Matt Yglesias is on the side of the angels when he makes the case that the public sector should be about delivering high-quality services rather than serve as a jobs program and when he argues for market-oriented land use policies, among other things. I nevertheless find his anti-conservatism, which I assume is strategic in at least some small degree, rather frustrating, e.g.,

[W]hat concrete policy steps could the DC government take to avoid more people being stuck with the problem of rising property values that lead to higher property taxes. Well, I see two:
1. The city could stop investing in improved public services and public safety.
2. The city could reduce property taxes, especially on well-heeled property owners.
That’s not a wild-eyed or insane policy agenda by any means. Indeed, it’s the fiscal agenda of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
And I think it’s good for progressives to pay attention to things like Johnson’s story, since she can perhaps help people to better understand why an agenda of spending cuts and property tax cuts can appeal to a broad group of people and not just a tiny cabal of Koch-funded conspirators. That said, here in the DC context, we should recognize this kind of communitarian critique of liberalism for what it is — a conservative critique.

Is the policy agenda of Governors Christie and Cuomo about no longer investing in improved public services and public safety? I assume that both men would disagree. Much depends on the definition of “improved public services.” Are more expensive public services necessarily better public services? And if not, there is a decent case that greater flexibility in compensation policy and work rules might yield improved public services at lower cost. I’d argue that it both Christie and Cuomo see this as their long-term objective, and investing political capital in undermining the power of the organizations that have the strongest interest in maintaining rigid work rules and salary schedules is essential to taking the next step.

Given Matt’s audience, it is easy to see the rhetorical move: he is discrediting the “communitarian critique” by associating it with hate figures of the political right, which is shrewd. The trouble is that the agenda of improving public sector productivity in part through imposing some level of spending discipline is just as easily and plausibly characterized as blandly centrist and neoliberal. Consider, for example, a March 2011 McKinsey report, “The public sector productivity imperative” [PDF]:

The budgets of many advanced economies are seriously under strain. Reduced tax revenues due to the global recession combined with stimulus packages to kick-start growth have resulted in precariously high debt and budget deficits. Even before the recession, governments knew their aging populations spelled budgetary trouble, with the predicted sharp rise in demand for medical and social care unmatched by growth in the tax-paying workforce. But their predicament is now considerably worse.
In response to immediate budgetary pressures, many countries have instituted or proposed cuts in government services and increases in taxes. While both measures are necessary if budgets are to be balanced, there is a third that can make a substantial contribution to easing the current crisis, while also helping to preserve essential services such as health care and defense in years to come. This entails providing more public services for less money—in other words, raising productivity.
The public sector is the largest employer in all advanced economies, yet its slow productivity growth has long made it a drag on the economy. Even without the crisis, it would be important to increase public-sector productivity as part of an overall growth strategy. The recession and growing demographic headwinds now make it imperative.

I think we can all agree that this is entirely banal. Important, but banal. At the heart of this important but banal document is that improving public services does not require increasing public spending.