Bush's privitization flop

[jillian]

What's silly is suggesting outsourcing the Marines. For one thing, you could never find a company that would agree to work for the price Marines get, much less to lowball it.

Nope...they just pay them a thousand dollars a day and call them Haliburton employees, no?

Now *THAT* pisses ME off.

 

[Zoomie1980]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/24/AR2008042403457.html

Really? 10 figure savings is a flop just because the savings didn't get to goal. And imagine that, the "critics" are mostly the civil-service union and the union's supporters in Congress. Surprise, surprise.

I spent several years running Federal contracts with the DOD. And I can attest, that with a few notable exceptions, the civil service, at least at the Pentagon and STRACTCOM, are about as useless a pack of louts as I've ever had to deal with, and primary reason is they have virtually NO accountability.

As I've stated before this country could lose upwards HALF the civil service work force and not miss a beat.

 

[Ravi]

Maybe, Zoomie, but convince me that government contracts are any better, or even not as bad.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Did you bother to read the article YOU posted? Perhaps you'd like to point out where EXACTLY there is this "flip-flop?" You lefties are so predictable and petty. A term is used against a Democrat and y'all spend the next four years beating it to death, to the point that you don't even know what it means.

Simply put, the idea to make government employees compete for their jobs is a good one. If you haven't been around the government before, then you might not know what it means, but if ever anyone could be called fat, lazy ticks, it's civil service employees.

It was a program that was begun under Eisenhower.

The article also states the program HAS saved over a $1B. a year.

But let's see WHO is to blame here actually.



Hmmm ....

Other than the fact that Bush reintroduced the program, and it has not achieved the results HE desired, I don't even see where HE is involved, and I damned sure don't see where he changed his poistion on the topic.

And Hell, I'll even say that I COMPLETELY AGREE with Bush on this one, and it's just too bad the bureaucracy is so adept at protecting and perpetuating itself.

Most of us, non-union folks, anyway, compete for our jobs every day we go to work. Civil Service, as a rule, unless directly impacted by these competition edicts, do not, they essentially have a "job for life" or at least 20 years, when they can retire on a life long pension, that WE pay for. They've never had to turn a profit, and almost NEVER come in under budget or on time with anything. Over two-thirds of their "projects" never even reach completion before cancellation. If we performed that "well" in private industry we'd all be on a soup line and sleeping at the open door missions...and the country would be in a depression so severe that the 1930's would seem like the good times...

 

[Zoomie1980]

Maybe, Zoomie, but convince me that government contracts are any better, or even not as bad.

It's the civil service that causes the vast majority of private contracted projects to fail by never ending streams of requirement changes complicated by ever changing and ever increasing regulations and petty rules.... The civil service is not only generally hapless in running their own projects, their oversight and "management" of private government contracts causes the majority of those to fail as well.

Gov't is good at only a very few things that they have no choice but to be good and efficient at. One of those is the fighting force we field (not the equipment procurement process but the actual tip of the spear), they do a decent job of managing the transportation industry. Beyond that, there is very little the government does well at all. We've all seen how well the Central Bank manages things in a crisis....

 

[Zoomie1980]

I'd have to see some actual savings benefit before thinking outsourcing the government was more effective and cheaper.

But the roads thing made me laugh. Notorious for going over budget and taking for ever. And every time I drive by any road construction there are about 15 paid onlookers for every person working. Yeah, government contracts, what a hoot.

The problem continues to be the fact that even contracting with private industry to perform these duties is still managed by hapless, clueless bureaucrats with no accountability. Even good, conscientious people that work in an environment of no accountability after a while they lose their edge and eventually just give up under the weight of it all.

 

[Gunny]

Nope...they just pay them a thousand dollars a day and call them Haliburton employees, no?

Now *THAT* pisses ME off.

Tough shit. Tell your idiot elected officials to quit trying to fund their stupidass handout programs off the military budget by cutting manpower like your boy Slick Willy did.

No stupid deed goes unpunished.

