The Thurston Mittens the 3rd Veep Megathread

[The Brain]

As to the states, you've overlooked a third option: reduce salaries. 

Whose salaries do you propose reducing?  When I look at state government, I don't see the huge epidemic of grossly overpaid courtiers running about. It's look a  lot more like Sparta than Versailles.   The other day, I was in discussion about some techincal details with a state department only to find they lacked the ability to perform basic database management functions, becuase their computer system dates from the 70s and they have to strictly ration the time of their limited technical personnel.  When I look at the state employees who are in my own profession, it looks to me like they are pretty seriously underpaid compared to the importance of their job functions.  The pay scales are generally lower than the federal equivalent and way, WAY below the private sector. 

If you cut the price offered, you will either get less quality or quantity.  So if the argument is that we should be cutting state salaries, you either have to make the argument that the quality of state public services is better than it needs to be, or that some magical way to achieve vast efficiencies will allow you to cut overall pay and increase quality.

It also seems eminently sensible to push the problem to another sovereign.

I don't agree but it's besides the point.  Sensible or not, it doesn't change to scope of the problem.

What were their salaries?

If working for the state Monday-Saturday they were allowed to work Sundays and keep what they earned that day.

[Admiral Yi]

Whose salaries do you propose reducing?

Teachers, cops, and firefighters.

[Razgovory]

Whose salaries do you propose reducing?

Teachers, cops, and firefighters.

Do the states employee those people?

[Admiral Yi]

Do the states employee those people?

It seems to be some kind of hybrid between the localities employing them and the state employing them.

[Neil]

Whose salaries do you propose reducing?

Teachers, cops, and firefighters.

Wouldn't it make more sense to increase taxes on the people who value the services of the teachers, cops and firefighters?

[CountDeMoney]

Teachers, cops, and firefighters.

Wouldn't it make more sense to increase taxes on the people who value the services of the teachers, cops and firefighters?

No, because the public isn't unionized.

[Admiral Yi]

Wouldn't it make more sense to increase taxes on the people who value the services of the teachers, cops and firefighters?

Wouldn't it make more sense for residents of a state to express their preference throught the political process?

[Neil]

Wouldn't it make more sense to increase taxes on the people who value the services of the teachers, cops and firefighters?

Wouldn't it make more sense for residents of a state to express their preference throught the political process?

No.  The residents of the state are idiots who want first-class services for free.  If left unchecked, their selfishness would make it impossible to maintain a civilized society.

[CountDeMoney]

Wouldn't it make more sense for residents of a state to express their preference throught the political process?

No.  The residents of the state are idiots who want first-class services for free.  If left unchecked, their selfishness would make it impossible to maintain a civilized society.

Privatized police and firefighting forces would be awesome for the Social Darwinist Teabagger crowd: take care of whitey and the affluent areas, and ignore the poor and the blacks that can't afford their services.
You know, like The Old Days.

[Admiral Yi]

No.  The residents of the state are idiots who want first-class services for free.  If left unchecked, their selfishness would make it impossible to maintain a civilized society.

That's a reasonable response, but then the next question is why is the federal government's responsibility to pick up the slack if a state's electorate is disfunctional?  There are states which don't have a massive disconnect between expenses and revenues.

[Razgovory]

Do the states employee those people?

It seems to be some kind of hybrid between the localities employing them and the state employing them.

So if you cut the state funding, then you simply shift the burden to counties, school districts and municipalities.

[Admiral Yi]

So if you cut the state funding, then you simply shift the burden to counties, school districts and municipalities.

And states.

Or states, counties, school districts, and municipalities decide the burden is not worth bearing.

[Neil]

No.  The residents of the state are idiots who want first-class services for free.  If left unchecked, their selfishness would make it impossible to maintain a civilized society.

That's a reasonable response, but then the next question is why is the federal government's responsibility to pick up the slack if a state's electorate is disfunctional?  There are states which don't have a massive disconnect between expenses and revenues.

Because the federal government has a duty to all their citizens.

[Razgovory]

So if you cut the state funding, then you simply shift the burden to counties, school districts and municipalities.

And states.

Or states, counties, school districts, and municipalities decide the burden is not worth bearing.

Ah, so the poorest of these communities who can't pay for services as well just stop paying for them while wealthier communities are able to pick up the burden.

"Don't go to mayberry.  They don't have a police force anymore.  Couldn't afford it.  Now the whole area is ruled by the Meth dealers.

[Admiral Yi]

I know plenty of one stoplight townships in Iowa which don't have a police force and for the life of me can't think of one that's ruled by meth lords.