the dead person’s criminal records and status of employment?
frankskeffingtonsays
…but stand it next to the fact that almost 2 people die each day in this state from a very preventable problem–heroin and opiate use–and I’ll put my time and resources into the issue that saves lives…
<
p>And with 1500 less substance abuse beds in the state…their will be a lot more people getting criminal records now…so in many ways, this treatment center prevents people from getting a CORI (and in many cases, adding to a CORI)
DISTRICT COURT CHIEF WARNS PATRICK ON TREATMENT CENTER CLOSING
The Patrick administration’s shuttering of a substance abuse treatment center will force judges to choose between ignoring state law or threatening corrections officials with contempt of court unless they provide adequate treatment programs, the state’s top district court judge has told Gov. Deval Patrick. The closure of the Bridgewater program would “eliminate this ‘safety net’ required for addicted men” under state law, District Court Chief Justice Lynda Connolly told Patrick in a Sept. 3 letter obtained by the News Service. …………Connolly said that if the state were to change the requirements for complying with the relevant state law, she needed to relay information to judges, clinicians, and probation officials, saying currently judges are in the “highly undesirable position” of flouting the law themselves or ordering Department of Corrections officials to accept the civil commitments “under pain of contempt.”
…………State Sen. Jennifer Flanagan, co-chair of the Committee on Mental Health and Substance Abuse, doubted whether that reassignment plan would save costs, and said DOC had not responded to her requests. “There’s no clear answer to what’s going to happen,” Flanagan said.
somervilletomsays
We are debating, essentially, which toe to cut off because we’ve already slashed tax revenues well past the point of sustainability. This, while all around us:
<
p>
Fenway park routinely sells out with astronomical ticket prices.
Houses and condos are still being advertised and sold at multi-million dollar prices
People are still paying landscaping crews to burn gasoline blowing leaves and dust from one place to another (instead of sweeping and raking)
People are still driving jet-skis, ATVs, snow-mobiles, and who knows what else for pleasure.
Our highways through, in and out of the city are still choked with SUVs and pickup trucks that guzzle too-cheap gas.
Our children are still playing soccer, football, and baseball on expensive, well-manicured, well-lighted fields and stadiums.
<
p>Instead of setting up the tradeoff between necessary social services and a necessary DC office, I’d prefer us be asking:
Are the wealthiest top five percent of Massachusetts residents paying more or less taxes than they were ten years ago?
How much Massachusetts consumer spending (aggregate) is for entertainment, luxury, and discretionary items in comparison to ten years ago?
Is there any pain-point at which we will say “enough is enough” when it comes to tax-cutting?
<
p>For nearly thirty years (since prop 2 1/2), self-centered “populist” politicians and talk-show hosts have been “starving the beast” of local government. They are succeeding, and our public services and infrastructure are collapsing and our neediest populations are — literally — dying.
<
p>Do we care, or is our own collective greed going to continue to drive us towards genuine societal collapse — so long as it’s “somebody else” who suffers?
frankskeffingtonsays
…and one is we can’t provide basic human services without greasing the wheels of government.
<
p>All you have demonstrated with your comments is that we live in wealthy society that tolerate people dying of preventable causes. That we can agree on. But count me as someone who believes that we have the ability to look at a $27 billion budget and re-appropriate resources to more important (life-saving) priorities than is currently occurring.
<
p>You bring up large points with I don’t have the time to address, except to generally agree with the ULTIMATE need for more tax payer resources, but with a clear belief that government ahs to demonstrate it can set proper priorities as to how the money is spent. Today, I feel a substance abuse center is closing because our government can’t cut the areas of “honest graft” that makes the wheels of MA governemnt run.
maybe close a couple of prisons and release a couple thousand prisoners @ $47,000 a pop? whoops. Already doing that, without releasing anybody. Just packen’ them in. Save on a little electricity though. And heat.
frankskeffingtonsays
With many of these CEO’s making well above that, there’s a million right there…yes I am only HALF kidding.
<
p>It’s a shame that you play the same game the state plays…immediately suggesting the cutting of other services that keep people safe. Are you really suggesting that we can find $5 million in a $27 billion budget–about .02 %–to maintain this treatment center? You’re not really suggesting that the only place we can find this .02 % of the budget is by releasing a couple of thousand prisoners…that there is no other place in the budget to find that money?