 

[Zoomie1980]

A lot!!! Public works projects for starts. But the problem is not whether a private concern can compete, they definitely can, the problem is how to prove it. Internal audits within private corporations have to be complete, accurate and include all costs for management to make decisions. This is not the case for governments. They calculate things completely different.

I recently spent a year and a half trying to point that very thing out to a large county in Florida and it was nothing but an uphill battle. They wanted to say they were competitive with private industry but they had to "cook" the books so badly to make it look that way it would be actually criminal if it was a public corporation. The "true" internal audit we conducted revealed an overhead rate of nearly 400% for their operational staff, compared to typical rates of 100 to 140% for private companies?!?

I did a small project four years ago for the state of Nebraska Dept of Education. Nebraska has one of the nation's lowest teacher salary rates in the country. Bottom 10, yet, per capita they are in the top 10 in expenditures per student. Why? Management overhead of over 600%!!!! But they are all unionized and protected by a myriad of state laws and regulations. It would take legislative action to eliminate that overhead and that is just not politically feasilble yet they whine and whine about their low teacher salaries, all while Nebraska property taxes are among the highest in the nation.

Just another example of how utterly useless government at all levels is. And as bad as it is here in the this country it is MUCH WORSE in Europe where gov't mgt overhead is as much as 1000%.

 

[Ravi]

The problem continues to be the fact that even contracting with private industry to perform these duties is still managed by hapless, clueless bureaucrats with no accountability. Even good, conscientious people that work in an environment of no accountability after a while they lose their edge and eventually just give up under the weight of it all.

Maybe. IIRC, the government must take the lowest bid. Everyone that bids knows that. They also know about change orders. What happens is we tie the hands of the government (us) with red tape.

Still, I await the cost/analysis report that shows private contractors both do a better job, have any kind of accountability and are cheaper.

 

[cbi0090]

I did a small project four years ago for the state of Nebraska Dept of Education. Nebraska has one of the nation's lowest teacher salary rates in the country. Bottom 10, yet, per capita they are in the top 10 in expenditures per student. Why? Management overhead of over 600%!!!! But they are all unionized and protected by a myriad of state laws and regulations. It would take legislative action to eliminate that overhead and that is just not politically feasilble yet they whine and whine about their low teacher salaries, all while Nebraska property taxes are among the highest in the nation.

Just another example of how utterly useless government at all levels is. And as bad as it is here in the this country it is MUCH WORSE in Europe where gov't mgt overhead is as much as 1000%.

So typical. A number of years ago, I actually contemplated teaching. They were starting an engineering magnet high school and I was chairman of the educational outreach for a local ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) chapter, at that time. I met with the a large number of the adminstrators and when they outlined what they wanted to accomplish I was naturally excited. I immediately began outlining for them all of the things that could do done and how they could start pumping out students with certifications to perform various design, testing, inspection and construction work, talent the industry seriously needs. After my impromptu half-hour dissertation they were sitting there with there mouths open and asked if they could speak privately for a moment. When I returned they offered me a job as director of the program.
It was quite a compliment and I told them I would have to think about it. My ex wife was a teacher and I was always involved in her work, so I knew how rewarding it could be, so I returned understanding that it would require a significant financial sacrifice with the idea of accepting. This time the HR person was present and I was quickly dressed down for my lack of educational experience ( something I already knew but was willing to overcome) and given a listing of all the educational requirements (classes) I would have to meet within the first year. I was then told that they were really going way out of their way and giving me an salarly offer that was way above what they would normally give. It was insane. It wasn't just low it was so low as to be impossible unless I moved back in with my parents.
I looked at them and asked if they could point out anyone within their massive 6 story administration building, beside secretarial or janitorial staff, who was making that little. They didn't answer. They didn't have to I already knew the answer.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Just a quick reminder, handing government functions over to private contractors isn't privatizing, it's outsourcing. The correct way to truly privatize something is to cut all government spending on it completely.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Maybe. IIRC, the government must take the lowest bid. Everyone that bids knows that. They also know about change orders. What happens is we tie the hands of the government (us) with red tape.

Still, I await the cost/analysis report that shows private contractors both do a better job, have any kind of accountability and are cheaper.

