Getting Sick and Tired of Government?

.

It appears that there are only cynics and megalomaniacs running for office throughout the world.  Let's face it: Barack Obama seemed just the ticket four years ago; why can't he keep up?  Answer: Government is just too big for anyone to steer.

We used to think that the bureaucracy was too big, and Reagan began the first wave of outsourcing back in the eighties (or 80s, if you prefer, or even 80's).  This is basically what privatizing government services is: you outsource it to private companies.

What does this entail?  You send home (i.e. fire) a whole enormous office of inefficient pencil-pushers who are paid by the taxpayer, and over whom you have some slight control.  Instead, you employ a private company, which then hires a whole heap of employees ---over whom you have absolutely no control, and about whom you frankly do not care---and they, in turn, hire smaller private companies to do menial work (like make the coffee, fill the water coolers, replace the toilet paper, send out the mail, etc, etc), and each of these companies are, in turn farming out the work to several other smaller companies.

All this provides a lot of very low level employment for a lot of disgruntled people.  But you have no control over the way the job is done, just over the final product.

What control do you have?

If you don't like what they come back with, you can fire them.  It is not easy to fire government employees, but you can fire outsourced work.

So far, there is a lot of dissatisfaction about outsourced government work.  Work for the Armed Services outsourced to private companies have been unpopular (the private workers have been poorly behaved, and supplied some poor quality services ---I can't remember the exact complaints--- and have been a public relations problem for the Services specifically, and for the country as a whole).  Security work ---for instance at air terminals etc--- have come under fire for various reasons (dissatisfaction with the public relations of the security agents, i.e. rude security people; allowing countries other than the US to handle American security, e.g. companies based in the Gulf, which happen to have shares in American airport terminals, etc.  NASA, for instance,  has outsourced its services to other companies for decades; the shuttles, for instance, were built by private companies.

Does outsourcing reduce the size of government?  Yes, and no.

Don't forget the large proportion of services that are the responsibility of the individual states.  The States administer a large proportion ---if not all--- of the welfare services, the housing, medical insurance control, education.  Additional opportunities for adding bureaucrats arise when each department of each State has to interface with the corresponding department of the Federal Government.  Remember the Baby Bells?  That was initially a Good Thing.  Then Washington decided (under the supervision of a Democrat president, I do think I remember) to allow the Baby Bells to offer services across the nation, and now we have Verizon and AT&T (the largest Baby, and Ma Bell) set to become so big that they can legally proceed to fix prices, once they become effectively a Monopoly.  However, when government services are outsourced, it seems to me that they become still harder to keep track of; like herding cats.

We (my wife and I) were just talking over the seven large Government agencies that between them provide all the services: HUD, HEW, Justice, State, and so on.  How many of the Secretaries of these do we know by name?  Hilary Clinton is one of the few that springs to mind; many of the others are anonymous figures about whom we know very little.  President Obama, of course, must know them all, and consult with them regularly.  These agencies are staffed, by and large, with people who are in the Government game for the long run, and are expected to take responsibility for the success and or failure of each aspect of their charges.

The legislative branch, meanwhile, seems to bumble along, with most congressmen more anxious to be noticed than to support good legislation.  Why is this?  They get re-elected for those things that they claimed to have done than for the things they actually achieved.  This great democratic nation has a bunch of voters who don't really know what actually took place on Capitol Hill, but rather what their favorite news sources say took place on Capitol Hill.
Congressman: Vote for me!  Any questions?  Yes, from that intelligent-looking gent over there ... ?
Voter 1: Hey, man, you guys did not pass a decent Health Care Reform bill.  You suck.
Favorite News Source: No, actually, the Congressman saved you from a bill that would have cost millionaires a lot of money.  And everybody would have been forced to get insurance.
Voter 1: Well, I have insurance.
Favorite News Source: Sure, as long as you have a job.  What happens when you get laid off?
Voter 2: I got laid off!!!  I would have to get insurance?
Favorite News Source:  Sure would.  These Health Reform bills are bad for poor people and for millionaires.
Voter 3:  Is that really true?
Congressman: Yes!  It was terrible!  I didn't vote for it very much at all, really!  I was totally thinking of my electorate.
Voters:  I guess you don't suck.

Great.  All's well that ends well.  The poor congressman doesn't really see any of the money that the Party bigwigs get from the Insurance Industry lobbyists.  But Congressmen are not elected for their intelligence anyway.