Comments on: Outsource This http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/11/outsource-this/ Exposing the ugly truths about the Bush Administration. Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:57:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: Don Fitch http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/11/outsource-this/#comment-55586 Wed, 13 Dec 2006 05:48:33 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/11/outsource-this/#comment-55586 I worked for c. 25 years for a County Department that partially-privatized. As far as I could see, the farmed-out work didn't get done quite as well, and cost at least as much. Another problem, rarely mentioned, that I see is that the County Employees had good Health Insurance and Retirement plans. The private contracters' workers (mostly "temporary/part-time") who get sick or too old to work end up on Welfare. Part of the cost just got shoved a few years down the line. We seem to have lost track of a Basic Idea. If we (the Public) want Services, they have to be paid for. We can pay Government Employees to do them directly, or we can pay Private Contractors to hire people to do them... and skim off 10 to 20 % as profit. I don't think private contractors are that much more efficient. I worked for c. 25 years for a County Department that partially-privatized. As far as I could see, the farmed-out work didn’t get done quite as well, and cost at least as much.

Another problem, rarely mentioned, that I see is that the County Employees had good Health Insurance and Retirement plans. The private contracters’ workers (mostly “temporary/part-time”) who get sick or too old to work end up on Welfare. Part of the cost just got shoved a few years down the line.

We seem to have lost track of a Basic Idea. If we (the Public) want Services, they have to be paid for. We can pay Government Employees to do them directly, or we can pay Private Contractors to hire people to do them… and skim off 10 to 20 % as profit. I don’t think private contractors are that much more efficient.

]]> by: Doug Hughes http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/11/outsource-this/#comment-55543 Wed, 13 Dec 2006 01:59:33 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/11/outsource-this/#comment-55543 Kudos to Rege in #3; he hit on a fact which needs to be hit with a sledgehammer. He links the origins of 'privatization' with fascism. And I am using fascism to describe a condition where governemnt becomes a tool of business. (sound familiar?) On the other end of the spectrum is Communism. To understand Rand, you need to realize she was born in Saint Petersburg, Russia. She is a reactionary, attempting to disprove communism by creating a philosophy which is not anti-communist; it's the opposite of Communism. The parallel in religion is satinist cults, which model their rituals and actions on Christainity - only reversed. Their beliefs become tangled and irrational, as did Rands. I have read 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'Fountainhead'. I credit Ayn Rand with sharpening my own beliefs because I had to decide where she was right in her thinking, and where she went off the track. I have had similar learning experiences listening to Wm F. Buckley. I disagree with Maha that she was not a thinker; she was, at least compared to the current crop (Coulter & Limbaugh). You WILL learn more from articulate thinkers on the other side of your position than you will from your fans. Last point, 'privatization' as used by the Republicans has been a device to consolidate power. They sold functions of government to businesses who in turn, supported the incumbents. Big business can supply big bucks, and Republicans thought they had a permanent lock in DC, since collecting more money is supposed to guarantee re-election. It did not work. (The question is: will Dems serve the people or line up at the trough vacated by Republicans?) Kudos to Rege in #3; he hit on a fact which needs to be hit with a sledgehammer. He links the origins of ‘privatization’ with fascism. And I am using fascism to describe a condition where governemnt becomes a tool of business. (sound familiar?)

On the other end of the spectrum is Communism. To understand Rand, you need to realize she was born in Saint Petersburg, Russia. She is a reactionary, attempting to disprove communism by creating a philosophy which is not anti-communist; it’s the opposite of Communism. The parallel in religion is satinist cults, which model their rituals and actions on Christainity - only reversed. Their beliefs become tangled and irrational, as did Rands.

I have read ‘Atlas Shrugged’ and ‘Fountainhead’. I credit Ayn Rand with sharpening my own beliefs because I had to decide where she was right in her thinking, and where she went off the track. I have had similar learning experiences listening to Wm F. Buckley. I disagree with Maha that she was not a thinker; she was, at least compared to the current crop (Coulter & Limbaugh). You WILL learn more from articulate thinkers on the other side of your position than you will from your fans.

Last point, ‘privatization’ as used by the Republicans has been a device to consolidate power. They sold functions of government to businesses who in turn, supported the incumbents. Big business can supply big bucks, and Republicans thought they had a permanent lock in DC, since collecting more money is supposed to guarantee re-election. It did not work. (The question is: will Dems serve the people or line up at the trough vacated by Republicans?)

