Privatizing possibilities?

[Epee_Pox]

What tasks does the federal government do, which could just as easily be done by the private sector instead?

And if they could be done just as well (or even better) without having the government do it, what justification is there for the government to keep doing it?

I'm interested in your ideas.

Here's where I'm coming from: The US federal government is quite large, and its daily responsibilities are mind-boggling. (Just try to think of everything... roads, the military, intelligence, scientific research, trial courts, law enforcement, education, foreign policy and diplomacy, social security, welfare, parks, agriculture, legislation, appellate courts, accounting, taxation, the fed, student loans, air traffic control, emergency management, medicine, indian tribes, archives, administration, prisons, immigration, commerce, environmental protection, copyrights, jobs, libraries, the arts, shipping, treaties, trade, regulation, energy, waste disposal, resources and reserves, airwaves, recreation, elections, myriad pork projects, space, fisheries, food and drug safety, tariffs, housing, foreign aid... the list goes on and on.)

Now think of the costs of employing all the people to do all those jobs (hiring, salaries, benefits, pensions). And employing all the bureaucrats to oversee the doing of those jobs to make sure govt money is being spent properly. And employing all the support staff (secretaries, assistants, drivers, data entry people, techies, random union jobs, administrators, janitors, etc.). And all the costs of the stuff needed to do those jobs (equipment, computers, raw materials, forests of paper, pens, staplers, desks, offices, land, vehicles, etc.) And the huge costs of government contracts, and the huge costs of payouts from lawsuits, and the huge costs of sheer waste, and the huge costs of entitlement handouts, etc.

When you consider how little in taxes the average American actually pays, and how much the feds need to spend on a daily basis -- it's hardly surprising that we're racking up a huge debt. And when you consider the exponentially growing number of crises, and emergencies, and concerns, and demands that government take care of yet another task -- it's hardly surprising that the government is getting more and more overwhelmed by the things it has to keep on top of.

The financial strain, and to an even greater extent the strain on the ability of people in government to cope with everything we demand of them, are surely building to a true crisis. Certainly not today, and maybe not in the next decade or so, but soon enough. And when it comes, it's going to be painful.

So it occurs to me that a way to ease the pressure is to have government stop doing so darn much. Without a doubt, there are many things the government is doing that could just as easily -- or even more easily and efficiently -- be accomplished in the private sector.

So I'm wondering what you all think the government could stop doing.

[YankeeRebel]

The financial strain, and to an even greater extent the strain on the ability of people in government to cope with everything we demand of them, are surely building to a true crisis. Certainly not today, and maybe not in the next decade or so, but soon enough. And when it comes, it's going to be painful.

You are right, but I don't think you are going to like the reason why. Our government is becoming woefully ineffecient and ineffective because constant budget cuts have left agencies undermanned and underfunded.

It's as if we are at an opposite point from where we were in the 1970s, when there was too much spending and too much fat. We got smart and cut the fat. That was good, but it wasn't good enough. So we cut out all the redundancy. But the politicians weren't satisfied with that, so they demanded further cuts. At this point the agencies began cutting people who were necessary for the efficient function of the agencies. The employees who were left were forced to pick up the work of all those who had been cut. Individual employees now have MUCH more work to do now then before, but they still only work the same number of hours due to budget constraints. Instead of being more efficient, we are now inefficient because of too few people.

FEMA was a good example of this. Before the budget cuts, FEMA had 40 disaster management specialists. After the budget cuts, FEMA only had SIX disaster management specialists for the entire country. When Katrina hit, those 6 specialists were instantly overwhelmed by the enormous tasks at hand. Six people were trying to do the job of 40 people. Is it any wonder why they failed?

Contrary to popular belief, the federal government can work effectively and efficiently. The Social Security Administration is a model of efficiency-- it's operating costs are 1% of its total budget. But without the right amount of manpower and money, it cannot achieve the level of performance that the American public demands.

[keith]

Any action of the governent is of course available to privatisation right down to the military; mercenaries where a very effective way of running armies for centuries.

The issue for many things like social insurance (health care, unemployment benefits & retirment) is that when you transfer these to the individual many skip the necessary insurance/savings required - and the people who do take the required steps pay twice. Once for their own insurance and a second time to cover the conscience twangs induced by watching people suffer.

Unless you legislatively mandate minimums you are not going to realise the potential 'efficiency savings' of a private scheme.

[Bayou Bum]

You are right, but I don't think you are going to like the reason why. Our government is becoming woefully ineffecient and ineffective because constant budget cuts have left agencies undermanned and underfunded.

t's as if we are at an opposite point from where we were in the 1970s, when there was too much spending and too much fat. We got smart and cut the fat. That was good, but it wasn't good enough. So we cut out all the redundancy. But the politicians weren't satisfied with that, so they demanded further cuts. At this point the agencies began cutting people who were necessary for the efficient function of the agencies. The employees who were left were forced to pick up the work of all those who had been cut. Individual employees now have MUCH more work to do now then before, but they still only work the same number of hours due to budget constraints. Instead of being more efficient, we are now inefficient because of too few people.

