Thursday, June 09, 2011

Tim Pawlenty, President of the United States of Gurgaon

Tim Pawlenty wants to privatize as many federal government functions as possible:
There’s some obvious targets. We can start by applying what I call “The Google Test.” 

If you can find a good or service on the Internet.     Then the federal government probably doesn’t need to be doing it. 
Perhaps, then, we should look to India for inspiration. Today, the Times' Jim Yardley portrays a country and city where economic dynamism wrestles with government dysfunction:
In Gurgaon and elsewhere in India, the answer is that growth usually occurs despite the government rather than because of it....

In Gurgaon, economic growth is often the product of a private sector improvising to overcome the inadequacies of the government.

To compensate for electricity blackouts, Gurgaon’s companies and real estate developers operate massive diesel generators capable of powering small towns. No water? Drill private borewells. No public transportation? Companies employ hundreds of private buses and taxis. Worried about crime? Gurgaon has almost four times as many private security guards as police officers.

“You could call it the United States of Gurgaon,” said Sanjay Kaul, an activist critical of the city’s lack of planning who argues that Gurgaon is a patchwork of private islands more than an interconnected city. “You are on your own.”
Let Pawlenty cut taxes by another $10 trillion as he proposes, and we can have the United States of Gurgaon right here at home.  Probably without the growth, though.

1 comment:

  1. It is too bad that Tim Pawlenty could plan that 5% growth rate for his budget years while he was Governor of Minnesota... then we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now here.

    As for his tax "cutting"? They were simply accounting parlor games and sleight of hand. Residents across the great state of Minnesota endured yearly exorbitant property tax increases and "user fees".

    What truly surprises me is why the national media continue to see him as a "serious candidate".
    I suppose standing next to Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, & Michelle Bachmann would make Groucho Marx look like Albert Einstein.

    But were he running in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, or 1996 irrespective of party, he would be seen for what he is: a cynical political "nice" guy that's not ready for prime time. A charlatan.