Selling Government
The U.S. government is selling it’s responsibilities to the highest bidder. If this does not particularly surprise or bother you.
When the largest federal contractor, Lockheed Martin, gets more government money per year than the Departments of Justice or Energy, when the cost in pay and benefits for a contractor is double that for a government worker, when the Department of Homeland Security is asking contractors how to do their own business, and when nobody can prove that contracting is more efficient than government, something is wrong. Agency administrators are even proposing that contractors audit proposed contract pricing.
In 2001, 79% of federal contracts were competitive. That number fell to 48% in 2005. None of these companies are responsible to the country; their loyalty lies with their stockholders.
America itself is becoming a multinational conglomerate, with policy being made increasingly by the business world. President Bush’s “New World Order” is closer than you may think.
Those of us who dwell in Indiana should pay particular heed to this situation, for Governor Mitch Daniels has put our state on the same path. Virtually every major proposal on his agenda, from toll road sales to DST to the Lottery scheme is geared toward this same end. But then, what else should we have expected from the President’s former OMB chief?
Do we really want our State and our Nation to be a for-profit enterprise, governed by the wealthy and for the wealthy, where only those with enough capital can weather the unpredictable vagaries of the market?
There are 2 Comments to "Selling Government"
Ever heard of the concept of “thickening government”? Check out the book by Paul Charles Light called Thickening Government: Federal Hierarchy and the Diffusion of Accountability. While I wouldn’t want to downplay your concerns, going too far in the other direction isn’t exactly a panacea, either. Bureaucracies can be remarkably resistant to political, popular, legislative, and executive pressure as well. While the profit motive may be crass, at least it gives us a chance to predict and understand the behavior of a corporation.
Excellent government service is not compatible with the maximization of profit. This type of thing also lacks oversight and accountability.
I am not adverse to government contracting per se, but the process should be open and competitive. I also have a problem with independent contractors performing such tasks as high-level intelligence gathering, military duties, and sensitive financial matters.
Should those whose ultimate loyalty is to profit really have top-secret security clearances?