Lars Larson: Why you shouldn’t trust government to run anything.

Oregon’s state scholarship program is not necessarily a bad thing. They hand out a lot of money and make it possible for a lot of kids to go to college. That’s not always a bad thing although I’d prefer to see it done privately.

But, this is a great example of why not to trust government to run almost anything. They were given a budget of $57 million to hand out in scholarships to young men and women. The scholarship commission shot $19 million past their budget.

Now that’s not only a joke on government running things, it’s also a joke on the kids. An awful lot of young men and women are being told right now that they were promised a scholarship and but now there is no money. That’s no joke at all.

Now, can you imagine this bunch running health care?

“For more Lars click here”

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 22 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Bob Clark

    Amen, Brother! Politicians sell empty long term promises because they’ll be gone when the “ship” runs aground for lack of financial wherewithal. Oregon Health Plan is largely just a empty feel good promise, and next decade ObamaCare if not before will become the same. No doubt about it. Don’t be a fool. Don’t buy the empty promises, no matter the good intentions.

  • valley p

    I agree with Lars. We need to shut down Columbia hydro dams, social security, medicare, police, prisons, fire stations, bring the troops home and fire them, shut down public schools, sell off every public road, stop dredging the Columbia, close down the sewage treatment plants, sell off the national parks, and get this darn government out of our lives once and for all. They can’t run anything.

    On the other hand, Enron, Bernie Maddoff, the entire financial industry, the Exxon Valdez all demonstrate that the private sector sure knows how to run things.

    • Steve Plunk

      Reductio ad absurdum. Reduction to the absurd. You are not dealing with children here so up your game and quit using debate techniques unfit for junior high.

      • valley p

        *Lars Larson: Why you shouldn’t trust government to run anything*

        Now I ask you Steve, who here is taking an argument to a ridiculous extreme, me or Lars? Lars extrapolated from one program to all of government. I was merely agreeing with him, albeit sarcastically, to point out HIS reductio.

        So take your issue up with Lars, not me.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          Were you always that kid who raised his hand and reminded the teacher when he forgot to assign homework?

          Seriously – you are going to take a headline tag literally?

          So when NYC was about to declare bankruptcy and the New York Post headline was “Ford to NY – Drop Dead” did you seriously think that the post was saying Ford was hoping for mass extermination in Gotham?

          Get real, this nonsense is getting a little absurd.

        • Steve Plunk

          valley p, Lars is using this as an example of why not to trust the government to run almost anything. The key word is trust. They screw up an awful lot and can’t seem to police themselves or show any discipline. Taken as a whole his statement is not an example of reductio ad absurdum. Yours is clearly such a example.

          • valley p

            Drawing a sweeping conclusion about government from a single, not even fully vetted example is absurd. My facetious response was intended to point out that the government in fact runs a lot of things quite well. Much better than the private sector would run those things, assuming they would even bother to try.

          • Rob DeHarpport

            Valley,
            After you read the front page story in the WSJ today by Conor Dougherty, feel free to come back and continue trying to make your case.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >On the other hand, Enron, Bernie Maddoff, the entire financial industry, the Exxon Valdez all demonstrate that the private sector sure knows how to run things.

      Actually they do.

      Ken Lay was indicted or was about to be as I recall. As I recall he dropped dead.

      Bernie Maddoff – Indicted and convicted, sentenced to 150 years.

      Th Exxon Valdez – Exon was forced to pay for clean up and also did a lot of clean up voluntarily. Capt. Hazelwood was personally fined $50k and sentenced to 1,000 hours community sefvice.

      Now…. If you would care to tell us of those who ran this scholarship program who have been held to account to the same standards as the three examples you listed. we will all listen to you.

      If you want to indulge in a Dean divergence, such as discussing whether the sentences in the three examples you cited were appropriate, you can expect us all to laugh at you.

      So, please tell us who in the scholarship program is being held to anywhere near the standard there is in the three private industry examples you cited.

      We are all waiting for you to illuminate us with you vast brilliance as it seem utterly impossible someone could have cited three examples where in each one those in private industry were held to account.

      Of course you could always do befuddled Dean and pretend not to understand the question. That might work. Of course we will all laugh at you in that eventuality but you might want to try it.

      Once again, the question in bold, so you can focus in on it and show us your brilliant answer:

      *Tell us who in the scholarship program is being held to anywhere near the standard there is in the three private industry examples you cited.*

      • valley p

        “Were you always that kid who raised his hand and reminded the teacher when he forgot to assign homework?”

        Not as far as I can recall. But then you seem to always know more about me than I do, like how many Pete Seeger CDs I have, so why don’t you tell me?

        “Seriously – you are going to take a headline tag literally?”

        No. You see Rupert, I did not take it “literally.” I took it as what Steve accused me of, Lars making a reduction ad absurdum argument. I went along with him to poke fun at him. It is YOU who seem to be taking all this literally.