Private contractors have the most powerful of all accountability....profit motive and responsibility to their shareholders. They do exactly what the government requires of them and almost always deliver on time and at or under cost. However, they are usually forced to re-deliver and re-deliver, and re-deliver, over and over again, because the government loves the "change-order". IN the end, it costs the tax payer about as much or more.....

True privatization is completely removing the function from government entirely.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

So typical. A number of years ago, I actually contemplated teaching. They were starting an engineering magnet high school and I was chairman of the educational outreach for a local ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) chapter, at that time. I met with the a large number of the adminstrators and when they outlined what they wanted to accomplish I was naturally excited. I immediately began outlining for them all of the things that could do done and how they could start pumping out students with certifications to perform various design, testing, inspection and construction work, talent the industry seriously needs. After my impromptu half-hour dissertation they were sitting there with there mouths open and asked if they could speak privately for a moment. When I returned they offered me a job as director of the program.
It was quite a compliment and I told them I would have to think about it. My ex wife was a teacher and I was always involved in her work, so I knew how rewarding it could be, so I returned understanding that it would require a significant financial sacrifice with the idea of accepting. This time the HR person was present and I was quickly dressed down for my lack of educational experience ( something I already knew but was willing to overcome) and given a listing of all the educational requirements (classes) I would have to meet within the first year. I was then told that they were really going way out of their way and giving me an salarly offer that was way above what they would normally give. It was insane. It wasn't just low it was so low as to be impossible unless I moved back in with my parents.
I looked at them and asked if they could point out anyone within their massive 6 story administration building, beside secretarial or janitorial staff, who was making that little. They didn't answer. They didn't have to I already knew the answer.

Haha, that's just sad. But not surprising. Fun fact: Of all the colleges in our nation's universities, the grad students with the lowest IQ's are consistently in the colleges of education.

How dare someone who knows their shit teach our kids! How dare they actually--gasp--design a curriculum that gets elbow-deep into relevant job skills! There's obviously a demand for quality people, but the government agency is simply immune to supply and demand, how surprising. And then we have to watch news reports about how we aren't graduating enough technical people, and must import more from china and india.

Nothing would make me happier than to see bureaucrats like this out of a job, living under a bridge, with hunger gnawing at their belly. Hopefully I will live to see our school systems truly privatized one day (see previous post)

 

[Zoomie1980]

Haha, that's just sad. But not surprising. Fun fact: Of all the colleges in our nation's universities, the grad students with the lowest IQ's are consistently in the colleges of education.

How dare someone who knows their shit teach our kids! How dare they actually--gasp--design a curriculum that gets elbow-deep into relevant job skills! There's obviously a demand for quality people, but the government agency is simply immune to supply and demand, how surprising. And then we have to watch news reports about how we aren't graduating enough technical people, and must import more from china and india.

Nothing would make me happier than to see bureaucrats like this out of a job, living under a bridge, with hunger gnawing at their belly. Hopefully I will live to see our school systems truly privatized one day (see previous post)

An anecdote that displays this very thing.

My son and his two best friends entered college at that same time in that fall of 2002. All three were all average high school students but on the college prep track. My son graduated in four years in May of 2006 and has now finished his masters and will go to work for Virgin (the space plane co) this summer. His two friends both chose first to major in computer science, promptly flunked out of that, re-majored in accounting, both flunked out of that, one changed to biology the other psychology and again, flunked out of that. Finally both settled on general education with a history specialty. They are passing and will both finally graduate in May of 2009. Both will be school teachers.....the best of the best, teaching our kids.....

 

[Dogger]

Fun fact: Of all the colleges in our nation's universities, the grad students with the lowest IQ's are consistently in the colleges of education.

Having an IQ lower than the average for graduate students does not make a prospective educator a dummy. You are comparing them to a sample that is more intelligent than the general population, and drawing an unsupported inference that they don't know "their shit".

Without a link, I can't challenge the study you cite head-on. I can suggest that your "fun fact", if true, refutes your notion that government agencies are "immune to supply and demand".

