The post below is not easy reading. But it captures what has really happened to our economy, without a lot of numbers.
Fisher's Debt-Deflation Theory
Essentially, for too many individuals and society as a whole, "capital has been betrayed into unproductive works."
"Had Fisher observed the Greenspan/Bernanke Fed in action, he might have updated his theory with a revision. At some point, capital betrayed into unproductive works has to either be repaid or written off. If either is inhibited by reflation or regulatory forbearance, then a cost is imposed on productive works, whether through inflation, higher interest, diversion of consumption, or taxation to socialise losses. Over time that cost ultimately hollows out the real productive economy leaving only bubble assets standing. Without a productive foundation, as reflation and forbearance reach their limits, those bubble assets must deflate." -- London Banker
We threw too much of our wealth away on things we didn't need. We borrowed to buy things we couldn't afford. When it came time to pay the bills, there wasn't any money.
Showing posts with label waste. Show all posts
Showing posts with label waste. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Don't waste money on state police
Democrats in Oregon want to waste hundreds of millions of dollars on the Oregon State Police. And they want make the funding an entitlement, so if money needs to be saved in the future, OSP will not have to share.
The budget is scheduled for a work session on Monday, May 14 at 3:00 pm at the Oregon State Capitol.
Folks, the OSP gets hundreds of millions of dollars a year. How many more highway patrols to you want? What about schools? What about roads? What about investment? What in the hell are you getting for your money?
Will someone please give us some facts here?
Let's talk first about response times and support for other police: Response times have been improved by the increase in the number of cell phones far more than the number of troopers.
Then we need to ask, what is the cost per officer of an OSP Trooper versus a Clackamas County Sheriff if each is a five-year veteran? What is the "efficiency" of those officers, that is, what is the "Total cost per trooper" versus the "total cost per deputy?" or better yet, "total cost per trooper per mile on the road" versus "total cost per deputy per mile on the road?"
Is it possible we might get three deputies for the cost of two troopers? What does that mean for response times?
Let's move on to support for other agencies: do OSP and Clackamas County work as well together as Clackamas and Multnomah Counties on a true mutual aid call? Ask a couple of deputies, and promise them absolute anonymity. Ask them how they like working with the other sheriff's office, and ask them about working with OSP. There are culture differences between all of them: Bernie's agency may be hard to work with, etc. But it's a good question to put out there.
It has been said that a proposed 139 additional troopers alone will cost $17.6 million of new money initially, growing larger every two years, at least $80 million of new money in the next decade for just the increase. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO GET FOR THAT MONEY? You will not get $80 million of lives saved, or $80 million of meth busts, or $80 million of anything that has a positive impact on the lives of Oregonians.
The emphasis so far has been on 24 hour patrols, and more cops on the road. On that subject, see if you can find any statistics, anywhere, that shows that issuing tickets causes a population to drive more slowly, or saves any lives.
OSP sells budget increases with a misuse of numbers: In an accident, force at impact increases by the square of speed increase, (true) therefore, issuing tickets saves lives (false). Invalid because (1) Few accidents are caused by speed in a way that more troopers would prevent; (2) We don't really want traffic to move more slowly, we want it to move more safely, and they are not the same; (3) Things that are true in the singular (one driver) often fail in the aggregate (traffic safety).
Over the same period the number of troopers has been going down, the number of fatal accidents per mile driven has been going down. Ask again: What are we getting for our $17.6 million of new money that will directly benefit Oregonians?
We could put that money into schools, teaching boys and girls how to pound nails, how to weld, how to earn a living; We could create a state service program for all 18 years olds; We could put that money into a bypass around Sisters, Oregon; We could put that money into investments in alternative energy, growing soybeans for diesel fuel, turning logging slash or underbrush clearing into ethanol; We could attract a business with jobs to Newport or Coos Bay; We could improve a bridge. Widen a road. Reform K-8 education by teaching parents how to parent.
There is so much to do with that money, my god don’t throw it away on the OSP.
Time is short. Write your legislator. Find the address on the right side of this article.
The budget is scheduled for a work session on Monday, May 14 at 3:00 pm at the Oregon State Capitol.
Folks, the OSP gets hundreds of millions of dollars a year. How many more highway patrols to you want? What about schools? What about roads? What about investment? What in the hell are you getting for your money?
Will someone please give us some facts here?
Let's talk first about response times and support for other police: Response times have been improved by the increase in the number of cell phones far more than the number of troopers.
Then we need to ask, what is the cost per officer of an OSP Trooper versus a Clackamas County Sheriff if each is a five-year veteran? What is the "efficiency" of those officers, that is, what is the "Total cost per trooper" versus the "total cost per deputy?" or better yet, "total cost per trooper per mile on the road" versus "total cost per deputy per mile on the road?"
Is it possible we might get three deputies for the cost of two troopers? What does that mean for response times?
Let's move on to support for other agencies: do OSP and Clackamas County work as well together as Clackamas and Multnomah Counties on a true mutual aid call? Ask a couple of deputies, and promise them absolute anonymity. Ask them how they like working with the other sheriff's office, and ask them about working with OSP. There are culture differences between all of them: Bernie's agency may be hard to work with, etc. But it's a good question to put out there.