<
p>BTW, outside this immediate crisis I have a feeling that you and I would agree that if we invested aggressively in treatment resources, we would in fact save millions–maybe hundreds of millions–in a variety of correctional, public safety and social service costs. But we don’t. And frankly I haven’t seen the Patrick administration do a lot in this area also. I heard a lot of campaign rhetoric about “breaking down the silos of care” but very little actual progress in changing a fundamentally broken system of care. A system that is calcified by entrenched bureaucrats and the current array of providers.
I was not proposing to cut more prisons because the Governor is already planning to close 4 prisons and jam the current tenants together in the remaining over crowded facilities, and reduce the number of correctional officers. Sounds like a prescription for another winning lawsuit to me.
<
p>
BTW, outside this immediate crisis I have a feeling that you and I would agree that if we invested aggressively in treatment resources, we would in fact save millions–maybe hundreds of millions–in a variety of correctional, public safety and social service costs.
<
p>and I totally agree with you on the immediate crisis which is, to put it bluntly, a gruesome alternative way to save money on victims of substance abuse because denying them treatment is, sooner or later, a virtual sentence of death and a savings to the Commonwealth of say $30,000 or $40,000 a year per human. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm let’s see that’s about ……………….
<
p>
frankskeffingtonsays
…there truly are a variety of ways that we need to change the way government deals with problems, and the Republican talking point examples of waste is just a small examples. To me, our human service bureaucracy is filled with examples of contradictory rules and entrenched approaches that clearly do not work and not only waste money, but create hidden societal costs that we pay in other government services or various private insurance costs.
<
p>Having disagreements with you or BrooklineTom illustrates why I spend much of my time at redmassgroup. Here I disagree in shades of gray and at RMG I disagree in broad strokes…but both are disagreements, and I do feel more uncomfortable disagreeing with someone like yourself, and feel a great deal of satisfaction disagreeing with Eabo.
to work together to do the public education on this site and in other venues to illustrate and illuminate the effect of the program cuts to victims of substance abuse and find some public officials who will fight for restoration — Mark Coven’s op ed was important. The recent court judgment was important.
<
p>Who can we find in the Legislature to take up the charge and fight for an appropriation? What other advocacy groups/parent and family groups/provider groups/church groups are there who might join us, or who may be already planning a campaign?
<
p>or we can keep commenting/disagreeing in shades of grey.
somervilletomsays
I suspect you and I agree more than we disagree on virtually every issue of substance.
<
p>The reason I take issue with your initial comment is that it supports the underlying narrative of the right-wing — “Government is inherently bad, we should therefore avoid relying on it.”
<
p>EVERY bureaucracy is filled with examples of contradictory rules, entrenched approaches that do not work and wast money, and that increase other costs. This is the nature of bureaucracy — private or public.
<
p>It seems to me that progressives have a fundamentally different underlying narrative — “Government exists to do things a society cannot do for itself.” When, and only when, individuals or non-government organizations demonstrate that they can solve a particular issue better than a government solution, then I’m receptive to shifting the burden away from government.
<
p>We have tried the Republican approach to most of the issues we are debating here, and it has failed miserably. During the period of American ascendancy, domestically and internationally, our local and federal governments played a far larger role then they now play. During the last three decades of our right-wing, populist, government-is-bad approach, we have seen:
<
p>
The virtual collapse of our economy
The failure of our education system
The failure of our health-care system
The failure of our transportation infrastructure
Hitherto unimaginable moral and human rights lapses
Striking and drastic curtailment and abandonment of individual freedoms and constitutional protections
Crushing reverses in the opportunities and freedoms available to our youth
Most importantly — a stunning concentration of wealth into the wealthiest five percent of our population
<
p>Our national experiment with the philosophy and even, yes, the theology of the right-wing has been tried and has failed.
The budget cuts are starting to be real to ordinary citizens. Parents are dropping their kids school and finding 35 kids in their classrooms and no art or music & fewer supplies. Towns are closing libraries and firehouses and even town hall itself. The list goes on. Check out ONE Massachusetts News Round a news aggregater that tracks local and statewide media on budget cuts.
