Jared Kushner says government should be run like a company

[xjx388]

Which is to say, the similarities between running a business and running a government are too superficial to really mean anything.

Governments are not run anything like businesses right now. Incorporating some of the concepts involved in running a business might increase efficiency, reduce bureaucratic bloat and result in significant tax savings. I think that's a little more than superficial differences. But we can agree to disagree on that.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I agree with the principle that government should be run more like a business, especially in the sense that each individual agency should be. The goals of each agency should be 1)Excellent service to the citizens it serves; 2)A focus on increasing efficiency and reducing expenditures; 3)A focus on returning dividends (tax savings) to it's shareholders (taxpayers).

I see absolutely nothing controversial in this simple idea and I'm pretty sure that's what Kushner was getting at.

Insofar as we are talking about process engineering, then fine. This works for, say, many agencies in the executive branch, and can be effective at eliminating bottlenecks and red tape. Needs some adjustment in goals for, say, the armed services. Does not work at all at the level of governance (elected officials), whose main undertaking is seeing that the people's will be done, which can involve spending/taxing more.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

What do you think he meant?

I think he meant "I am demonstrating my loyalty to Donald Trump by parroting a well-known and moderately controversial position of his."

 

[xjx388]

I'll give you a great example: The Texas Department of Public Safety. They have recently made some business-like improvements in their operations. They went from a nightmare of bureaucracy to only a mildly-unpleasant experience. They improved web access for driver's license registration, they improved their "customer service" experience, they instituted a new system for handling queues . . . it's a model for just how a government agency can be run more business-like.

Can we all agree that this is actually a good thing and a little more than superficial?

 

[Upchurch]

Insofar as we are talking about process engineering, then fine.

I'll give you a great example: The Texas Department of Public Safety. [...]

Can we all agree that this is actually a good thing and a little more than superficial?

I think we can agree that it is good process engineering. It would not be accurate to say that the Texas government is being run like a business.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Governments are not run anything like businesses right now. Incorporating some of the concepts involved in running a business might increase efficiency, reduce bureaucratic bloat and result in significant tax savings. I think that's a little more than superficial differences. But we can agree to disagree on that.

You're completely ignoring the fact that a business can make its decisions based on the expected effect on profits. What, for example, was Trump's cost/benefit analysis when he appointed someone with no government or diplomatic experience to be Secretary of State and fired most of the senior staff? Or, obviously we can save money by slashing Medicaid and the EPA and FDA budgets; what's the downside?

 

[Degeneve]

Personally, I think it might be better to treat the citizens as shareholders. If we're only customers, who are the shareholders?

Most probably the American billionaires who want to increase their profits...

 

[xjx388]

I think we can agree that it is good process engineering. It would not be accurate to say that the Texas government is being run like a business.

Definitely not; I don't think it's possible to run every facet of government like a business. But process improvements like these are exactly what businesses do and what too few government agencies do. I think that this is the kind of thing Trump/Kushner have in mind rather than attempting to run the entire government as a business.

 

[rdwight]

Guess it all comes down to how you view the phrase 'run the government like a successful business'. Apply it to where it can increase efficiency and progress. Don't apply any aspects that are not acceptable for government. Not sure why it has to be a take all or nothing situation.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Re: efficiency, I think Mukunda said it best in the article:

The government should be run as well as a great American company, but that's profoundly different from saying it should be run like a great American company — those are two completely different things.

 

[Spindrift]

I think we can agree that it is good process engineering. It would not be accurate to say that the Texas government is being run like a business.

This.

Doing things efficiently doesn't mean doing it like a business.

Companies exist to make money. They don't do things because it's 'good', they do things to make money. That's why you have companies doing 'bad' things to make money. Wells Fargo is a very big recent example.

 

[TraneWreck]

Well, they definitely appear to be operating like a private equity firm:

They've taken over America. They are in the process of gutting it. They are going to run up massive debts via huge tax cuts, meaning they're starving and looting.

Problem is, I'm not sure anyone else is going to buy it, and I'm not sure we can just fire everyone and declare bankruptcy.

 

[Donal]

The essential difference is that businesses are run for profit. Everybody understands what Kushner meant.

Have you been following the news? Our government is a for profit enterprise now too.

I'm just curious, what exactly in Kushner's past makes anyone think he's the guy for a job like this anyway?

 

[3point14]

Governments are not run anything like businesses right now. Incorporating some of the concepts involved in running a business might increase efficiency, reduce bureaucratic bloat and result in significant tax savings. I think that's a little more than superficial differences. But we can agree to disagree on that.

Can you be specific? Which areas specifically are bloated?

 

[rdwight]

Re: efficiency, I think Mukunda said it best in the article:

That's a statement that plays word games I wouldn't put much merit in. I agree with the sentiment but realistically they are not completely different things.

For example if you implemented the exact process from 'Company A' to increase efficiency in 'Government Department A', are you running it as well as or like 'Company A'? Not really seeing a distinction unless you want to view the statement as only applying to running the government as a business in all aspects, not like. More useless word games.

 

[3point14]

Well, they definitely appear to be operating like a private equity firm:

They've taken over America. They are in the process of gutting it. They are going to run up massive debts via huge tax cuts, meaning they're starving and looting.

Problem is, I'm not sure anyone else is going to buy it, and I'm not sure we can just fire everyone and declare bankruptcy.

The number of options available to the business are much larger than those of a country. For a start, who are the government going to lobby for subsidies?

 

[TraneWreck]

Guess it all comes down to how you view the phrase 'run the government like a successful business'. Apply it to where it can increase efficiency and progress. Don't apply any aspects that are not acceptable for government. Not sure why it has to be a take all or nothing situation.

So, when you see something like Medicare having administrative costs around 2% in comparison to an industry averages of around 17% for private insurers, and those private companies are successful, they earn high profits, how does that affect your analysis of the claim?

What I object to about the "government should run like business" claim is the assumption that businesses are more efficient.

What if government were run like very successful private defense contractors? We wasted at least $60 billion on fraud and abuse from defense contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And it seems slimy to say a "successful business." Why not, "Government should run like a successful governmental agency."

The point of the statement is to suggest that businesses are inherently more efficient than government. The incentive structure naturally makes businesses better. This just isn't true. Both can be run well, both can be run horrifically. Assuming success in the claim just makes it meaningless. Yes, everything should be run like things that run well. Profound.

 

[TraneWreck]

The number of options available to the business are much larger than those of a country. For a start, who are the government going to lobby for subsidies?

 

[rdwight]

Can you be specific? Which areas specifically are bloated?

GAO

In 2016, GAO identified 92 new actions that Congress or executive branch agencies could take to improve efficiency and effectiveness or achieve financial benefits. Since 2011:

260 actions have been addressed,
222 actions have been partially addressed, and
134 actions have not been addressed.

I don't think his statement really needs to be specific for the point to be correct. It is not a controversial statement.

I do like that the GAO exists and their suggestions are applied. It's example of government performing the work needed to address people that do have issues with government overlap and waste.

 

[dudalb]

We hear this every time a Republican is President.And nothing too much changes. IK suspect this will be the same.