De-Privatization: Democrats Looking To Soak The Taxpayer

Organizing Against The Taxpayer

By Dan McLaughlin Posted in | | | | Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Leaving aside a pun he had probably spent years waiting to use, David Freddoso has an excellent piece on the complete collapse of opposition to a big-ticket new ship for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's ocean-floor-mapping project. NOAA, of course, takes up close to 60% of the budget of the Commerce Department, whose budget I looked at in greater detail here. Freddoso's point is that ocean-mapping is a classic example of a function that should be left to the private sector or, at a minimum, contracted out to private companies rather than performed by more-expensive government employees:

Read On...

At the beginning of the Bush presidency, the administration enthusiastically embraced and fought for competitive sourcing. Bush’s first budget director, Mitch Daniels, issued a revised version of a Reagan-era OMB Circular to that end. "To ensure that the American people receive maximum value for their tax dollars," it reads, "commercial activities should be subject to the forces of competition."

The 63-page document, which exempts the military in time of war or mobilization, urges federal agencies to outsource jobs that are not "inherently governmental" and lays down guidelines for doing so. In the past, this practice has created significant savings - there is no reason, for example, to pay lawn crews and janitorial staffs government-union salaries and pensions, when a private company could do the work for less.

And Freddoso warns that in the next Presidential Administration, we could see major increases in government employment as the Democrats roll back the progress that has been made on behalf of hard-working taxpayers:

Competitive sourcing is rarely discussed anymore, except when congressional Democrats, at the urging of public-sector unions, attempt to erode gains already made. Both of the remaining Democratic presidential candidates want the government to perform more non-governmental tasks. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.) told an enthusiastic crowd of unionists in Nevada last February that she would eliminate half a million private contractors. She promised $8 to $10 billion in savings, failing to account for the far-greater offsetting costs that government would incur.

Use of private contractors isn't necessarily the perfect solution, if the government can't get competitive bids, but even so it is cheaper than adding long-term employees to the government's various obligations. The better solution will generally be to get more tasks out of government entirely. But instead of debating between those two alternatives, the Democrats just want to expand the number of workers dependent on salaries and benefits drawn from taxpayer money. And the GOP, sadly, isn't expending much energy to stop them.

De-Privatization: Democrats Looking To Soak The Taxpayer 7 Comments (0 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
That's a headline? by jgravelle

"Democrats Looking To Soak The Taxpayer" is as shocking a revelation as "Rosie O'Donnell Looks Unhappy" or "Yao Ming is Really Tall".

But as long as we're going down that sort of path, here's one that actually made the news a while back:

"Senator Herb Kohl is NOT a Lesbian"...

-jjg

Always worth a reminder nt by Dan McLaughlin

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

I work for the federal government and I have notice the movement from government employees to contract and notice that contractors where being payed more than myself and my fellow government employees. Sometimes by more than 50% percent. This is done by classifying governmental jobs as non governmental and the contracting these jobs out. No cost savings is being past to the tax payers. The total cost of the contract fair exceeds the total cost of a government employee. Why is this done you may ask. First of all these corporations can contribute to Congress and President campaign and government employees are bared by law. Follow the money before make such blanket statements about government workers. We government employees provide a service for all to use.

When a C- speller like me is irked by glaring spelling errors...

noticed x2
passed
far
?
barred

I think we even have a spell checker on the site since I've been seeing little red lines when I misspell things lately. Although maybe that's Firefox.

Yeah, I know a government worker or two living here in the greater Washington commune, one or two of them work pretty hard. They all have tales of stupidity within their departments. And one who is a social friend best exemplifies the problem: his goal in life is to be a cog in the system who can't be fired.

Apple's Safari has one too.



Now also found at The Minority Report

If you think it is hard to get rid of an underperforming government employee, you should try getting rid of an underperforming contractor that has an effective PAC.

In Vino Veritas

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service