<
p>The organizing opportunity because
<
p>
In the face of a slow recovery from a national fiscal crisis that has severely impacted their own lives and those of their friends and neighbors, Massachusetts residents are turning to their government for solutions and asking hard questions about how their government works, how it is funded and how those funds are being spent (or not spent) to manage the public structures that educate their children, provide a stable quality health system for their families and support all the other government programs critical to the health of a community.
the meme that every critical comment about government reenforces a Republcian talking point…and therefore liberals should not critize government. THAT puts us in a trap of many times defending the undefendable…(so what if he’s a body builder while out on a physical disablity…this is a long fought right that helps the working class). Related to this, I see how the reformers and human service advocates get played by the hacks in the Legislature…makeing them go along with tax increases, under the threat of horrible cuts to the poor, while the hacks keep their status quo system. Will I’m not a member of the sucker’s wing of the Democratic Party. Now don’t think that I think all we have to do is end “waste” and everything will be OK…and I certainly agree with you about the nature of public and private bureaucracies. But we as a society need to reform–more like blow up–both these bureuacracies as much as possible. (To a certain extent, the private sector is better at thinnning their own bureaucracies in times like these…but they do equally stupid and more destructive things like Enron or the financial collaspe of the US.)
<
p>It is my contention that is that is would only make a small difference if we could stop “waste” and that much of the “good” spending would be wasted by a bureaucracy that in unable to solve problems. I have to be critical of a system that does not end or measurably reduce social problems, but is rather a career for PhD’s who sit in meetings preaching “capicity building”, “sustainablity” and other useless jargon.
For those that want to point out the Gov. Patrick has witness first hand the tragedies of heroin addiction in his own family…I’ve heard the speech, but it is the actions of his administration that matter.
of pointing to one thing, like the DC office, and talk about cuts that have been made in many different programs. The dollars don’t equal. We have a DC office but we cut, then you can list 100 items that got cut. But you know what? The dollars don’t match.
<
p>The DC office is not going to put us in the black, and maybe those 100 programs get cut anyway, even without the DC office. You have no idea.
what about the Medicaid waiver? We’re talking about “B”illions of dollars. Would we have received millions less? The fact of the matter is that the office likely paid for itself many times over already. Let’s not screw ourselves over by not getting additional millions and cut more programs because of some false symbol created by the House Republicans.
…or the state aviation board (we do have the freaking FAA after all). I don’t give a rat’s *ss if I use a Republican symbol. I think it’s foolish for you to defend the closing of a treatment center that saves lives (and money) because I use a Republican symbol of gov. waste.
<
p>Again, it’s a question of priorities and we have a $27 billion or so budget and are you saying that keeping a former campaign worker employed at the State House should be bigger priority that keeping a substance abuse counselor employed down in Bridgewater? Because that is what’s happening.
I could have mentioned spending money on the Franklin Park zoo and a zillion other budget priorities that are apparently more important to the Patrick Administration than this treatment center–so the only trap I fall into is brevity for to get my point across.
<
p>And please note, this facility that treats 1500 people a year, has not been cut…it is scheduled to be eliminated. So we do in fact have a pretty good idea of what has or has not been slated to be closed, as opposed to experiencing budget cuts.
<
p>I have one simple point to make…budget actions reflect the true values of the Governor. The Executive branch apparently feels that restoring budget cuts to the zoo are more important than keeping a substance abuse center open. Every decision that the Patrick Administration makes in terms of budget cuts reflects their values, and right now I deeply question their priorities.
You have a beef with the legislature not Patrick. I think you have gone a little far to trying to push this argument. The fact of the matter is that Patrick’s actions like the DC Office have probably spared more cuts than we face today. Including those who are most vulnerable.
…that within a $27 billion budget that all other items have a greater priority that a last resort substance abuse treatment center for 1500 people…
I’m just highlighting the Patrick’s values bull you are shoveling. Not the programs themselves.
<
p>Where do you think some of that medicaid waiver goes towards?
<
p>Yes, the situation stinks, the country is trying to pull itself out of a near depression and we do not have the money that we used to. We cannot pay for everything that we once did and valid and needed programs are cut or ended.
<
p>But the fact of the matter is that Patrick and some of his policies have prevented additional cuts.
<
p>Plus, Patrick creates the budget?
working with the recovery community to close the sales tax loophole on alcohol last spring. The original intent and hope of the Governor and the substance abuse community was to direct the entire proceeds (estimated about $90 million) to substance abuse line item which had already suffered two rounds of 9C cuts in FY 09.
<
p>In the end the legislature authorized a 6.25 sales tax on alcohol sold in package stores and dedicated about $20 million to a level funded substance abuse line item (about $85 million) which does include some “new services”, but had already forced cuts in some of the programs that so offend Judge Coven. Of course he has to see them every day. Most of us with substance abuse problems have families to support us and/or are more discreet.