It has been said that a proposed 139 additional troopers alone will cost $17.6 million of new money initially, growing larger every two years, at least $80 million of new money in the next decade for just the increase. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO GET FOR THAT MONEY? You will not get $80 million of lives saved, or $80 million of meth busts, or $80 million of anything that has a positive impact on the lives of Oregonians.
The emphasis so far has been on 24 hour patrols, and more cops on the road. On that subject, see if you can find any statistics, anywhere, that shows that issuing tickets causes a population to drive more slowly, or saves any lives.
OSP sells budget increases with a misuse of numbers: In an accident, force at impact increases by the square of speed increase, (true) therefore, issuing tickets saves lives (false). Invalid because (1) Few accidents are caused by speed in a way that more troopers would prevent; (2) We don't really want traffic to move more slowly, we want it to move more safely, and they are not the same; (3) Things that are true in the singular (one driver) often fail in the aggregate (traffic safety).
Over the same period the number of troopers has been going down, the number of fatal accidents per mile driven has been going down. Ask again: What are we getting for our $17.6 million of new money that will directly benefit Oregonians?
We could put that money into schools, teaching boys and girls how to pound nails, how to weld, how to earn a living; We could create a state service program for all 18 years olds; We could put that money into a bypass around Sisters, Oregon; We could put that money into investments in alternative energy, growing soybeans for diesel fuel, turning logging slash or underbrush clearing into ethanol; We could attract a business with jobs to Newport or Coos Bay; We could improve a bridge. Widen a road. Reform K-8 education by teaching parents how to parent.
There is so much to do with that money, my god don’t throw it away on the OSP.
Time is short. Write your legislator. Find the address on the right side of this article.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
More troopers a waste
Ladies and gentlemen, today we offer an example of government waste, Kulongoski fiscal irresponsibility, power politics, public apathy and media laziness. It’s quite the combination.
But first, a warning: the writer of this blog is snarling and biased, in need of a shower and second cup of strong black coffee, listening to hounds outside barking over crescendoes of Pink Floyd at deer far too close to the electric fence, and some time today wants to fire up 427 cubic inches of aluminum block V8 and run enough NOISE through the straight pipes to put ripples in the Pacific or shake a small slide of rock down the snowy side of Mt. Jefferson outside the door. Okay? Are we on the same page?
In today’s Oregonian (read it here), reporter Elizabeth Suh wrote that “In Gov. Ted Kulongoski's proposed budget, he recommends funding 139 more patrol troopers so that the state police can return to patrolling the entire state 24 hours a day. The Legislature's budget proposes funding 100 more patrols.”
We can’t find in Suh’s lazy little article how much this will cost, what the current staffing is, or any other meaningful information.
Instead, she mindlessly quotes the OSP, which spoon feeds her factoids: “In October, state police officials issued a report comparing patrol trooper levels nationwide. They found that with 254 patrol troopers, Oregon had the lowest staffing level in the country: about seven per 100,000 population.”
This would be sloppy journalism if it were journalism, but it doesn’t qualify.
So, let’s grab a shovel and do just a rough excavation, because this is a blog, not an article in the state’s major daily. Live with it.
The OSP claims on its web site it has 322 sworn patrol officers, 38 professional positions, for a total of 360. For the 2005-2007 biennium, patrol funds are $84,726,605 out of a total budget of $519,128,681, though the OSP reports that of that half-billion, $193,099,576 are Federal “pass-through” funds and do not support OSP programs.
So, if Kulongoski adds about 30 percent more patrol troopers, what will it cost? Let’s take the easy way out and just add 30% to the existing patrol budget. This will probably overstate the actual amount, since newly added troopers will not make (yet) as much as retiring troopers, and different shifts might use the same car. And let’s pick a number, say 85%, and say that labor is 85% of the cost of the patrol program.
So, if we currently spend $84,726,605 per biennium on patrol troopers, and 85% of that is for labor, we spend $72,017,614. If we increase that by about a third, we get $95,783,426. so we will spend about $23,765,812 more for the new patrols.
Another way to do the math is to divide the patrol budget of $84,726,605 by the number of personnel, 360. That gives us an eye-opener: $235,351 per person. WOW!
And if we again multiply that by the troopers added (let’s use 120), and mix in our 85% payroll modifier, we get $24,005,871.
Close enough. Now to the next question. What are we going to get for our fresh $24 million?
We assert the following: Nothing. Oregonians will not benefit from this expenditure. There is no hard evidence anywhere that we have been able to find, that putting one more OSP trooper on the road, let alone somewhere between 100 and 139 of them, will improve public safety.
The evidence, though awkward, is to the contrary: At the same time the number of troopers per “mile driven” has gone down, the number of accidents per mile driven also decreased. So one could argue, (we won’t) that reducing the number of troopers reduces the number of accidents. OSP has used that kind of false logic in promoting their expansion.
