Does this sound anything like Florida?

In a word, no. What it sounds like is people gripeing about any "privatization" at all. Of course we could always go the other way and "socialize" everything...like Greece.

Can I say following the Jeb! Bush privitaztion plan. (Since emmulated by many others in this state.)

In a word, no. What it sounds like is people gripeing about any "privatization" at all. Of course we could always go the other way and "socialize" everything...like Greece.

Is this the "only" comparison you can muster?

Is this the "only" comparison you can muster?

It is the most telling.

From the article, it' sounds like the biggest problem they ran into was corruption surrounding the contracts - i.e. corruption in government. People seem to loose sight of the fact that this problem would not exist if government wasn't subsidizing what should be an entirely private sector business. This bad habit drives up costs as well. Look at the student loan program, do you think schooling would cost as much as it does if government weren't writing all those checks? The same goes for healthcare. Government can 'regulate', but it should rarely 'provide'.

The problem is that there are not adequate safeguards, so privatization ends up being more expensive than the government.

Bureaucracy and corruption do not solely exist in government and the chickens rarely prosper when the fox is paid to both guard the henhouse and report on his own work.

The problem is that there are not adequate safeguards, so privatization ends up being more expensive than the government.

Bureaucracy and corruption do not solely exist in government and the chickens rarely prosper when the fox is paid to both guard the henhouse and report on his own work.

I question that statement. Care to elaborate? I can provide examples of how this is not the case.

Look into Jeb!s fiasco of oursourcing a lot of human resources and human resources software applications and see how much that went over budget in both cost and time.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2005-03-10/news/0503100163_1_convergys-outsource-state-jeb-bush

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/12/30/State/Did_the_savings_balan.shtml

In July, Corrections Secretary Jim Crosby pled guilty to felony charges for accepting kickbacks in exchange for getting a friend hired by the commissary vendor.

This was a painful revelation because the Bush administration had boasted for years about the success it had in outsourcing the prison commissary system.

Crosby's downfall came after a particularly difficult 2005.

The rollout of Bush's most ambitious single contract, handing over all state personnel functions to private company Convergys, went terribly.

The company repeatedly stumbled in cutting paychecks for state employees or accurately providing employee benefits.

Compounding the controversy were allegations that a Convergys' subcontractor shipped state employees' personal information to India for data processing.

That was what the article said and what Rita quoted.

Examples given in the article included them manipulating data to show they had earned bonuses, staff dumping files to reduce their workload backlog, and their error rate doubling.

I question that statement. Care to elaborate? I can provide examples of how this is not the case.

Just examine the private contractors in our current wars.

The problem with the war contractors is that government was outsourcing a function that is constitutionally a function of government. The usual problem with government takeovers is that government is attempting to assume functions that are constitutionally private in nature. If we could ever sort out the proper role of government we would be way ahead in our effort to fix this country.

If the taxpayers are still paying for it, but a private company is now profiting, I fail to see how savings are attainable if quality and quantity are constants.

In the war example, we pay private contractors far more to do the jobs than we would pay government workers.

.
re: article
Indiana Gov Daniels' handing over control of aspects of social services to Affiliated Computer Services seems to be a problem because of not enough competition, appearance of cronyism, quality control problems that likely stemmed from the efficiency and cost-cutting measures put in place to increase the bottom line.

In nursing homes, social services, prisons and the like, there may be aspects of the institutions that could benefit from the efficiencies of privatization but other parts that simply need more quality control because of the affect they have on people's lives.

There should be an adequate number of firms competing for any jobs that are being considered for privatization imo.

.

If you search around, there are plenty of case studies, a number of which are in other countries. Corruption of public officials is a central problem, but this has nothing to do with the act of privatising, it is a failure of government. Those same corrupt officials would be running the state run system if it were still intact. You just wouldn't know about the money changing hands.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801765.html

This isn't about some cirtical governmental system that was privatised, but it is without a doubt a fun read and one of my favorite 'success stories'. :wave:

I don't think that is a very good example of anything besides how spoiled and pampered our politicians are. Obviously privatizing a massive money losing clusterpuck that only existed as a major perk for politicians had to be an improvement over the status quo.

The fact that the Senate had to do multiple studies to figure out that they should do the same thing the House did decades earlier says volumes about our government and decision makers.

I don't think that is a very good example of anything besides how spoiled and pampered our politicians are. Obviously privatizing a massive money losing clusterpuck that only existed as a major perk for politicians had to be an improvement over the status quo.

The fact that the Senate had to do multiple studies to figure out that they should do the same thing the House did decades earlier says volumes about our government and decision makers.

The entire federal government is a massive money losing clusterpuck.

If you search around, there are plenty of case studies, a number of which are in other countries. Corruption of public officials is a central problem, but this has nothing to do with the act of privatising, it is a failure of government. Those same corrupt officials would be running the state run system if it were still intact. You just wouldn't know about the money changing hands.

The blatant level corruption in our elected officials grows worse and worse. The system has pretty much made them all for sale to highest bidders. At least in the old days there was some public outrage over corruption and elected officials lost their jobs.

It seems like ever since the "Keating 5" in 1989 we've had an attitude of acceptance towards both official and business corruption. Back then Glenn, McCain et al weren't impacted by their conniving for Keating. The only reason Alan Cranston took any heat was because he was already terminal with cancer and it didn't really matter to him. He was a convenient fall-guy. Now it feels like the only reason people like Maddoff, Lay or Ebbers were prosecuted was because they upset (or at least embarrassed) powerful people.

I wonder when we'll reach a 'critical mass' of corruption where the citizenry just won't stand for it any more.

Frontline aired an interesting story on for-profit colleges and how they are ripping off our veterans by taking their GI Bill benefits and delivering a very poor quality education with credits that can not be transferred.