« Business and Health Care Forum | Main | Silverman Backlash »
September 14, 2007
The Cycle of Government Bashing
I'm not a huge fan of David Sirota, but his first column for the Creator's Syndicate, on the real lessons of the DMV, is quite good. Nice to have this sort of lefty-ism hitting the papers.
By the time I posed for my license photo, I had spent three total hours in a DMV office, as had at least 200 other people.
While I smiled for the camera, I considered this mundane encounter with state government in economic terms. Between all the people I waited with, about 600 combined hours of economic output was extracted from the state and thrown away. Multiply that over an entire year throughout any given state, and you see how poorly run public services take a severe — and hidden — toll on a state's economy.
Services, of course, do not fail in a vacuum. They fail because budget cuts leave them lacking adequate resources to succeed. While Republican economics teaches that less government spending means a stronger, more efficient economy, my experience at the DMV suggests otherwise, as does this state's overall experience as a test tube for conservatives' budget and tax doctrine.
Conservatives have a good thing going on: They spend their campaigns convincing the country that government can't work, win on the argument, cut the government's budget so it doesn't work, then spend the next campaign arguing that you should put them in charge of the government, because, don'cha know, government doesn't work.
Also, the main DC DMV is a pit of despair. The one in Georgetown, however, that's funded well enough to rent space in a nice mall and mainly caters to upper class white people, is a dream to go to.
September 14, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Was that DMV visit made any slower by the requirements of the REAL ID law, I wonder? To reach any effects of the law of unintended consequences, you first have to climb over all the fully predictable, logically consequent, completely forseeable consequences.
Posted by: Davis X. Machina | Sep 14, 2007 2:29:22 PM
Last time I renewed my license here in NYC at the License Express office on 34th Street between 8th and 9th avenues, it took me all of 1 minutes from when I entered until I left, with a new picture taken as well.
Posted by: Randy Paul | Sep 14, 2007 2:29:35 PM
Sorry that should be 18 minutes, not 1.
Posted by: Randy Paul | Sep 14, 2007 2:30:05 PM
The Georgetown DMV isn't always such a dream to go to. The last time I got my license there it took about 2 hours. Just saying...
Posted by: Noah | Sep 14, 2007 2:36:53 PM
NJ: Highest property taxes in nation. But license renewal at DMV took 45 minutes, including the time spent waiting for the actual license to print and dry.
Posted by: Jamey | Sep 14, 2007 2:46:34 PM
Worst was in '98 when I guess Michigan wasn't maintaining the cameras at the Secretary of State (DMV equivalent) offices. Twice I got a notice in the mail saying my picture wasn't good enough and would I please come back to try again. Had to go through SOS hell three times before I got my new license.
Posted by: Don K | Sep 14, 2007 2:50:28 PM
I get the impression that DMV services have improved over the years because it became such a byword for "delivery of government services." Growing up in NJ, some DMV branches were nightmarish. The best strategy turned out to be figuring out which branch was least likely to give you problems and go to that one.
Sirota's essay specifically mentions TABOR as a culprit in his problems, and I think this is probably true. TABOR effectively prevents governments from investing in new technology or taking advantage of any productivity improvements. Had TABOR been adopted in the early 70s, it likely would have meant that governments would still be using rotary phones.
Posted by: Tyro | Sep 14, 2007 2:54:33 PM
Is the DMV slow because it needs more staff? More automation and less staff? Some decent process design? Better trained staff? There are lots of possibilities. Not all of them require a budget increase and some of them actually allow a budget decrease. What's the best way to encourage efficiency? Pump money in or restrict it somewhat?
This is not intended as a "starve the beast" argument. But I will assert that there's an optimal band of expenditure. Too small and you're sub-optimal, but too large and you're sub-optimal as well.
Posted by: TheRadicalModerate | Sep 14, 2007 3:04:04 PM
TRM, it is entirely possible to serve more people even when spending less money per customer. It is nigh impossible to serve more people efficiently while spending less money in absolute terms, however.
There are limits, however-- certainly there's no reason that my upcoming change of address when I move to a new neighborhood requires that I appear in person at the DMV. Local laws, however, require it. This is silly. Lack of customer service staff isn't the problem in this situation. It's the fact that a staff member is required at all.
Posted by: Tyro | Sep 14, 2007 3:12:09 PM
I don't know. I'll admit that SOMETIMES underfunding is the problem--but my brother's experience with various parts of California government would lead me to think that stupidly designed processes can be part of the problem.
Posted by: SamChevre | Sep 14, 2007 3:17:54 PM
Tyro--
It is nigh impossible to serve more people efficiently while spending less money in absolute terms, however.
That all depends on the level of productivity increase you can get, doesn't it?
That's not the problem with the piece, though. It asserts that constraining budget is a bad thing and that increasing budget is a good thing. That's clearly nonsense, just as arbitrarily reducing budget is equally nonsensical. You don't want a starved beast or a fat beast. You want a smart, hungry beast.
The trick is to develop funding policies that search out the best solutions. These are hard to put in place, but they'd be much more useful to discuss than inane debates on the size of government.
Posted by: TheRadicalModerate | Sep 14, 2007 3:37:43 PM
Tyro--
It is nigh impossible to serve more people efficiently while spending less money in absolute terms, however.
That all depends on the level of productivity increase you can get, doesn't it?