We wish reporter Suh had asked the OSP when they gave her that stupid report about having the lowest staffing in the country whether we had also had the lowest safety in the country. But she didn’t.
Which leads to the final issue: Where else could we spend that $24 million that would do some good? Well, the Sisters School District could use some money. A half-million would make a pretty good addition to teaching staff, and Sisters is better off than John Day or Burns or the Wallowas.
Central Oregon is going to be out of jail space soon. Gresham could use some help attracting investment to their high tech business parks. Mill City could use some help that would create a job or two. I bet Lakeview would be better able to use a couple of deputies. We need technology to get some of the slash burned along the highway east of Mt. Jefferson turned into diesel fuel. More importantly, that is at $24 million more every two years, so over 10 years, we are talking about $100 million more just for the increase proposed today.
For that, we are going to get 120 men and women in funny hats and fast cars pointing laser guns paid for by insurance companies at the license plates of citizens trying to get somewhere safely but over the speed limit.
What a waste. A waste of reporting, of government, of time, of money.
Time for coffee.
But first, a warning: the writer of this blog is snarling and biased, in need of a shower and second cup of strong black coffee, listening to hounds outside barking over crescendoes of Pink Floyd at deer far too close to the electric fence, and some time today wants to fire up 427 cubic inches of aluminum block V8 and run enough NOISE through the straight pipes to put ripples in the Pacific or shake a small slide of rock down the snowy side of Mt. Jefferson outside the door. Okay? Are we on the same page?
In today’s Oregonian (read it here), reporter Elizabeth Suh wrote that “In Gov. Ted Kulongoski's proposed budget, he recommends funding 139 more patrol troopers so that the state police can return to patrolling the entire state 24 hours a day. The Legislature's budget proposes funding 100 more patrols.”
We can’t find in Suh’s lazy little article how much this will cost, what the current staffing is, or any other meaningful information.
Instead, she mindlessly quotes the OSP, which spoon feeds her factoids: “In October, state police officials issued a report comparing patrol trooper levels nationwide. They found that with 254 patrol troopers, Oregon had the lowest staffing level in the country: about seven per 100,000 population.”
This would be sloppy journalism if it were journalism, but it doesn’t qualify.
So, let’s grab a shovel and do just a rough excavation, because this is a blog, not an article in the state’s major daily. Live with it.
The OSP claims on its web site it has 322 sworn patrol officers, 38 professional positions, for a total of 360. For the 2005-2007 biennium, patrol funds are $84,726,605 out of a total budget of $519,128,681, though the OSP reports that of that half-billion, $193,099,576 are Federal “pass-through” funds and do not support OSP programs.
So, if Kulongoski adds about 30 percent more patrol troopers, what will it cost? Let’s take the easy way out and just add 30% to the existing patrol budget. This will probably overstate the actual amount, since newly added troopers will not make (yet) as much as retiring troopers, and different shifts might use the same car. And let’s pick a number, say 85%, and say that labor is 85% of the cost of the patrol program.
So, if we currently spend $84,726,605 per biennium on patrol troopers, and 85% of that is for labor, we spend $72,017,614. If we increase that by about a third, we get $95,783,426. so we will spend about $23,765,812 more for the new patrols.
Another way to do the math is to divide the patrol budget of $84,726,605 by the number of personnel, 360. That gives us an eye-opener: $235,351 per person. WOW!
And if we again multiply that by the troopers added (let’s use 120), and mix in our 85% payroll modifier, we get $24,005,871.
Close enough. Now to the next question. What are we going to get for our fresh $24 million?
We assert the following: Nothing. Oregonians will not benefit from this expenditure. There is no hard evidence anywhere that we have been able to find, that putting one more OSP trooper on the road, let alone somewhere between 100 and 139 of them, will improve public safety.
The evidence, though awkward, is to the contrary: At the same time the number of troopers per “mile driven” has gone down, the number of accidents per mile driven also decreased. So one could argue, (we won’t) that reducing the number of troopers reduces the number of accidents. OSP has used that kind of false logic in promoting their expansion.
We wish reporter Suh had asked the OSP when they gave her that stupid report about having the lowest staffing in the country whether we had also had the lowest safety in the country. But she didn’t.
Which leads to the final issue: Where else could we spend that $24 million that would do some good? Well, the Sisters School District could use some money. A half-million would make a pretty good addition to teaching staff, and Sisters is better off than John Day or Burns or the Wallowas.
Central Oregon is going to be out of jail space soon. Gresham could use some help attracting investment to their high tech business parks. Mill City could use some help that would create a job or two. I bet Lakeview would be better able to use a couple of deputies. We need technology to get some of the slash burned along the highway east of Mt. Jefferson turned into diesel fuel. More importantly, that is at $24 million more every two years, so over 10 years, we are talking about $100 million more just for the increase proposed today.
For that, we are going to get 120 men and women in funny hats and fast cars pointing laser guns paid for by insurance companies at the license plates of citizens trying to get somewhere safely but over the speed limit.
What a waste. A waste of reporting, of government, of time, of money.
Time for coffee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)