Although public schools, public universities and government agencies aren't driven by profit motives, they must compete with the private sector for talented people. The students with higher IQs have more career options available, and because education is badly underfunded, those students gravitate towards more lucrative professions such as law, medicine and engineering.

These factors do not disappear in a private education system. Unless tuition or public funding is increased, they will not get the personnel who choose higher paying careers.

In addition, much (but not all) of the performance disparity between public and private education comes from the fact that private schools don't have to take everyone. They can take only the students who would perform well in any school environment, and leave the lower performers and troublemakers behind in public education.

That works well for private school kids, as long as their schools can skim the cream. If we abandon public education, however, this structural advantage disappears, and lower performing students will drag down private education the same way they now depress public school performance.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Having an IQ lower than the average for graduate students does not make a prospective educator a dummy. You are comparing them to a sample that is more intelligent than the general population, and drawing an unsupported inference that they don't know "their shit".

Without a link, I can't challenge the study you cite head-on. I can suggest that your "fun fact", if true, refutes your notion that government agencies are "immune to supply and demand".

Although public schools, public universities and government agencies aren't driven by profit motives, they must compete with the private sector for talented people. The students with higher IQs have more career options available, and because education is badly underfunded, those students gravitate towards more lucrative professions such as law, medicine and engineering.

These factors do not disappear in a private education system. Unless tuition or public funding is increased, they will not get the personnel who choose higher paying careers.

In addition, much (but not all) of the performance disparity between public and private education comes from the fact that private schools don't have to take everyone. They can take only the students who would perform well in any school environment, and leave the lower performers and troublemakers behind in public education.

That works well for private school kids, as long as their schools can skim the cream. If we abandon public education, however, this structural advantage disappears, and lower performing students will drag down private education the same way they now depress public school performance.

And they compete for talent MISERABLY. One of the real fundamental problems in government is that they simply cannot afford to pay cometative rates for top technical talent. 100% of ALL the DOD's IT function is outsourced to private contractors and even those contractors cannot afford the top talent. ITCC is private consortium of five private industry contractors that provides technical IT services to USSTRATCOM. CSC is primary and the other four are subs. But it's very top pay rate for Level III technical personnel is $40/hr. Level III the absolute top technical level they have. The going rate for that level of Java, Web Infrastructure and UNIX/Linux in the Omaha metro market is $52/hr. So they are getting subpar technical talent even using private contractors! Civil Service in the HQ at Offutt? Hapless. They have absolutely NO concept of the technology they are managing. Most still think Java is coffee....

I could go on and on with countless examples at federal and state levels concerning the complete inability of government to obtain or retain any kind of technical and even technical managerial talent. Govt' simply can't compete, period, not even close.

Schools? Teaching is essentially what you do with college degrees that no one in business wants.....

 

[Annie]

Having an IQ lower than the average for graduate students does not make a prospective educator a dummy. You are comparing them to a sample that is more intelligent than the general population, and drawing an unsupported inference that they don't know "their shit".

Without a link, I can't challenge the study you cite head-on. I can suggest that your "fun fact", if true, refutes your notion that government agencies are "immune to supply and demand".

Although public schools, public universities and government agencies aren't driven by profit motives, they must compete with the private sector for talented people. The students with higher IQs have more career options available, and because education is badly underfunded, those students gravitate towards more lucrative professions such as law, medicine and engineering.

These factors do not disappear in a private education system. Unless tuition or public funding is increased, they will not get the personnel who choose higher paying careers.

In addition, much (but not all) of the performance disparity between public and private education comes from the fact that private schools don't have to take everyone. They can take only the students who would perform well in any school environment, and leave the lower performers and troublemakers behind in public education.

That works well for private school kids, as long as their schools can skim the cream. If we abandon public education, however, this structural advantage disappears, and lower performing students will drag down private education the same way they now depress public school performance.

You haven't really checked out private schools for about the past 20 years, have you? We take kids with a myriad of LD, BD problems, only 1 kid expelled in past 10 years, for putting a pencil in another kid's eye.

