There's No Better Argument Against Government-Run Programs Than the Programs Themselves

The current political climate features two sides: Those who want the government to do more for the people and those who want the government to get out of people's way. It's not necessarily a partisan issue, mind you, as there is an alarming number of folks on the right who believe that Republicans should implement more government but just wield it in a conservative way.

Whatever that means.

But when you take a look at what made the majority of the Trump administration so successful, it was Donald Trump's executive actions meant to undo a lot of the regulatory burden that has been placed on us over the years. The result was a thriving economy, and, until a once-in-a-hundred-year pandemic hit, more people working and making higher wages.

The result of Trump's years in office being largely undone by Joe Biden's executive actions had the opposite effect. We now have an even more burdensome bureaucratic state - though, thankfully, the Supreme Court has been working to undo a lot of the bureaucracies' power grabs over the years - and a slowed economy. 

But, in truth, we don't have to get into the nuances of Republican governance vs. Democratic governance and have lengthy, academic debates over the regulatory state to show that government bureaucracy is the problem, not the solution. We need only look at government-run programs as they exist now, because they are the best arguments against themselves.

Take, for example, the Veteran's Administration, which has proven for years now that the dream of government-run healthcare is actually a nightmare. The problems with the VA came to a head in 2014, when then-president Barack Obama was forced to address them, but ultimately did nothing about the growing scandals.

Or, look at the U.S. Postal Service, which has operated at a loss of $67 billion between 2007 and 2020 and currently believes that the best way to save money is by delaying mail deliveries to rural areas of the country and to continues raising prices at a time when the economy is deeply impacting Americans.

Last week, the USPS tried to quietly push a new plan that would save them about $3 billion a year as part of a 10-year plan. But some of the changes could hurt Americans.

The new plan, which will be filed with the USPS' regulatory commission, comes about three years after the mail service embarked on a 10-year plan to stanch billions of dollars in losses and put the agency on the path to profitability. The 10-year plan, implemented by Postmaster Louis DeJoy, also slowed delivery standards, with the service guaranteeing five-day delivery instead of its previous three-day delivery window.

The proposed changes will shave about $3 billion a year, the USPS said on Thursday. But, it added, "Depending on location, time and distance, expected time to deliver will increase for some ZIP code pairs." 

The USPS has also boosted the price of Forever stamps several times within the past few years, prompting some critics to say that customers are paying more for worse service. With the proposed changes, the slower service could be felt by rural areas and for mail that needs to travel long distances, DeJoy told the Washington Post. 

The new delivery schedule would mean up to a 12-24 hour delay for deliveries in rural parts of the United States (areas around where I live in south Louisiana, for example, could very easily be impacted as there are a lot of farmers and very few big urban areas). Instead of three days or less, some places could see deliveries take a bit longer. Which, if you're in dire need of something that is being mailed or shipped, can be a make-or-break situation.

But $3 billion a year for 10 years does not correct the $67 billion loss over the span of a couple of decades. And the postal service is essentially asking Americans to pay more for worse service. In fact, it's not hard to argue that saving $3 billion a year won't offset, I dunno, $6 billion a year in losses stemming from people who will use private companies for most efficient package deliveries and continue to prefer digital correspondence over traditional mail.

In the private sector, the USPS would have folded long ago. But, instead, the people who run the government continue to throw money at it and prop it up on our dime. Time and again, these government agencies providing government-run services prove better than anyone else that they are incapable of being run efficiently and effectively. The public sector has no incentive to reduce waste and inefficiency in order to improve itself and generate profits. The private sector does, and that is why it consistently outperforms the public sector.

There are few people out there really talking about this issue, but it's an extremely important one. A wasteful, inefficient government program - the mail service - is essentially going to tax us by raising its rates while providing worse service. I don't know how you can make a better argument against government-run anything.