Posts: 1,108
Threads: 90
Joined: Jan 2017
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepoliti...33409.html
Even though previous attempts in other states have failed:
...
"In a statement released Thursday, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said, "Recent state agency privatization initiatives in Texas and Indiana have been complete failures, marked by technical difficulties, staffing shortages, and inadequate training of private call-center staff and resulting in adverse impacts on the state and its people."
...
"Federal officials pointed to past problems with privatization deals in other states such as Indiana and Texas. In 2009, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels' administration dropped IBM's $1.4 billion contract to handle intake for residents of that state seeking health coverage and food assistance.
The state ended up suing the company for allegedly failing to live up to the contract and provide adequate service to sick and needy residents, said Marcus Barlow, a spokesman for the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration. The dispute drags on in court."
Posts: 17,873
Threads: 325
Joined: Mar 2024
Unfortunately, privatization efforts for public services almost never save money or improve services. They are an effective way to transfer tax revenue to the private sector through large contracts, however.
Posts: 46,542
Threads: 2,629
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
rjmacs wrote: They are an effective way to transfer tax revenue to the private sector through large contracts, however.
Yes, indeedy.
Posts: 57,767
Threads: 5,852
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
1
Let's face it. Privatization is a government's form of 'offshoring'. Rather than increase cost (ie taxes), every corner that can be cut .. is.
Posts: 17,873
Threads: 325
Joined: Mar 2024
cbelt3 wrote:
Let's face it. Privatization is a government's form of 'offshoring'. Rather than increase cost (ie taxes), every corner that can be cut .. is.
Well, cbelt3, there are some significant differences; chiefly, that corporations tend to offshore when it saves the company money, whereas governments tend to privatize services for political reasons. Rather than 'cutting corners' and reducing costs, privatization of public services usually costs more and/or does not provide the services required by statute.
Posts: 15,647
Threads: 1,310
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation:
0
rjmacs wrote:
Unfortunately, privatization efforts for public services almost never save money or improve services..
It works for trash collection. And what is it about "public services" that can't be done by others? Or is it that they set it up for failure so later they can come back and say, see it didn't work. They are saying the same thing about privatizing sale of beer and wine in the state. A six pack in northern Virginia goes for $6.50, and you can get it anywhere but in PA we are paying $9 and you better have a GPS and a tank full of gas to find a beer "distributor". Oh, and you better want a whole case of beer. Even Corbet is not touching LCB.
Posts: 37,098
Threads: 2,599
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
its okay, only poor people will suffer the consequences.
Posts: 17,873
Threads: 325
Joined: Mar 2024
Dakota wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
Unfortunately, privatization efforts for public services almost never save money or improve services..
It works for trash collection. And what is it about "public services" that can't be done by others? Or is it that they set it up for failure so later they can come back and say, see it didn't work.
Good point, Dakota. A lot of the reason that privatizing trash collection provides cost savings is that it allows companies to bid competitively with non-unionized work forces (public sanitation workers are highly unionized). I'm not trying to start a debate about public unions (we have enough of those threads already), i just want to note that the cost savings regarding trash collection are connected to the presence of unions.
Generally speaking, government clerical and administrative staff (the ones who administer programs like food stamps, etc.) are not so highly unionized, so the opportunity for cost savings is different for those agencies. If it's possible to be more efficient and provide equivalent services for less money in administrative agencies, i'm open to the evidence. I haven't seen it yet. I also haven't seen it for other services that aren't highly unionized, e.g. concession services in public parks and facilities. But if the evidence is there, i'm happy to review it.
Posts: 8,440
Threads: 599
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation:
0
Out here trash collection is done by Waste Management and the workers are unionized. WM has had the contract for our entire region for a very long time. Drivers average around $110K/year plus they have generous pension and health benefits, which they should, given that this is one of the more dangerous professions.
They came close to a strike last spring but worked it out.
We pay around $40/month for weekly trash, recycling and yard waste pick-up. Don't know how that compares to other places but it seems reasonable to me.
Given that privatization of food stamp distribution has already been a disaster in Texas and Indiana, it's only natural that Scott Walker would want to give it a try. Texas had the nation's worst rate of getting food stamps to eligible people while Accenture had the contract. Hey, with success like that, why wouldn't everybody do it?
Posts: 8,440
Threads: 599
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation:
0
...and as for beer and wine, I agree that it's ridiculous not to be able to buy that in the grocery store. I didn't even know there were states that didn't allow that.
|