It's a combo of needing the enrollment numbers, tuition, and 'serving all God's Children.' Social justice and all that.

 

[Annie]

And they compete for talent MISERABLY. One of the real fundamental problems in government is that they simply cannot afford to pay cometative rates for top technical talent. 100% of ALL the DOD's IT function is outsourced to private contractors and even those contractors cannot afford the top talent. ITCC is private consortium of five private industry contractors that provides technical IT services to USSTRATCOM. CSC is primary and the other four are subs. But it's very top pay rate for Level III technical personnel is $40/hr. Level III the absolute top technical level they have. The going rate for that level of Java, Web Infrastructure and UNIX/Linux in the Omaha metro market is $52/hr. So they are getting subpar technical talent even using private contractors! Civil Service in the HQ at Offutt? Hapless. They have absolutely NO concept of the technology they are managing. Most still think Java is coffee....

I could go on and on with countless examples at federal and state levels concerning the complete inability of government to obtain or retain any kind of technical and even technical managerial talent. Govt' simply can't compete, period, not even close.

Schools? Teaching is essentially what you do with college degrees that no one in business wants.....

I don't have much respect for those with 'education degrees'. I've an education endorsement, but I will hold my head in shame for the MS in ED, allowing me to be an advisor, principal, etc. Education courses were the least rigorous, most banal I ever encountered in upper education.

 

[Dogger]

Despite my many reservations about the Democratic Party, I haven't voted for a Republican since 1996 precisely because the GOP approach to government is designed to fail. Reagan said government is the problem, not the solution, and his ideological soulmates keept trying to prove that. All they have proved is that their approach to government is a problem.

Reagan's ideological extremism allows no nuance in debating how much government is proper. There are problems with government, and there are problems that only government can solve. Running a government with a Reagan/Bush philosophy makes as much sense as running an oil company headed by someone who believes all cars should be crushed into cubes.

There are some government functions that could be handled better by private enterprise, but whenever I see privatization advocated as a cure for all problems, I see an absolutist who remains untouched by the many failures of the Bush League approach to government.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Having an IQ lower than the average for graduate students does not make a prospective educator a dummy. You are comparing them to a sample that is more intelligent than the general population, and drawing an unsupported inference that they don't know "their shit".

Without a link, I can't challenge the study you cite head-on. I can suggest that your "fun fact", if true, refutes your notion that government agencies are "immune to supply and demand".

Although public schools, public universities and government agencies aren't driven by profit motives, they must compete with the private sector for talented people. The students with higher IQs have more career options available, and because education is badly underfunded, those students gravitate towards more lucrative professions such as law, medicine and engineering.

These factors do not disappear in a private education system. Unless tuition or public funding is increased, they will not get the personnel who choose higher paying careers.

In addition, much (but not all) of the performance disparity between public and private education comes from the fact that private schools don't have to take everyone. They can take only the students who would perform well in any school environment, and leave the lower performers and troublemakers behind in public education.

That works well for private school kids, as long as their schools can skim the cream. If we abandon public education, however, this structural advantage disappears, and lower performing students will drag down private education the same way they now depress public school performance.

I certainly wouldn't want to abandon public education. Public education is one of those critical "opportunities" a free society offers its children. But it absolutely, positively MUST be radically reformed. It's really a state problem since they are the ones that fund it and make most of the "rules". Most states absolutely must eliminate the unions and give administrators a "right to fire". We've got to get rid of the bad teachers. But even more important than that is we have got to get rid of the crushing administrative weight. Like was state elsewhere mgt overhead is over 400% in many states. We just don't need 2/3rds the admin staff we have, period.

Reduce administrative overhead and we could pay teachers more and attract better teachers.

And then, get back to teaching basics and leave the social skill development to other agencies....parents would be a nice start.... Schools need to be providing what BUSINESS wants not what some collection of academians believes the "culture" needs. We simply don't need art, kenesiology, music appreciation, general studies, history, sociology majors in today's business world, we need scientists, engineers, computer programmers and architects, advance management ( as in people who understand stochastic models and such), finance and economic specialists.