]]> by: k http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/11/outsource-this/#comment-55540 Wed, 13 Dec 2006 01:24:20 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/11/outsource-this/#comment-55540 What no one ever says is that government does things the private sector simply does not do. The private does not maintain law and order, investigate child abuse, distribute aid without regard to race ethnicity and religious belief, or defend the country against attack or regulate itself in the public interest. Years ago I was at a meeting of child welfare workers who were being told to treat their clients as 'customers'. One worker said "when I go into a home to investigate allegations of abuse, I'm not selling a product and they are not buying." Public sectors do not make and sell widgets. Having worked in retail I can tell you that getting the customer what they need , selling it and the customer walking away happy is a lot easier than working in the public sector and treating everyone fairly squarely impartially and trying to work with people to improve their behavior. It is much harder. Perhaps that is why righties fail so obviously: remaking Iraq, pretending abstinence works, Katrina. When there is something more complex than widget selling the private sector frankly stinks. But yes the real reason they love privatization is it pays- them and their friends. the few get richer, the public gets little or nothing. What no one ever says is that government does things the private sector simply does not do. The private does not maintain law and order, investigate child abuse, distribute aid without regard to race ethnicity and religious belief, or defend the country against attack or regulate itself in the public interest. Years ago I was at a meeting of child welfare workers who were being told to treat their clients as ‘customers’. One worker said “when I go into a home to investigate allegations of abuse, I’m not selling a product and they are not buying.” Public sectors do not make and sell widgets. Having worked in retail I can tell you that getting the customer what they need , selling it and the customer walking away happy is a lot easier than working in the public sector and treating everyone fairly squarely impartially and trying to work with people to improve their behavior. It is much harder. Perhaps that is why righties fail so obviously: remaking Iraq, pretending abstinence works, Katrina. When there is something more complex than widget selling the private sector frankly stinks.

But yes the real reason they love privatization is it pays- them and their friends. the few get richer, the public gets little or nothing.

]]> by: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/11/outsource-this/#comment-55491 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:05:59 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/11/outsource-this/#comment-55491 "Don’t forget, Hitler was elected." Sortakinda. Hitler was elected to the German parliament but was appointed Chancellor (reluctantly) by President Hindenburg. Hitler used the military to seize power and appoint himself dictator for life. The German people never elected him to be their head of state. Re Rand -- certainly she had some insight into totalitarianism, although none of her insights were terribly original. She was a better packager than thinker, IMO. Her books were juvenile. She ended up as rigidly ideological as the totalitarians she didn't like. I saw her speak (via television) while she was still alive, and she was horrible. She clearly thought she was some kind of superior human being, thought her ideas were the only ones worthy of consideration, and she insulted anyone who dared contradict her. And she was a knee-jerk anti-regulationist. “Don’t forget, Hitler was elected.”

Sortakinda. Hitler was elected to the German parliament but was appointed Chancellor (reluctantly) by President Hindenburg. Hitler used the military to seize power and appoint himself dictator for life. The German people never elected him to be their head of state.

Re Rand — certainly she had some insight into totalitarianism, although none of her insights were terribly original. She was a better packager than thinker, IMO. Her books were juvenile. She ended up as rigidly ideological as the totalitarians she didn’t like. I saw her speak (via television) while she was still alive, and she was horrible. She clearly thought she was some kind of superior human being, thought her ideas were the only ones worthy of consideration, and she insulted anyone who dared contradict her. And she was a knee-jerk anti-regulationist.

]]> by: fshk http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/11/outsource-this/#comment-55474 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:19:04 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/11/outsource-this/#comment-55474 It's sort of a throwaway in the post, but re: the article about cuts at the FDA leading to an increase in food poisoning. Proving the larger point, most of what I've read on the increasing instances of food poisoning all points to industrial farming run amock -- particularly the centralization of the food supply and the end of agricultural competition -- as the source of the problem. Even if you implemented better regulations (to keep animal-borne bacteria away from produce, like the strain of E. coli that seems to be coming from cows that are pumped full of antibiotics and is found in the manure used in the spinach fields, for example), cuts at the FDA means the agency doesn't have the manpower to enforce them, and Big Ag throws around enough political contributions to stifle protest anyway. (Why the FDA regulates produce and the USDA handles meatpacking is one of those mysteries.) It’s sort of a throwaway in the post, but re: the article about cuts at the FDA leading to an increase in food poisoning. Proving the larger point, most of what I’ve read on the increasing instances of food poisoning all points to industrial farming run amock — particularly the centralization of the food supply and the end of agricultural competition — as the source of the problem. Even if you implemented better regulations (to keep animal-borne bacteria away from produce, like the strain of E. coli that seems to be coming from cows that are pumped full of antibiotics and is found in the manure used in the spinach fields, for example), cuts at the FDA means the agency doesn’t have the manpower to enforce them, and Big Ag throws around enough political contributions to stifle protest anyway. (Why the FDA regulates produce and the USDA handles meatpacking is one of those mysteries.)

