That's all good. But things were fine before laws like the Glass-Steagall Act were repealed, giving the money movers, who simply play a facilitator's role in the economy, disastrously undue power. And before we started cutting the taxes of the richest without any clear returns, and while we drowned more and more in debt. Hell, the economy was doing incredibly well in the 50s and 60s despite a MUCH higher tax rate.
If something is wasteful and does not offer clear benefit, then cut it. No problem. If private citizens can offer a better service, then by all means, privatize. But keep in mind we're SUPPOSED to pay for those programs. They're not intended to make profits. It's a sacrifice that we pay to ensure the continuation of our cultural heritage. The fact that it's not voluntary is important! That is the social contract. And it is more important than that 0.8% extra quarterly growth the shareholders are expecting. As a society, we should have employ a broader risk-benefit analysis than that of corporations. Our interests don't always overlap.
I think we're in agreement. I really don't give much a damn whether it's a government program or private. I only care that folks get a fair shake and that we get the best value for our tax dollars. There's corruption in both .. I am all for MUCH stiffer penalties. I don't want what's not mine. I only want a healthy gov't that allows people to reach their potential, and not over-spend ... so that 'we' don't have to pay more taxes than necessary.