Name a government program that does work

[J. J.]

A couple of US programs are very useful, the US Census, the US Geological Survey, rapidly come to mind.  I doubt if these could be privitived and businesses use (and often need) their services.

[Virginian87]

Ever think that some people can't afford to pay private school tuition?

[John Dibble]

Ever think that some people can't afford to pay private school tuition?

Nobody said anything to the contrary. The issue is that is being discussed is whether or not said schools perform better than public ones.

[??????????]

Look, government happens to be more efficient than the private sector and running some things and vice versa.
For example, the private sector cannot *efficiently* provide decent quality healthcare for the bulk of the population, it's just not in it's interests to do so. Sure for a lot of people, private healthcare is excellent (no disputing that) but that's not the point.
As an aside has anyone seen how much more (in % terms) the U.S Government spends on various programmes to prop up the private insurance system, compared to how much the U.K Government spends on the blatently socialist (most government healthcare schemes aren't socialist, btw) NHS?
The same goes for railways (as in the tracks etc). For a few years over here we had a private company (Railtrack) running the railways because of a genuinely braindead ideological policy of the Major government. It was a complete and utter disaster and was renationalised (on the cheap) a few years ago.
People that claim that the private sector can do everything better than the government or vice versa do not live in the real world.

Al, the problems with private healthcare are a result OF government intervention, not because they aren't run by the government. And the situation with the railroads is completely opposite here. Amtrak is a failure and a huge money pit that needs to be eliminated. The worst thing that ever happened to rail service was the government taking it over.

[Virginian87]

Look, government happens to be more efficient than the private sector and running some things and vice versa.
For example, the private sector cannot *efficiently* provide decent quality healthcare for the bulk of the population, it's just not in it's interests to do so. Sure for a lot of people, private healthcare is excellent (no disputing that) but that's not the point.
As an aside has anyone seen how much more (in % terms) the U.S Government spends on various programmes to prop up the private insurance system, compared to how much the U.K Government spends on the blatently socialist (most government healthcare schemes aren't socialist, btw) NHS?
The same goes for railways (as in the tracks etc). For a few years over here we had a private company (Railtrack) running the railways because of a genuinely braindead ideological policy of the Major government. It was a complete and utter disaster and was renationalised (on the cheap) a few years ago.
People that claim that the private sector can do everything better than the government or vice versa do not live in the real world.

Al, the problems with private healthcare are a result OF government intervention, not because they aren't run by the government. And the situation with the railroads is completely opposite here. Amtrak is a failure and a huge money pit that needs to be eliminated. The worst thing that ever happened to rail service was the government taking it over.

Amtrak should not be eliminated.  Go visit the Northeast Corridor, where more people use Amtrak to get between Washington, New York, and Boston than by bus or plane.  The Autotrain to Florida is always a popular tourist train.  Go visit northern North Dakota and Montana, both of which have no real commercial air service and no interstate highways, where the Empire Builder is the most important link in transportation.  Go visit California, New York, North Carolina, and Vermont, where federal and state-supported Amtrak trains are drawing riders in increasing numbers on the Coast Starlight, Empire Service, and the Carolinian. 

Republicans don't think Amtrak can succeed because they don't see railroads as a viable form of transportation.  But the federal government as supported new improvements in airports and highways for years.  The electric infrastructure on the Northeast Corridor is of 1930s vintage, but the government can't pony up the dough to upgrade it.  And then you wonder why Amtrak is inefficient.  I don't see why you can fund other forms of transportation and leave Amtrak in the cold.  Trains are more efficient than cars; they carry more people and freight at a time and they pollute much less.  There's no gridlock.  They are honestly more comfortable than being crammed into an airliner like sardines (unless you're in first class) and they are more scenic.  You actually get to view the towns you pass through instead of clouds and smog.  State-funded commuter railroads like Virginia Railway Express and New Jersey Transit are far more efficient than driving to work.  Government-supported railroads are not useless and not a lost cause.  Just visit any of the places I mentioned and you'll see why.

[??????????]

How many long train rides have you actually ever been on? I've been cross country on trains. They are very long, very expensive for just a coach seat, the food is a ripoff (though it can be good), very bumpy and generally uncomfortable. The worst mistake they ever made was to share lines with CSX. And do you realize how much the Auto-train costs? I've priced it and it is well over $500 dollars and thats a family of three riding coach. It gets up to near $1000 dollars to get a sleeper car and ride your family. Airplanes are far cheaper, quicker and generally more comfortable.