<
p>Recovery advocates now have three fights on their hands — making sure the governor does not make further 9c cuts in the substance abuse line item in October, making sure the Governor’s House 1 budget maintains current levels (approx $85 million) which is not nearly enough, hence does not begin to address the long waiting lists and organizing a Vote No Committee on the repeal of the alcohol tax being waged by the package store owners.
<
p>Do the Judge and all of us a favor and don’t sign the petition.
The bottom line is that, according DPH #s, deaths from substance abuse have not declined during the Patrick Administration. Sure they claim progress because the year to year increases in fatal overdoses have not been as substantial as in the past, but the number still goes up.
<
p>Again, it’ all about priorities and frankly, if the Patrick Administration had put as much time and focus on tackling the substance abuse problems in the state, as they did the CORI issue, there would have a lot less dead people in Massachusetts and the problem would have improved, instead of “stabilized”. (Yes, the two issues are somewhat related, that’s why I compared them…it’s all about choosing priorities and I think the Patrick Administration picked the wrong priority to focus on.)
be standing in a place that judges which of the multiple barriers to to our friends and neighbors living successful lives need to be removed first.
<
p>And besides you are correct, the two issues, substance abuse and CORI are related, since many of the population in our state prisons are young people (under 25) who are there because they abused or sold addictive substances. They (sometimes) get clean in prison, and get out and can’t get a job because of their record. Of course they can go back to their old life.
<
p>Do you think your death data includes information on the dead person’s criminal records and status of employment?
…but stand it next to the fact that almost 2 people die each day in this state from a very preventable problem–heroin and opiate use–and I’ll put my time and resources into the issue that saves lives…
<
p>And with 1500 less substance abuse beds in the state…their will be a lot more people getting criminal records now…so in many ways, this treatment center prevents people from getting a CORI (and in many cases, adding to a CORI)
From State House News Service in part……………..
<
p>
We are debating, essentially, which toe to cut off because we’ve already slashed tax revenues well past the point of sustainability. This, while all around us:
<
p>
<
p>Instead of setting up the tradeoff between necessary social services and a necessary DC office, I’d prefer us be asking:
<
p>For nearly thirty years (since prop 2 1/2), self-centered “populist” politicians and talk-show hosts have been “starving the beast” of local government. They are succeeding, and our public services and infrastructure are collapsing and our neediest populations are — literally — dying.
<
p>Do we care, or is our own collective greed going to continue to drive us towards genuine societal collapse — so long as it’s “somebody else” who suffers?
…and one is we can’t provide basic human services without greasing the wheels of government.
<
p>All you have demonstrated with your comments is that we live in wealthy society that tolerate people dying of preventable causes. That we can agree on. But count me as someone who believes that we have the ability to look at a $27 billion budget and re-appropriate resources to more important (life-saving) priorities than is currently occurring.
<
p>You bring up large points with I don’t have the time to address, except to generally agree with the ULTIMATE need for more tax payer resources, but with a clear belief that government ahs to demonstrate it can set proper priorities as to how the money is spent. Today, I feel a substance abuse center is closing because our government can’t cut the areas of “honest graft” that makes the wheels of MA governemnt run.
annualized.
REALEASE A HOUPLE Couple of prisons APPROX 47,000 PER ? Or a couple of Cpi[;e pof
maybe close a couple of prisons and release a couple thousand prisoners @ $47,000 a pop? whoops. Already doing that, without releasing anybody. Just packen’ them in. Save on a little electricity though. And heat.
With many of these CEO’s making well above that, there’s a million right there…yes I am only HALF kidding.
<
p>It’s a shame that you play the same game the state plays…immediately suggesting the cutting of other services that keep people safe. Are you really suggesting that we can find $5 million in a $27 billion budget–about .02 %–to maintain this treatment center? You’re not really suggesting that the only place we can find this .02 % of the budget is by releasing a couple of thousand prisoners…that there is no other place in the budget to find that money?
<
p>BTW, outside this immediate crisis I have a feeling that you and I would agree that if we invested aggressively in treatment resources, we would in fact save millions–maybe hundreds of millions–in a variety of correctional, public safety and social service costs. But we don’t. And frankly I haven’t seen the Patrick administration do a lot in this area also. I heard a lot of campaign rhetoric about “breaking down the silos of care” but very little actual progress in changing a fundamentally broken system of care. A system that is calcified by entrenched bureaucrats and the current array of providers.
