Best Of

So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?

The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.

There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?

One of the questions is whether they will look line-by-line, or just announce things like "We don't need a Department of Education".

Like a lot of things, it depends on whether the Trump administration governs as it campaigned.

I think that Trump is more intent on governing as he campaigned this time, than he was last time.

Yes, the Department of Education is a big item, given that schools are run by the States themselves and the DoE supplies a small amount of funding in exchange for the schools pushing the DEI agenda. Better to just give the same money they spend now to the States, remove the Washington bureaucracy and reduce the paperwork required by the schools.

There’s probably a handful of these, where the scope of government can be reduced, but they’ll also need to find many more of the smaller items and hope they all add up to something meaningful.

The news we have so far suggest that his appointments are based largely on personal loyalty to Trump.
Something which runs counter to the US oath of office, which stipulates loyalty only to the constitution.

The same principle seems to be about to be applied to the military.

Trump draft executive order would set up board to oust generals en masse

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4987537-trump-draft-executive-order-would-set-up-board-to-oust-generals-report/
The transition team for President-elect Trump is working on an executive order that would speed up the firing of top military brass if signed, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.
The draft executive order would set up a “warrior board” of retired generals and noncommissioned officers given power to review three- and four-star officers and to recommend anyone “lacking in requisite leadership qualities,” according to the document, reviewed by the Journal.
If signed by Trump once he takes office, it could allow the quick removal of generals and admirals and purge the ranks of those the future commander-in-chief takes issue with for whatever reason...

Purging the military for lack of ideological soundness in the eyes of the Great Leader.

When has that ever gone wrong?

End of hereditary peers:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rg98rl9p2o

I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.

A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.

Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.

They are better than appointed parliamentarians

The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted

Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.

But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories

It was in their manifesto

Although Labour recognises the good work of many
peers who scrutinise the government and improve the
quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long
over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a
proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain
indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the
second chamber of Parliament has become too big.
The next Labour government will therefore bring about
an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation
to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote
in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a
mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament
in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be
required to retire from the House of Lords

A few things about this:

"Hereditary peers remain indefensible"

Which is untrue, especially as I'd argue they're better than many of the appointees.

"...the second chamber of Parliament has become too big."

True. But they're getting rid of a part than cannot grow. The easy answer would be for this parliament to make no appointments. But we all know why that isn't going to happen.

"Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age"

Why 80? Surely the state retirement age would be a better fit?

The HoL deserves better than to get yet another round of self-serving 'modernisations' that do nothing but help the ruling party. This will be bad for the HoL and bad for the country.

I disagree about State Retirement Age being the measure. I always thought the whole point of a reformed Lords would be that it would contain those who could bring a lifetime's experiences in work, charity, military or any other discipline to bear on amending law making and making it fit for purpose. I would actually go the other way and say that no one could become a member of the Lords until they had done 25-30 years in some discipline outside of politics.

I guess that's the question. What is the point of the House of Lords?

Originally the point of a two-chamber system was that different people and different interests were represented in the two houses. Lords and Commons. Having two houses allows these differences to be debated openly and compromise agreed.

You can see a parallel with the two chambers in Congress in the US. The Senate represents the interests of the States, while the House represents the interests of the populace (though, since they stopped increasing the number of Representatives, that has been weakened).

Do we really need a revising chamber of oldsters given a direct role in the legislature, and invited to act on multiple areas outside their area of expertise?

Perhaps we had better think of what divides exist in our society, and which we might usefully manage conflict by having them given institutional form.

For example, what if we had a House of the Young and a House of the Old? People might be eligible to vote for and stands for election to, the House of the Young until they are above the median age (about 45 at the moment I think). And thereafter vote and stand for election to the House of the Old.

Or you could have a House of Women and a House of Men. Perhaps a House for net taxpayers and a House for those in deficit?

I think we can be a lot more inventive with our thinking about this.

Yes I think we do need a revising upper chamber. Too much law is made for political or personal reasons without considering either the wider implications or the detail which can have unexpected and unwelcome results. That should be the purpose of the second chamber, to prevent so much bad legialation making it into law. They certainly don't do a perfect job now - not least because there is still too much politics even in the Lords. Which is why we don't want it to be elected.

But they certainly make a lot of law better and more coherent even if they have some failings. The Lords should be an entirely appointed non political chamber with appointments made from across society by a properly independent body. And no it should not be based on what divides us but on what unites us. The desire for good law.

So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?

The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.

There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?

Around two-thirds of the US Federal Budget is made up is Mandatory Spending, that is "locked in" unless Congress passes laws to actually change it. This is Interest ($1trn), Social Security ($1.4trn), Medicare & Medicaid ($1.5trn), and support for welfare programs for low income Americans, such as SNAP and Earned Income Tax Credit ($1.1trn).

That's close to $5bn of the Federal Government's spending that is Mandatory and would require laws passed by Congress to change.

