Question:
About 850,000 government jobs will be opened to private companies
under new rules Thursday that encourage competition to replace federal
workers who perform tasks such as giving weather reports to private
pilots, fixing computers and taking money and tickets at national
parks.
The procurement rules are among many revisions the administration is
undertaking that do not require congressional approval. Officials are
rewriting rules that determine which workers are entitled to overtime
pay.
Nearly half of the 1.8 million civilian government work force performs
tasks that duplicate work in the private sector, the administration
says. President Bush wants to let companies bid to provide that work,
with at least 15 percent opened to competition by Oct. 31.
The regulations issued Thursday "will open much wider the doors to
those businesses and their workers who can seek to provide to the
American taxpayer a better value at a better price," said Mitch
Daniels, outgoing director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Officials have identified examples of work being performed by
government employees that they said probably could be done better and
more cheaply by private businesses.
For example, 540 Navy workers make eyeglasses. In the Parks Service,
rangers are being used to take money and tickets at the front gates.
Daniels could not say how many government jobs might be lost. He noted
that agencies are allowed to compete with private companies for the
work.
"We are indifferent as to who wins the competition," he said. "It need
not result in any changes in federal employment. We'll just have to
see what a more wide-open system brings."
Current rules allow for public-private competition. But the
regulations, which have not been significantly revised since 1983, are
so cumbersome that private companies are often reluctant to seek
government contracts, officials said.
The changes shortened the contract bidding process from as long as
four years to one year, with many to be completed in just 30 days.
Government studies show that savings of as much as a third can result
from competition.
The Energy Department is among the agencies that has already opened
jobs to private companies. Bidding is under way for such jobs as
graphics design, computer technicians and financial services
personnel.
Answer:
I suspect that were your railroads a feasible business entity, they would be
run even better and safer than the government could run them. No successful
private enterprise wants to harm their customer base, in spite of what the
moanings of the left claim. There is no doubt, no real business case for
your railroads. So, your choice is a poorly operated, overpriced government
enterprise or a poorly operated private enterprise run by a dreg of the
business world. I'd bet your railroad workers pay does not reflect the
appropriate wages of a rust-era enterprise. The reason the USA does not have
a viable large steel industry is the same reason you don't have a viable
railroad system. The "product" has an insufficient market considering the
committed costs and therefore a market driven price. Only when a government
can obscure the costs behind a veil of taxation can such an obsolete
enterprise continue. You should probably shut down the entire railroad
system and sell the marketable portions to a reputable business who would
immediately dismiss all the featherbedders, hire workers at a wage
commensurate with the business case and operate the routes that make
business sense.
We have a situation in Pennsylvania that cries out for private enterprise.
Our liquor is controlled by a monopolistic state agency that is one of the
largest single purchasers of booze in the USA. They operate state owned
liquor stores, which are the only places one can purchase liquor or wine (a
few independent wineries can have a small number of self-run retail outlets
for their own products). Needless to say, the clerks in the state run liquor
stores make approximately three times the going rate for stock and sales
clerks in any other retail business and they are both unionized and very
politicized with effective ($$$$$s) lobbying for keeping the status quo. Of
course they scream about how it takes their special skills (it is a highly
nepotistic system) to properly sell liquor - never mind that they undergo no
special training and that bars and restaurants effectively sell, by the
serving, the very same products with low cost government oversight, much
lower paid employees and few to no real problems - no more so than the
liquor stores themselves. Underage drinkers simply get an older acquaintence
or relative to buy them their liquor at a state store, so these stores are
more of a problem, in a sense than the bars and restaurants.
Now, one would think that Pennsylvania should have very good liquor prices,
being among the largest buyers of liquor in the USA and theoretically
getting good volume discounts. In practice, between poor purchasing
practices, high liquor taxes, those triple pay employees and the high costs
of operating their own store system and bureaucracy, liquor in Pa is among
the highest priced in the USA. People here can drive over to Ohio, go to a
grocery store, find a much better selection of alcoholic products and get
much better prices. Some other nearby states are even better.
Now, due to the numerous complaints from buyers of alcoholic products about
having to go to a separate store when grocery shopping for wine or spirits,
the state is opening retail kiosks is a small number of grocery stores as a
"test". They don't say so, but the test of this and all other "improvements"
in this state run system is really to verify that it will generate
sufficient sales. So, you have a state agency that is supposed to control
liquor, actually more concerned about sufficient sales. They need those
sales to cover their extraordinarily high overhead, some of which is covered
by that veil of taxation anyway. Now, how do you suppose things will go when
supermarket employees see these state employees in a walled off portion of
their workplace, slacking off due to a higher employee/customer ratio, doing
essentially the same jobs as the supermarket clerks, for triple their pay.
BTW, not only do the state store employees get way more pay than they are
actually worth in a similar job, the state employees have much better
benefits in the form of better vacation and health insurance, etc.
That's what you get with a government run enterprise - high costs, often
hidden; considerably less productivity; non-competitive pricing; poor
product choices because some bureaucrat decides what the state residents
should be allowed to buy; inconvenient sales outlets and/or hours. It is no
wonder that some folks either go out of state for their liquor or when out
of state, bring some back. This defeats both the liquor control
responsibility and the tax collection. Were the state to relinquish this
business to private enterprise, tax revenues would rise, costs to the state
would decrease, customers would be happier and the overpaid, complacent
state store employees would suffer having to work at a real job