I was not proposing to cut more prisons because the Governor is already planning to close 4 prisons and jam the current tenants together in the remaining over crowded facilities, and reduce the number of correctional officers. Sounds like a prescription for another winning lawsuit to me.
<
p>
<
p>and I totally agree with you on the immediate crisis which is, to put it bluntly, a gruesome alternative way to save money on victims of substance abuse because denying them treatment is, sooner or later, a virtual sentence of death and a savings to the Commonwealth of say $30,000 or $40,000 a year per human. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm let’s see that’s about ……………….
<
p>
…there truly are a variety of ways that we need to change the way government deals with problems, and the Republican talking point examples of waste is just a small examples. To me, our human service bureaucracy is filled with examples of contradictory rules and entrenched approaches that clearly do not work and not only waste money, but create hidden societal costs that we pay in other government services or various private insurance costs.
<
p>Having disagreements with you or BrooklineTom illustrates why I spend much of my time at redmassgroup. Here I disagree in shades of gray and at RMG I disagree in broad strokes…but both are disagreements, and I do feel more uncomfortable disagreeing with someone like yourself, and feel a great deal of satisfaction disagreeing with Eabo.
to work together to do the public education on this site and in other venues to illustrate and illuminate the effect of the program cuts to victims of substance abuse and find some public officials who will fight for restoration — Mark Coven’s op ed was important. The recent court judgment was important.
<
p>Who can we find in the Legislature to take up the charge and fight for an appropriation? What other advocacy groups/parent and family groups/provider groups/church groups are there who might join us, or who may be already planning a campaign?
<
p>or we can keep commenting/disagreeing in shades of grey.
I suspect you and I agree more than we disagree on virtually every issue of substance.
<
p>The reason I take issue with your initial comment is that it supports the underlying narrative of the right-wing — “Government is inherently bad, we should therefore avoid relying on it.”
<
p>EVERY bureaucracy is filled with examples of contradictory rules, entrenched approaches that do not work and wast money, and that increase other costs. This is the nature of bureaucracy — private or public.
<
p>It seems to me that progressives have a fundamentally different underlying narrative — “Government exists to do things a society cannot do for itself.” When, and only when, individuals or non-government organizations demonstrate that they can solve a particular issue better than a government solution, then I’m receptive to shifting the burden away from government.
<
p>We have tried the Republican approach to most of the issues we are debating here, and it has failed miserably. During the period of American ascendancy, domestically and internationally, our local and federal governments played a far larger role then they now play. During the last three decades of our right-wing, populist, government-is-bad approach, we have seen:
<
p>
<
p>Our national experiment with the philosophy and even, yes, the theology of the right-wing has been tried and has failed.
<
p>It is time for a new narrative.
The budget cuts are starting to be real to ordinary citizens. Parents are dropping their kids school and finding 35 kids in their classrooms and no art or music & fewer supplies. Towns are closing libraries and firehouses and even town hall itself. The list goes on. Check out ONE Massachusetts News Round a news aggregater that tracks local and statewide media on budget cuts.
<
p>The organizing opportunity because
<
p>
<
p>I’m quoting from a proposal asking for support for ONE Massachusetts’ statewide budget and tax policy literacy to possible funders. Wanna help by organizing a Plain Talk about Taxes in your neighborhood? If we get funded we can pay for room rental and refreshments!!
<
p>
the meme that every critical comment about government reenforces a Republcian talking point…and therefore liberals should not critize government. THAT puts us in a trap of many times defending the undefendable…(so what if he’s a body builder while out on a physical disablity…this is a long fought right that helps the working class). Related to this, I see how the reformers and human service advocates get played by the hacks in the Legislature…makeing them go along with tax increases, under the threat of horrible cuts to the poor, while the hacks keep their status quo system. Will I’m not a member of the sucker’s wing of the Democratic Party. Now don’t think that I think all we have to do is end “waste” and everything will be OK…and I certainly agree with you about the nature of public and private bureaucracies. But we as a society need to reform–more like blow up–both these bureuacracies as much as possible. (To a certain extent, the private sector is better at thinnning their own bureaucracies in times like these…but they do equally stupid and more destructive things like Enron or the financial collaspe of the US.)
<
p>It is my contention that is that is would only make a small difference if we could stop “waste” and that much of the “good” spending would be wasted by a bureaucracy that in unable to solve problems. I have to be critical of a system that does not end or measurably reduce social problems, but is rather a career for PhD’s who sit in meetings preaching “capicity building”, “sustainablity” and other useless jargon.