Another good call by Bush

[Mr. Goodbytes]

Another win for the team that wants to slim down the beauracracy and make it more efficient. Story. Bush want to implement an incentive system that offers raises to the federal workers who bust their butts. Sadly, I imagine that if those workers were held subject to this future policy today, not as many as I would hope would receive the incentives. Surely there are a good number of federal workers out there with good head on their shoulders and a strong work ethic. But there are far to many who are satisfied to just push the envelop and fail to activate their brain functions after they punch in for work. We don't need those kind of people, they're one of the reasons programs always expand: because more people have to be hired to compensate for the lazy ones who never get fired.

I'm hoping that's what the Bush plan evolves into as well. It is time to eliminate the ultimate job security that federal workers enjoy and take advantage of. That's why I'm glad the democrats didn't get their way on the Homeland Security Bill. Their biggest objection to it was the lack of union control over the workforce. It's time to weed out some of that red tape that makes dealing with the government as an individual (or even a business) an exhausting, herculean effort.

Side note>> I'd also like to see airport security handled by the private sector for the very reason that government workers on the bottom of the ladder don't give a scheiss about putting their best foot forward on the job. Let the private security companies compete for the jobs. They understand that if they aren't up to snuff, there will be another company out there breathing down their neck trying to get the contract. The competition forces them to give the best results.

[osprey4]

Originally posted by Mr. Goodbytes
Side note>> I'd also like to see airport security handled by the private sector for the very reason that government workers on the bottom of the ladder don't give a scheiss about putting their best foot forward on the job.

Ok, I'm basically with you, except for this "private business always runs a tighter shop" fallacy. Shall we just consider the state of affairs in pre-Sept. 11 airport security? Here in Joisey, our previous Republican administration pushed through privatizing the DMV (Dept. of Motor Vehicles) and for the most part it's been a disaster. They contracted out EZ-Pass to a private contractor who mismanaged the system (which other states run in the black) into hundreds of millions in red ink.

So I'm not quite ready to paint all government employees with the same "inefficiency" brush.

[Mr. Goodbytes]

pre-9/11 airport security did its job. The weapons the terrorists chose to use were allowed. The pilots did their job too. Nobody had the mindset to expect that the planes were going to be crashed into buildings.

And I wasn't suggesting we leave airport security as it was, that would be dangerous. But if there is government oversight on issues like training which should require something rather more rigorous than the simple drugscreens that used to be policy, and if the companies are required to meet a number of quality points (for lack of a better term), then I think the private sector would far exceed government workers in performance.

BTW, how was your DMV beforehand? I believe ours is running in the red, government-run. But I hate dealing with them almost as much as I hate my bank. And the beauty of the contract that was set up in your state is that contracts expire or have clauses that hold companies accountable. You state representatives should be pushing to run the company out of the state and find another that can do a better job. Even the talk of that will straigten up those EZ-Pass screwballs. That's a lot of money to lose out on if they don't.

[M_Six]

In England the railroads were piecemealed out to private firms and they're a disaster now. Don't kid yourself about the gov't workers all being sloths. Have you ever been a gov't employee? I have and I didn't see a lot of laziness. What I saw were people dedicated to doing the job right. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but I generally believe gov't agencies do a better job on many issues. I've worked both sides of the fence and what I found is that the bottom line means everything to private firms. They'll cut corners on everything INCLUDING safety to save a buck. The more services that are passed to private firms, the more screwups you'll see. Don't believe the "competition" hoax. It doesn't work.

[willy_ph]

Privatization isn't always the answer. Personally, I'd like to see a strong public sector. In Ontario, there are a number of examples where the private sector has created a fiasco. 407 ETR, degregulation of energy production, healthcare, etc. Personally, I believe that any sector that is crucial to a society, the government should take control to ensure stability. Energy, transportation, healthcare, education should be the responsiblity of governments that are dedicated to their citizens, not those in the financial bastions of the country. Those three sectors are essential to any society and should not be exposed to the free market.

Sorry about the rant. Private interests don't always produce better results.

[Redwolf]

Then agian, there are problems with Government Healthcare. Over here in teh US, one of the incintives for joining the military is government sponsored healthcare. You are guarenteed a doctor, but not a SPECIFIC doctor, so if you see one doctor one week, you may see another next week. My mother told me the sotry of how she broke her colarbone, and a military doctor at the local base misdiagnosed it and blamed her for acting. After a week, when she spent the whole time with her head crooked, she goes to another military doctor, who figured out what happened. I hear these kinds of problems are happening in Europe and Canada as well.

While it's nice to have the security of goverment healthcare, its also nice to know that you are gonna have a doctor you trust. On top of this, capitalizing healthcare has given the US a major edge in the healthcare market.

Of course, there are tradeoffs. Like when doctors and surgeons know you have a history of 'complaining' about doctors when they screw up, charging for screwups, having bad insurance, having to pay for medicine out of your pockets when insurance wont pony it up, etc.

Everything is a trade-off.

Also, on energy, take a look at Pennsylvania. They have the same system that California had, but it is sustained. They get very low power bills there thanks to competition. OF course, there are probably problems as well, but I haven't heard of many besides having redundant power-lines.