The rest of spending is theoretically Discretionary in nature: Defense ($773bn), Veteran's Affairs ($303bn), Energy ($45bn), Education ($80bn), NASA ($25bn), the FDA ($7bn) and the like,

The reality is that a lot of the Discretionary Spending is essentially untouchable. Veteran's Affairs is healthcare and pensions for ex-servicemen and their families. There is literally no way that can be touched. And I'm not sure that Defense can easily be signifcantly reduced either.

One could, of course, close down the Departments of Energy and Education (although I suspect there might be some impacts from that), but the total saved would be tiny - $125bn out of a budget of $6.8 trillion or just 2% of the total. The FDA could likewise be shuttered, albeit its duties are mandated by Congress, and its budget is miniscule.

In other words, I think we can reasonably assume that getting massive savings from the Federal Government without cutting into Mandatory Spending is going to be next to impossible.

And here's the kicker: the US like other countries is getting older. That means that the amount that is due to be spent on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs will grow faster than the economy going forward almost irrespective of what the government does.

Given I'm also not convinced that Republican lawmakers are going to be lining up to cut payments to their constituents, I think Elon Musk and Donald Trump face an extremely uphill battle in substantially reducing US Government expenditure.

---

On the subject of interest, it does bear mentioning that the effective (real) value of US national debt falls by inflation every year. So if your budget deficit each year is just the interest payment, then in inflation adjusted terms, the value of your debt remains stable. And if you consider the value of the national debt relative to GDP, then (as the economy usually grows) in this scenario national debt as a percentage of GDP would decline. So: I wouldn't worry *too much* about interest payments.

I have seen the future of universities. And it’s called General Luna

It’s a classic backpacker town on Sirgao island in the Philippines. It’s grown up around a very nice surf break called “cloud 9”

The pace is idyllic half the people are barefoot the variety of bars and pubs and pizza shacks and special ice bath 24/7 juice bars with free pedicures is amazing. The sea is blue the air is soft the beer is cheap and there’s 3000 young people

There are signs everywhere for “digital nomad” conferences but I don’t think it’s stressed out consultants who will be attracted here in the future. Its kids. As most careers are progressively closed down and university becomes increasingly pointless why will kids take on massive debt to go to uni? For the social experience? Meeting people?

Maybe. But they could come to General luna and have a very nice life for $100 a week and maybe learn remotely if they insist or just surf and screw and drink and they will do all that socialising on the beach instead of in freezing expensive places like Paris london or New York - or Oxford or heidelberg or Harvard

Universities are fucked. All our kids will want to go to General Luna

You won't can an accredited degree from somewhere like this and you won't gain a degree that has any component of lab work, or patient interactive training. The open university has for many years shown a different model of University education yet we still have 140+ Unis in the country that students attend in person. Its not right for everyone, but in general having more university educated people in a society seems to be better for all.

We also see just how catastrophically poor it is when we try to teach remotely. Students find it far harder to engage. Watch a lecture in your bedroom and within minutes you are distracted. Watch in a lecture theatre and for the most part you get for more out of it.

I think you miss what a university education is about. For pharmacy (the main course I teach on) the expectations and outcomes for the students are tightly controlled by the professional body. If you want to be a pharmacist you must attend and gain a degree from an accredited course.

The current funding model isn't perfect. I believe it was a half-way house between the state paying for everything and a full blown graduate tax. The idea being that a graduate tax is unlimited whereas the loans can be paid back and then you stop. In practice many loans are going to be written off, and the loans can be seen as a graduate tax with limits. Most students accept this. Perhaps its mostly our generation, the ones who were the 5-10% who went to Uni for free that complain most about the fees?

And we are back to professional qualifications vs abstract academic study.

My daughter, at UCL, tells me that while she attends all the lectures, many do not. Everything is available online. Many do their tutorials online as well.

So, why go. Why get all the debt. Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely

It;s fucking obvious. Universities are completely doomed, the model is collapsing in multiple ways, and like bankruptcy is happening slowly and then it will be very fast

A few super posh ones will survive as finishing schools, or for kids who urgently want to be in London, New York, Paris, and maybe some art schools, dance schools etc. Indeed the last-named may prosper

'Especially when 50-95% of cognitive jobs at the end of it are gonna disappear entirely.'

In which case most jobs will go anyway and most people will live off a UBI funded by a robot tax with the occasional contract role.

So more people will want to study more to fill their time and the few permanent and full time jobs which remain will largely be very creative and not things AI can do which also requires education to get

Which is why dance schools will thrive

And mime schools, but as usual nobody talks about them.

End of hereditary peers:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rg98rl9p2o

I'd sooner toss hundreds of political appointees out, but there we are.

A small step in taking back control from our unelected rulers.

Would you accept hereditary doctors? If not, then you shouldn't accept hereditary parliamentarians.