[??????????]

I just priced it to see about what it was running.

For a family of 4 (I just used my family):

Lakeland, Florida - Baltimore, MD

2 Adults
1 Child
1 Infant

435$ round trip 3 seats (you have to sit the infant on an adults lap). The trip one way is 21 hours long. Can you imagine having to sit a child on your lap for 21 hours? No wonder people fly or just simply drive. I can drive from Lakeland to Baltimore in 14 hours with stops in between.

[MaC]

A couple of US programs are very useful, the US Census, the US Geological Survey, rapidly come to mind.  I doubt if these could be privitived and businesses use (and often need) their services.

How is the census a program?  It's just a count on how many people reside in an area for the purposes of re-apportionment.  It becomes too large and burdensome when they ask your skin color, profession, and yearly salary, which is clearly none of their business

[ATFFL]

Stupid Southerners.  Still anti-railroad after your lack of infrastructure killed your chances in the War of Northern Smcking Down the South. 

For comparison, to get from Orlando, FL to Baltimore, MD by plane will take 1 hour, direct flight and cost $128/seat.  Much easier to keep the infant in your lap for that time.

Rail travel is simply inefficient for long range travel now, except on a few of hte high demand routes.

[muon2]

Stupid Southerners.  Still anti-railroad after your lack of infrastructure killed your chances in the War of Northern Smcking Down the South. 

For comparison, to get from Orlando, FL to Baltimore, MD by plane will take 1 hour, direct flight and cost $128/seat.  Much easier to keep the infant in your lap for that time.

Rail travel is simply inefficient for long range travel now, except on a few of hte high demand routes.

This is the key point. Rail travel is not competitive for time and cost for trips of over 300 miles. For the shorter routes, when using up-to-date equipment can be comparable in time to driving, and not so different than flying times if the entire trip from door-to-door is counted, since flying typically has a larger overhead in time at the terminal.

One of Amtrak's problems is that it is charged with running the long trips that are not going to be effective. Consider that a large state or region of states is the natural size of efficient service. The Northeast Corridor fits nicely to one region. So does service in the Great Lakes.

Amtrak could reduce its role to coordinating regional schedules where they intersect, but leave passenger rail operations to the regional operators. States in the region could fund them as demand dictated, and apply for federal grants as with any transportation project. That type of state and federal support is no different than funding that now supports airports, highways, and local public transit.

[MODU]

Pell Grants do work . . . and this is coming from someone who use to manage a University campus. 

Another program that works is the US Postal Service.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al, the problems with private healthcare are a result OF government intervention, not because they aren't run by the government

Depends what you define a problem as. But either way it's undeniably true that the private sector cannot (and won't) *efficiently* distribute a decent standard of health services to the majority of the population (for obvious reasons it's not in the interests of the private sector to do so). It can however deliver excellent standards to a minority. The former is what the State does best, the latter what the private sector does best. The debate should really be over which (if any) is more important.

[MaC]

Pell Grants do work . . . and this is coming from someone who use to manage a University campus. 

Granted, but by economically favoring some people to get the grants, it drives up the price of college for the rest of us.  Since government has got involved, education is more expensive comparatively.

[MODU]

Pell Grants do work . . . and this is coming from someone who use to manage a University campus. 

Granted, but by economically favoring some people to get the grants, it drives up the price of college for the rest of us.  Since government has got involved, education is more expensive comparatively.

In some select cases, yes.  However, when you consider that most state schools are ran on budgets, it doesn't matter where the funding sources come from as long as all the vacant student positions are filled.  Since these are federal funds, the states view it as the same color green as if it were from scholarships, financial aid, or out-of-pocket.  But in other cases, education rates have been realtively slow in rising in relationship to the inflation rates of where the schools are located.  In the case of the school which I managed, we traditionally rose our credit hour tuition rates by $45 each year, which was below the Northern VA cost-of-living rates.  So, it was changed to 5% instead in the last two years I was working there.  This brought our tuition in line with area economics.  In some states, they've had to boost up their tuition rates to meet the demands of unions as well as facility upgrades.  Unfortunately, tuition rates will most likely continue to rise on an annual basis, with or without Pell Grants.