That's not the problem with the piece, though. It asserts that constraining budget is a bad thing and that increasing budget is a good thing. That's clearly nonsense, just as arbitrarily reducing budget is equally nonsensical. You don't want a starved beast or a fat beast. You want a smart, hungry beast.
The trick is to develop funding policies that search out the best solutions. These are hard to put in place, but they'd be much more useful to discuss than inane debates on the size of government.
Posted by: TheRadicalModerate | Sep 14, 2007 3:39:11 PM
TRM, I assert that cutting the budget in the face of an increased need for services is a bad thing. And a rising population putting an increased strain of infrastructure does create an increased need for certain services. When a business faces a larger influx of customers putting an additional strain on its staff and physical plant, I don't think the first instinct anyone says is, "Aha! It's time to cut our budget!" On the other hand, misguided programs like TABOR force such decisions to be made.
Cutting a budget in absolute terms is necessary in order to eliminate services that are not needed.
Posted by: Tyro | Sep 14, 2007 4:04:55 PM
Tyro, again, this all depends on what kind of productivity growth you get for the service in question. If the DMV's processes and automation are so antiquated that you can get 10% productivity growth (i.e. 90% of the resources next year will service the same number of people as this year) and Colorado's population is growing at 2% a year, then you ought to be able to make a pretty hefty cut as long as that productivity growth holds up.
The trick is obviously to be able to correctly estimate the productivity gains you're going to get up front, which requires smart management and smart process design. How do you encourage those things? By growing the budget blindly? By keeping the budget static?
No argument on TABOR though. You can't do any of this stuff blindly, including the cuts.
Posted by: TheRadicalModerate | Sep 14, 2007 4:24:30 PM
New Jersey (South end of the state): five minutes in the office total, on the last day of the month, leaving with the new card in hand, and they show you the picture on a computer screen, and will retake at your request. The last time I needed x-rays it took four hours of waiting to get a similar picture from the inside. Maybe the NJDMV could take over the healthcare system?
Posted by: arthur | Sep 14, 2007 4:37:23 PM
Don't get me started about the passport office.....
Posted by: Savagespeaking | Sep 14, 2007 5:17:59 PM
Poor service at the DMV wouldn't have anything to do with lack of competition would it? I mean, what's the incentive to strive for excellence when you're the only game in town. Not that I have a solution for that (rival DMV's doesn't sound plausible) but the knee jerk "more money!!" solution is silly.
Posted by: JasonC | Sep 14, 2007 5:20:20 PM
The one in Georgetown...is a dream to go to.
You have some odd dreams. I mean, it's a pretty facility but it's still a little confusing and slow - plus it's really not Metro-convenient (which is why I hate Georgetown in general).
Posted by: SDM | Sep 14, 2007 5:21:45 PM
Ezra, I'm not sure what you mean by the "main DC DMV". The one at 301 C St (which for years was the only one)? They've apparently closed that and opened a new one on M St. SW, last April. The last time I was at the C St. place was way back in 1998, but at that time the place was running beautifully. Registering the car I had just bought took me at most 20 minutes. More recently, in April of 2006, I used the facility on Brentwood Road NE, which doesn't cater to upper class white people, on the whole, and it was a similar experience. I registered my car (after returning from exile in NC) in about 20 minutes, and the person I dealt with was pleasant and efficient.
My first experience with the DC DMV, however, was a nightmare from which I needed several years to awaken. That was in 1976. I still see spots.
Posted by: Herschel | Sep 14, 2007 5:26:51 PM
Why are you down on Sirota? His columns are a welcome counterbalance to the right wing propagandists out here in the West.
Posted by: Blue in ID | Sep 14, 2007 5:36:17 PM
I mean, what's the incentive to strive for xcellence when you're the only game in town.
The incentive is that the maxim, "oh, the government will just do X as well as it runs the DMV," will be seen as a good thing, not a bad thing. For Republicans, they have a perverse incentive to benefit when the DMV runs as poorly as possible to ensure that there is little motivation to use the government to do something like, say, improve public infrastructure or adopt new infrastructure initiatives as the technological landscape changes.
"More money" won't solve DC's DMV woes, but it's no surprise that when the Colroado DMV has to lay off lots of staff and close branches that service is going to decline.
Boy am I totally dreading the fact that I have to register a change of address with the DC DMV in a couple of weeks...
Posted by: Tyro | Sep 14, 2007 5:46:25 PM
If "more money" really is the solution, then raise fees. Let people who own cars pay the price for them.
Posted by: JasonC | Sep 14, 2007 6:01:32 PM
New Mexico allows for private and state run Motor Vehicle offices. Since the program's inception I have never spent more than 20 minutes renewing my driver's license. Vehicle titles, license plates for vehicles are a similar wait. The private firms generally a $20-$30 fee for this express service, but my time is well worth it.
Posted by: Cinderella Ferret | Sep 14, 2007 6:50:02 PM
If "more money" really is the solution, then raise fees. Let people who own cars pay the price for them.
In which JasonC proves that he doesn't live in the United States. Or has he forgotten the howls that arise every time a legislature even considers raising taxes on cars, even value-based excise taxes to make them less regressive.
Posted by: paperwight | Sep 14, 2007 7:06:26 PM
Here in New York, I've never spent more than 45 minutes in a DMV.
Posted by: mad6798j | Sep 14, 2007 7:35:30 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
