This word is the perfect description of this "regional cities" initiative: Kludgeocracy
Ezra Klein: What's interesting in your answer is that it doesn't leave much room for the general argument for market-provided services, which is that the market does it better. Is it your view that, in general, the added complexity of routing public services through private purveyors overwhelms whatever efficiency and innovation gains the private sector can provide?
Steven Teles: Right. Again, the issue isn't whether a service is better performed through the market or through the government. It's that in many cases, we haven't really made a choice of one or the other. We've tried to have both, and in having both, we lose a number of the advantages of either. In most cases, "privatization" does not really mean that a function has been given back to the market. It means that we have a highly subsidized, regulated, sometimes monopolized activity in which there is private ownership but a high degree of public control.
When you do that, you often lose a lot of what is good about markets, and in fact you create very strange kinds of private actors who are in fact totally dependent on government. And that often incentivizes them to be more oriented to lobbying and influencing government than to serving their customers. And that's where kludgeocracy is not just a complaint about "efficiency" but a complaint about the kind of governance that is generated by complexity.
I said at the county council meeting - if you think money in politics is bad NOW
, just wait until you bring it down to a (regionally) local level!
If you haven't contacted your county council member: http://www.co.clark....-county-council
thanking them for voting NO on the resolution and asking them not to consider it in the future - PLEASE DO SO NOW!!
Jeffersonville residents, without Jeffersonville this thing is a lost cause for them. I guarantee you your city council members are being lobbied HARD right now to vote in its favor. Now is not the time to be complacent. Once this thing is going, I don't see any real way to stop or dissolve it!
ETA: the new HEA1403 specifically says an appointee cannot be removed by the one appointing them. It has to be done by the majority of the board. The members of the RDA determine who gets appointed, and they determine who gets removed. So you take away pretty much ALL EFFECTS of elections.
(b) A member of a development board may only be removed from the development board before the expiration of the four (4)year term by written agreement of at least three-fourths (3/4) of the executives of the members of the development authority.
(meaning mayors and commissioners, executives - not the fiscal bodies!)
Ezra Klein: The endpoint, then, is that there are relatively few checks on kludginess. Think tankers have their incentives towards cleverness and practicality. Democrats want to do more, but can't pass proposals that rely too heavily on the government. Republicans don't want to oppose popular benefits, but need to show they're fighting the growth of the state, so they come up with kludgifying proposals like premium support for Medicare. And special interests, as you argue in the paper, make a lot of money off the more complex, inefficient policy. So who's actually got a direct anti-kludge incentive?
Only we the people, and only if we are active and engaged in the process. If you are waiting for "someone else" to do it, well your children and grandchildren are going to curse you for your apathy.
Edited by Tina, 17 June 2015 - 08:28 AM.