FEMA was a good example of this. Before the budget cuts, FEMA had 40 disaster management specialists. After the budget cuts, FEMA only had SIX disaster management specialists for the entire country. When Katrina hit, those 6 specialists were instantly overwhelmed by the enormous tasks at hand. Six people were trying to do the job of 40 people. Is it any wonder why they failed?

Contrary to popular belief, the federal government can work effectively and efficiently. The Social Security Administration is a model of efficiency-- it's operating costs are 1% of its total budget. But without the right amount of manpower and money, it cannot achieve the level of performance that the American public demands.

You have got to be kidding ... this is a joke, isn't it!

[YankeeRebel]

You have got to be kidding ... this is a joke, isn't it!

I wish it were. Unfortunately, it's the truth.

[Slim]

You are right, but I don't think you are going to like the reason why. Our government is becoming woefully ineffecient and ineffective because constant budget cuts have left agencies undermanned and underfunded.

It's as if we are at an opposite point from where we were in the 1970s, when there was too much spending and too much fat. We got smart and cut the fat. That was good, but it wasn't good enough. So we cut out all the redundancy. But the politicians weren't satisfied with that, so they demanded further cuts. At this point the agencies began cutting people who were necessary for the efficient function of the agencies. The employees who were left were forced to pick up the work of all those who had been cut. Individual employees now have MUCH more work to do now then before, but they still only work the same number of hours due to budget constraints. Instead of being more efficient, we are now inefficient because of too few people.

FEMA was a good example of this. Before the budget cuts, FEMA had 40 disaster management specialists. After the budget cuts, FEMA only had SIX disaster management specialists for the entire country. When Katrina hit, those 6 specialists were instantly overwhelmed by the enormous tasks at hand. Six people were trying to do the job of 40 people. Is it any wonder why they failed?

Contrary to popular belief, the federal government can work effectively and efficiently. The Social Security Administration is a model of efficiency-- it's operating costs are 1% of its total budget. But without the right amount of manpower and money, it cannot achieve the level of performance that the American public demands.

Good one! I actually thought you were serious for a minute until I got to the part of the SSA being a model of efficiency. Thanks for a good chuckle mid afternoon!

[YankeeRebel]

Good one! I actually thought you were serious for a minute until I got to the part of the SSA being a model of efficiency. Thanks for a good chuckle mid afternoon!

According to the Social Security website, the agency's adminsitrative expenses are less than one percent of all the benefits it pays out. That's pretty damn efficient.

[Epee_Pox]

It shouldn't cost a buck per $100 mailed out. I don't call that efficient at all. Especially when the payout is pretty much an automatic thing.

[YankeeRebel]

It shouldn't cost a buck per $100 mailed out. I don't call that efficient at all. Especially when the payout is pretty much an automatic thing.

So if one percent is unacceptable, then what is an "acceptable" percentage or amount?

[Epee_Pox]

SSA is paying out about 578 Billion dollars this year in benefits.

It's accounting office estimates that overall administrative costs are 1.6% of benefit payouts. (Some divisions spend half a percent of the benefits they control, others spend more than 7%!)

So they're spending 9.25 Billion dollars on admin alone, paying more than 65,500 employees, when the vast majority of the work is automated in the first place.

Not my idea of efficiency!

[YankeeRebel]

So they're spending 9.25 Billion dollars on admin alone, paying more than 65,500 employees, when the vast majority of the work is automated in the first place.

Hmmm . . . the Social Security website says that the total administrative expenses of the agency for the entire year of 2004 was about $4.5 billion. According to your figures, it is costing the SSA over double the expenses of last year. How can that be?

[Epee_Pox]

Actually, the SSA website says that their administrative expenses budgeted for this year are 9.523 Billion dollars. MORE than what my math came up with.

http://www.ssa.gov/budget/FactCard2006.pdf

And I still fail to see how 65,500 employees are an efficient allocation of human resources in this case.

[YankeeRebel]

Actually, the SSA website says that their administrative expenses budgeted for this year are 9.523 Billion dollars.

I'm trying to understand this figure. I see where it appears on the fact card. So I checked that figure for 2004, the year which I previously cited. The amount indicated for 2004 is $8,502 billion. Then I checked the SSA's website again about administrative cost, and this is what I found:

Click here

So on one hand, the SSA is saying that its adminsitrative costs are $4.5 billion for 2004, and on the other hand, it is saying that its costs were over $8.5 billion for the same period. These numbers don't reconcile. I can't explain it. I can only wonder if we are interpreting the figures on the fact card correctly.

[Have At You]

If I may step in, I think the disparity might be because there are 4 different branches of Social Security benefits, and the OACT one you're seeing on that page is only one of the four (it's also the largest of the four). It shows on the fact card as OASI.

[Inquartata]

According to the Social Security website, the agency's adminsitrative expenses are less than one percent of all the benefits it pays out. That's pretty damn efficient.

Ah...have you any figures that don't come from the agency itself? Some independent confirmation?

I mean, Enron's press releases probably said that the company and its top executives were doing a great job, too...