        “So when NYC was about to declare bankruptcy and the New York Post headline was “Ford to NY – Drop Dead” did you seriously think that the post was saying Ford was hoping for mass extermination in Gotham?”

        Lets see….that would have been what…1974 or 75? To be honest, I don’t think I read the Post. And if I had, then no I don;t think I would have thought Gerald Ford actually wanted 8 million people to keel over. Then again, if Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich uttered that remark, or Lars for that matter, I might think they really did mean it.

        “Now…. If you would care to tell us of those who ran this scholarship program who have been held to account”

        ” *Tell us who in the scholarship program is being held to anywhere near the standard there is in the three private industry examples you cited* .”

        You are equating what Madoff et al did with some folks who over promised on scholarships? As far as I can tell, and with all due respect to your legal qualifications, they have not been accused or convicted of any crime. What do you think is just punishment for over promising? A few days in the stocks? Fired? Fined? Forced to become love monkeys for some tattooed cons? Made to listen to Lars or read your posts for a whole day? What pound of flesh would satisfy you Rupert?

        As for the rest…who is this universal “we” that you speak for? You seem to think you have a small army there with you. I thought I was communicating with Steve P and then you showed up claiming to represent what…..every catalyst reader? Isn’t that a bit presumptuous, even for you?

        Are you still upset over that health care bill thingie? You are so cranky of late.

        • Steve Plunk

          To me the punishment should be dismissal from the board since they clearly lack any sense of how to run things. That is unlikely so I guess Rupert is correct. No accountability what so ever.

          Many time the “we” that many of us use is in reference to those with common sense.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >To me the punishment should be dismissal from the board

            That’s right, and it is the bare minimum. That likely wont happen or if it does they will be moved laterally into a job of equal or greater pay with the same accountability – zero.

            This is precisely why public sector jobs should pay less. Maybe in some rare instances we see it but by and large there simply isn’t anywhere near the same responsibility level as the equivalent private sector job.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >and with all due respect to your legal qualifications

          Being proven wrong on your contention that illegals don’t have standing in the Supreme court thing is still bugging? Good lord man, move on, you simply don’t know as much about the Supreme court and constitutional issues as I do. I don’t know anywhere near as much on windmill aesthetics and forestry issues as you. Be done with it, grow up.

          >You are equating what Madoff et al did with some folks who over promised on scholarships?

          Nope, I am asking them to be held to the same standard. That is entirely different.

          >they have not been accused or convicted of any crime.

          No one is saying they have. I am saying they should be held to some sort of standard. That means investigating who was responsible and holding them accountable. Now answer the question. It is in bold up above.

          >What do you think is just punishment for over promising? A few days in the stocks? Fired? Fined? Forced to become love monkeys for some tattooed cons?

          Being fired for one.

          Now again – since you drew the comparison in the first place – tell us who in the scholarship is being held accountable in the same way Lay, Maddoff, Exxon and Hazelton were. Stop with the nitwit confusion over thinking that means the same punishment. We can all see you dodging.

          Answer the question – You brought up three examples in private industry, all of which people were held responsible. Again:

          *”Tell us who in the scholarship program is being held to anywhere near the standard there is in the three private industry examples you cited .”

          We are all starting to laugh at your dodges.

          You brought up the example of Exxon et. al. Not me. So stop with the dodging and see if you can actually answer who is being held to any sort of standard – that does not mean the same punishment so forget about that dodge – as the three examples you cited.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >As for the rest…who is this universal “we” that you speak for?

          The “we” is the collective, at least on this thread, which is Steve and I (Bob Clark commented prior to your post) who have both said your dodging is silly in prior occasion.

          That’s the “we”

          Got it? Good.

          Now stop dodging and answer the question. Here it is again in bold. Again, do not confuse being held to the same standard as being the same as being given the same punishment.

          *” Tell us who in the scholarship program is being held to anywhere near the standard there is in the three private industry examples you cited .”*

          • valley p

            Oh ok…you only speak for Bob and Steve as well as yourself. Only 3 against one? I can handle that. Let me find someone to hold my jacket. OK…I’m ready now.

            To your question, I’ll quote Colonel Jessup (a film reference): *I don’t have the first freaking clue* . All I know about this is what I read in the untrustworthy, liberal biased Oregonian, which appears to be also where Lars got his intel, though he did not bother to credit them. The Scholarship Fund appears to be managed by a Governor appointed *volunteer* board overseeing an executive director and staff that doles out the money. That board is now investigating the cause of the over promising and plans to report to the Governor in May. At that point perhaps they will resign their volunteer positions, or fire the executive director, or give him a negative performance review, or perhaps they will simply apologize for making the wrong estimate of how much money they had committed and promise to do better next year. In the meantime, you (3) and Lars can lobby your legislators to increase the scholarship allocation so that more students can get an education. Clearly the demand is higher than the supply.

