One of the new dynamics to the gold dome that I would bring is the opportunity to change the way we approach questions about how government works (and far too often doesn't work).
One of the new ideas that I will be bringing to the Gold Dome is taking the recent findings in behavioral economics and applying them to policies at the state level.
You always hear: 75% of the budget goes to education, health care, and criminal justice. In fact even Jason Pye has said that probably only 1% of the state budget is "waste" per say. My personal hunch is that many of our core programs are ineffective and poorly constructed--that is the easiest form of government waste that we can cut out. We all want efficient government programs. That's not a Democratic or Republican issues. By using smart policies and creating smart programs that incentivize effective use of program dollars we can get more bang for our buck.
Therefore, I think that there is a lot more waste than Jason's 1% figure. My hunch is some of these social welfare programs need to be scrapped completely because they are so poorly structured and some need slight tweeks in how they are implemented. By using the best research from the behavioral science's that we have only learned about in the past decade or so we can stop working against human nature and working with our natural psychological tendencies.
But like I said this is something we need to be looking into--and as i've asked around to State Rep's I've worked with; they shrug their shoulders and tell me that don't know any State Rep's looking down these avenues and wouldn't know where to start. That it sounds "too complex."
That's not acceptable to citizens of this state. They deserve a General Assembly that looks at all possible fixes.
Now here's a question. Who is more likely to be able to negotiate cuts and changes in these welfare programs? Steve Davis who is a Conservative Republican? Or a Democrat who is building his career around modern behavioral sciences?
Steve Davis attacking one of the programs within that 75% will have knee jerk reactions from Democrats to block his ideas without listening to his reasons. But, ala Clinton and welfare reform I will be able to make the case and get the cuts and changes we need in these social welfare programs from those must likely to put up a fight.
Who is more likely to be able to gut the ineffective programs and revamp the poorly structured one's Steve Davis or Jim Nichols?
By cutting out the bad social welfare programs and restructuring the inefficient ones I think we can lower that 75% number--saving this state, and hence tax payers more of their money.
We all want good government. We all deserve smart government.
Like Clinton and Welfare Reform, this is something I can bring to the table that Steve Davis can't.
No comments:
Post a Comment