]]> by: marijam http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/11/outsource-this/#comment-55465 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:10:19 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/11/outsource-this/#comment-55465 In that Milton Friedman was a libertarian, Ayn Rand was against pure libertarianism and thought that libertarians needed to have a good dose of objectivism. In that Milton Friedman was a libertarian, Ayn Rand was against pure libertarianism and thought that libertarians needed to have a good dose of objectivism.

]]> by: marijam http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/11/outsource-this/#comment-55464 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:09:13 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/11/outsource-this/#comment-55464 More from Ayn Rand: Principles are much more consistent than men. A basic principle, once accepted, has a way of working itself out to its logical conclusion — even against the will and to the great surprise of those who accepted it. Just accept the idea that there are no inalienable individual rights — and firing squads, executions without trial, and a Gestapo or a G. P. U. will follow automatically — no matter who holds the power, no matter how noble and benevolent his intentions. That is a law of history. You can find any number of examples. Can you name one [counter-example]? Can you name one instance where absolute power — in any hands — did not end in absolute horror? And — for God's sake, fellow Americans, let's not be utter morons, let's give our intelligence a small chance to function and let's recognize the obvious — what is absolute power? It's a power which holds all rights and has to respect none. Does it matter whether such a power is held by a self-appointed dictator or by an elected representative body? The power is the same and its results will be the same. Look through all of history. Look at Europe. Don't forget — they still hold "elections" in Europe. Don't forget, Hitler was elected. More from Ayn Rand: Principles are much more consistent than men. A basic principle, once accepted, has a way of working itself out to its logical conclusion — even against the will and to the great surprise of those who accepted it. Just accept the idea that there are no inalienable individual rights — and firing squads, executions without trial, and a Gestapo or a G. P. U. will follow automatically — no matter who holds the power, no matter how noble and benevolent his intentions. That is a law of history. You can find any number of examples. Can you name one [counter-example]? Can you name one instance where absolute power — in any hands — did not end in absolute horror? And — for God’s sake, fellow Americans, let’s not be utter morons, let’s give our intelligence a small chance to function and let’s recognize the obvious — what is absolute power? It’s a power which holds all rights and has to respect none. Does it matter whether such a power is held by a self-appointed dictator or by an elected representative body? The power is the same and its results will be the same. Look through all of history. Look at Europe. Don’t forget — they still hold “elections” in Europe. Don’t forget, Hitler was elected.

]]> by: mim http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/11/outsource-this/#comment-55453 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:30:09 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/11/outsource-this/#comment-55453 Ayn Rand wrote a book called <i>The Virtue of Selfishness</i>. I never read it, but the title could have been the motto of the Reagan Administration, and of the Republican Party ever since. Ayn Rand wrote a book called The Virtue of Selfishness. I never read it, but the title could have been the motto of the Reagan Administration, and of the Republican Party ever since.

]]> by: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/11/outsource-this/#comment-55451 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:10:35 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/11/outsource-this/#comment-55451 Everybody -- really good discussion; lots to think about. Re Friedman -- he was an Ayn Rand follower, was he not? I know she was a knee-jerk anti-regulationist, whatever her opinions on "reason." Rand never figured out that, deep down, few people are motivated by reason (including her). Fear, greed, anger, and also love -- those are the motivations. "Rational thinking" is what people use to devise the plans their emotions dictate. Few people are "objective" enough about themselves to break out of this pattern. And I've never met an "Objectivist" who wasn't a slave to his/her own Id. Everybody — really good discussion; lots to think about. Re Friedman — he was an Ayn Rand follower, was he not? I know she was a knee-jerk anti-regulationist, whatever her opinions on “reason.” Rand never figured out that, deep down, few people are motivated by reason (including her). Fear, greed, anger, and also love — those are the motivations. “Rational thinking” is what people use to devise the plans their emotions dictate. Few people are “objective” enough about themselves to break out of this pattern. And I’ve never met an “Objectivist” who wasn’t a slave to his/her own Id.

]]> by: maha http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/11/outsource-this/#comment-55450 Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:03:26 +0000 http://www.mahablog.com/2006/12/11/outsource-this/#comment-55450 rege -- thank you so much for the input. This is useful. rege — thank you so much for the input. This is useful.

]]>