            As for equality under the law, had Bernie Madoff simply over promised scholarship money, I imagine he would still be roaming the streets of New York and living the good life. Had the captain of the Valdez done the same rather than run a loaded single hulled tanker onto a well known reef while drunk, well he and Exxon might have been forgiven. Had Ken Lay been a volunteer on a scholarship board rather than a conniving thief who among other things blacked out California to enrich himself and generate funds to donate to George Bush, he would likely never have been indicted of a crime.

            So in effect, the Oregon scholarship folks ARE being held to the same standard no?

            I’ll take all of your (3) responses, represented by Rupert, off line.

          • Steve Plunk

            It’s not three against one. It’s sense versus nonsense. Logical thinking versus illogical thinking. You get the picture.

          • valley p

            So its logical to conclude, based on one example of a volunteer board over promising a grant program, that we should not trust government to run (almost) anything? But it is illogical to also conclude that multiple examples of private enterprises performing massive screw ups demonstrates that we should not trust the private sector to run (almost) anything? That seems like a rather selective application of logic to me.

            My logic is as follows: One should not draw sweeping conclusions from a small data set. (Especially a data set of one that has not even been fully determined yet). But also a data set of 3 or 4 plucked from a vast sea of data, even if that small data set confirms one’s previous bias (government bad, private industry bad…take your pick).

            If you find that illogical, then I’ll proudly wear the label and leave you 3 to your own version of reality.

          • Rupert in Springfield

            >Oh ok…you only speak for Bob and Steve as well as yourself.

            NO

            READ

            READ FIRST SENTANCE

            READING HARD

            TRY READING BEFORE DEAN POP OFF

            READ

            TRY

            HARD

            Here you go – in bold – the first sentence – since you cannot be bothered to read a damn thing

            *The “we” is the collective, at least on this thread, which is Steve and I (Bob Clark commented prior to your post) who have both said your dodging is silly in prior occasion.*

            Here is is again – in bold – since you cannot be bothered to read a damn thing

            *The “we” is the collective, at least on this thread, which is Steve and I (Bob Clark commented prior to your post) who have both said your dodging is silly in prior occasion.*

            Good God, when I have to keep restating the first sentence because you can’t read a damn thing before popping off it gets so ridiculous.

            Not only is this like entertaining arguments from the kiddie table at Thanksgiving, its like doing so after the little urchins have had too much wine.

            Got it?

            Good.

            I so wish you had actually kept our bet on health care and I had lost.

            I would have gladly paid for beers for you and five of your friends and consider the investment worth it simply to meet the ninth wonder of the world – five people who found your method of argument persuasive.

            As for the rest of your nonsense, you said it, you don’t have a clue.

            Even you don’t consider the possibility of the person who appointed this board being fired.

            In private industry that would happen – Exxon was held responsible for Capt. Hazelwoods actions just as the Boy Scouts would be held responsible for a private volunteers actions.

            In government, no such thing, there is not the same accountability, so obviously there should not be the same level of trust.

          • valley p

            Only 2 of you then? I didn’t even need to bother taking my jacket off.

            The person who appointed the volunteer board is presumably the governor. You are suggesting that the governor be “fired” because one of his many volunteer boards over promised scholarships? You think that is the correct level of punishment for this case? If you want my opinion, no, I think that is a bit on the silly side. But if you feel otherwise, then I suggest you petition your state rep or senator to file an impeachment motion against the governor on the grounds that one of his volunteer boards miscalculated how much money they had left and over promised scholarships to students. That should keep people busy for a while and would be a great use of your tax dollars.

            By the way, was the Exxon CEO fired over the oil spill?

  • eagle eye

    He says he’d prefere to see this done privately and that the government is incapable.

    So, let’s see him or one of his followers raise the money and get the job done!

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Well this is really hilarious since the job is already done privately and well known to most.

      One can already set up any number of investment accounts for college on a private basis. Have been able to do so for years.

      Sorry – this is one instance where a version of “go ahead, run it up the flag pole, see if you can get it voted in, run for mayor, run for president” doesn’t exactly work.

      Interesting though that you are more aware of football coaches names, and how football is funded than you are about college funding.

      Sorry, just had to get that in after your coach whats his name tirade.

      • eagle eye

        Sorry, pal, you’re exceeding even your usual incoherency.

        He said they

        “make it possible for a lot of kids to go to college … I’d prefer to see it done privately.”

        So if you know of a private $57 million college scholarship fund for Oregon students to go to Oregon colleges, please let us know.

        Yeah, it could be done privately. An endowment of about $1.5 billion would do the trick. Or annual donations would too. Let’s see you guys raise that and start the program.

        Let’s see someone get it done, then we can all join in sneering at the government programs.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)