On 8/14/2011 8:27 PM, Gordon Shumway wrote:
(snip)
One point I should have made, but didn't, was that those government
jobs, in virtually every case, could be done with less cost, faster
completion time and more accurately by the private sector.

First, by eliminating the cumbersome bureaucratic red tape and the
redundant layers of supervision would streamline the task. Fewer
employees and restrictions equal less cost.

Second, by eliminating the cumbersome bureaucratic red tape and the
redundant layers of supervision would streamline the task. Fewer
employees and committees to get approval from equals faster completion
time.

Third, by eliminating the cumbersome bureaucratic red tape and the
redundant layers of supervision would streamline the task. We all are
aware that the congress critters (all of them) would have trouble
finding their ass with both hands. Therefore, without their meddling,
the finished product could only be more accurate.

In closing, if I am elected president...

A popular misconception, and in most cases flat-out wrong. About the
only time subbing out work to private sector saves money, is if it is
something you can open the yellow pages and find a company that already
does it. (ie, laundry services, rent-a-cop services, outside grounds
maint, that sort of thing.) Anything where you have to come with a
requirements document from scratch costs a fortune up front, has to go
out for bids (and usually protests from the losers), and has to be
monitored through life of the contract. In most cases, work has been
contracted out so politicians could get a sound bite that they 'reduced'
the number of government workers. They lied. All they did is sub the
work out. If I was benign dictator, number of employees would be defined
as the number of warm bodies in the building.

--
aem sends...