They are better than appointed parliamentarians

The promise was that they would be removed IF AND ONLY WHEN the Lords was properly reconstituted

Labour lied, once again, and are messing with the constitution for partisan advantage.

But, of course, we hear no complaints from the hypocrites on here who were so focused on voter ID and other changes made by the Tories

It was in their manifesto

Although Labour recognises the good work of many
peers who scrutinise the government and improve the
quality of legislation passed in Parliament, reform is long
over-due and essential. Too many peers do not play a
proper role in our democracy. Hereditary peers remain
indefensible. And because appointments are for life, the
second chamber of Parliament has become too big.
The next Labour government will therefore bring about
an immediate modernisation, by introducing legislation
to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote
in the House of Lords. Labour will also introduce a
mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament
in which a member reaches 80 years of age, they will be
required to retire from the House of Lords

A few things about this:

"Hereditary peers remain indefensible"

Which is untrue, especially as I'd argue they're better than many of the appointees.

"...the second chamber of Parliament has become too big."

True. But they're getting rid of a part than cannot grow. The easy answer would be for this parliament to make no appointments. But we all know why that isn't going to happen.

"Labour will also introduce a mandatory retirement age. At the end of the Parliament in which a member reaches 80 years of age"

Why 80? Surely the state retirement age would be a better fit?

The HoL deserves better than to get yet another round of self-serving 'modernisations' that do nothing but help the ruling party. This will be bad for the HoL and bad for the country.

I disagree about State Retirement Age being the measure. I always thought the whole point of a reformed Lords would be that it would contain those who could bring a lifetime's experiences in work, charity, military or any other discipline to bear on amending law making and making it fit for purpose. I would actually go the other way and say that no one could become a member of the Lords until they had done 25-30 years in some discipline outside of politics.

A better way forward would perhaps have been to set up a Royal Commission, tasked with devising a workable scheme that addresses these significant concerns. MPs would then be able to vote yes or no on a scheme that was in less of a legal vacuum.

I have seen too much end of life suffering - for the patient and the circle around them - to accept that we must just wait until God decides you have experienced enough pain to be allowed to move on. Our health service already deals with ending viable life - there were over a quarter of a million abortions in England and Wales in 2022. A very small proportion were undertaken to save the life of the mother. The number of assisted suicides will be tiny in comparison.

The continuation of the status quo will simply mean that those wealthy enough can get on a flight to the increasing number of regimes that will allow you to end your suffering. Pain will be for the poor.

Going on living whilst trapped in a body tormented by pain is my worst nightmare. I will be very sympathetic towards those who put in place a scheme to enable me to end that torment, even if it has some rough edges.

It is not really clear what is the basis of the objection in the header, at least on principle, other than that the practical details have not been nailed down.

That a private member's bill is badly drafted is almost a given since many government bills are badly drafted, at least if the number of amendments is any guide.

If suicide and attempted suicide are legal, what is the principled objection to assisted suicide? To placing the metaphorical pearl-handled revolver by the hospital bed? Are we to ban the infirm from travel to Switzerland, just in case?

But yes, I have no real answer to the questions around coercion, or how to judge imminent death (although in practice, many doctors do this every day with varying and probably unmeasured degrees of accuracy: most of us will have experienced that call to come and visit our relatives whose death is thought to be imminent) or how to allow staff to opt out.

What worries me more in immediate practical terms is that doctors, especially in this post-Shipman age, might be withholding adequate pain relief where death is a possible side effect.

It is not really clear what is the basis of the objection in the header, at least on principle, other than that the practical details have not been nailed down.

That a private member's bill is badly drafted is almost a given since many government bills are badly drafted, at least if the number of amendments is any guide.

If suicide and attempted suicide are legal, what is the principled objection to assisted suicide? To placing the metaphorical pearl-handled revolver by the hospital bed? Are we to ban the infirm from travel to Switzerland, just in case?

But yes, I have no real answer to the questions around coercion, or how to judge imminent death (although in practice, many doctors do this every day with varying and probably unmeasured degrees of accuracy: most of us will have experienced that call to come and visit our relatives whose death is thought to be imminent) or how to allow staff to opt out.

What worries me more in immediate practical terms is that doctors, especially in this post-Shipman age, might be withholding adequate pain relief where death is a possible side effect.

Afaics ‘assisted suicide’ is already present in treatment, in certain forms anyway. My friend with MND whose life came to end almost exactly two years ago had an assisted death in everything but name. He discussed with his care team exactly what would happen months before his death, that is being taken into a hospice, withdrawal from his respirator which he was completely dependent upon by that point, and whatever heroic amounts of sedation would be needed to reduce discomfort as he asphyxiated. The whole process took less than 36 hours.

The crime of this bill is that it challenges the great British vice of hypocrisy, attempting to formalise something that everyone knows goes on but would rather avert their eyes from.