aemeijers wrote:
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.

Heh! A few years ago, the mayor of Brooklyn realized they were coming up on
the 100th anniversary of the Brooklyn Bridge in just two years. Many in the
town wanted a special celebration, but there was a small problem. The bridge
looked like ****, and it was still several years away from it's scheduled
repainting.

Knowing how government worked (your analysis above is correct), to put the
contract out for bids and litigate the ensuing lawsuits of the unsuccessful
bidders would take years! So the mayor went to the head of public works and
asked for a recommendation for a company that could do the work, with which
the city had a good relationship, and that had a track record of good work
at fair prices.

The mayor then called the company and asked if they could paint the bridge
for cost plus a percentage. The company agreed and got to work within two
weeks.

The uproar from other wannabe bridge painters was deafening. Lawsuits were
filed, depositions taken, notaries public without number were lined up to
the horizon. By the time the first lawsuit got to trial, the bridge was
painted (at what everyone agreed was a fair price), the suit rendered moot,
the bridge looked super-spiffy, and the birthday celebration was held to
everyone's satisfaction.