Privatizing Government Services.

[Hoosier Gun Coat]

While drive to work this morning I passed a county dump truck going down the highway. I had a thought. Why couldn't/ wouldn't certain services be privatized. A few services departments I had in mind would be the highway department and trash pick up. Couldn't these services be hired out to private contractors through a bid process?

 

[PeaShooter]

I think that we should look very closely at privatizing any and all non-constitutionally mandated services.

 

[Bill of Rights]

While drive to work this morning I passed a county dump truck going down the highway. I had a thought. Why couldn't/ wouldn't certain services be privatized. A few services departments I had in mind would be the highway department and trash pick up. Couldn't these services be hired out to private contractors through a bid process?

It's been done, in some cases. Some people are still angry about it. It's been put to the public in terms designed to tick people off, such as that the governor "sold" the toll road. It's not true, but good luck convincing some people of that. The foreign lessor is responsible for the road and yes, they collect the tolls, but they paid up front for that consideration. Rather than take a chance on what we might bring in and what we might have to pay in road upkeep, Indiana got a sure thing in the form of a huge amount of cash, and in 70-odd years, we get the road back, unless we allow it to go to the same or another group in the meantime or unless we get it back before then due to the company going broke.

It kinda reminds me of the whole thing about Sarah Palin. For years, people have said, "We need someone in office who's a real person, someone who knows about budgeting for a family, does his/her own grocery shopping, has to get up him/herself at 2AM with a sick kid." Well, the other side of that is that such a person is not going to be politician-slick, fielding every question with a false smile and a pre-canned answer that gives no information (i.e."I support the Second Amendment.", from such people as Bayh, Lugar, and really, almost any politician who hasn't made his/her name on "gun control".)

Privatizing government services is a great idea, provided that service to the people remains the primary goal with fiscal responsibility running a close second.

JMHO.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[E5RANGER375]

once again Bill, a rep worthy post. 2 thumbs and a stub up

 

[Manan]

People get used to being provided for. Most services that the govt. sticks their nose into should not even be provided for at all. For me, other than military, law enforcement, and infrastructure, I don't have much need for govt.

 

[dross]

When I was a trainee in the Army, 1982, at For Gordon they outsourced some of the mess halls. Best meals I had the entire time I was in the military. Delicious, abundant and varied. Service with a smile. Seconds often offered at the end of a meal shift.

Ask yourself this: When you have a problem with service of some kind, who would you rather talk to, a private company manager, or a government worker? I rest my case.

 

[mrjarrell]

My garbage service is private, no tax dollars involved in it. They come once a week and collect what I and my neighbours put out. They don't crawl through our bins looking for forbidden items, either. They don't force us to sort our garbage into categories. It works just fine. No politicians required. Almost everything your local and state .gov does can be privatised.

 

[ATOMonkey]

If people want a service and are willing to pay for it, someone will provide it. No need for government to force service and fees upon us.

Just like the damn "mass transit" they keep trying to force down our throats. NO ONE WANTS OR NEEDS IT!!!!

 

[96firephoenix]

I think that we should privatize any and all non-constitutionally mandated services.

fify.

 

[jsgolfman]

I think we should privatize all services.

I fixed that for ya even better

 

[dross]

I think we should privatize all services.

I fixed that for ya even better

Actually, the government could governmentize all the services they want to discourage. That's the real way to fight the drug war - just have the government take over as the only drug dealer. Poor product, shortages, high prices and terrible service would probably do more to reduce drug use than anything else we could do.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I think we should privatize all services.

I fixed that for ya even better

How would you privatize protecting the national sovereignty or public safety? I'm not trying to snark at you, because I have a couple proposals, just wondering what you think.

 

[rambone]

How would you privatize protecting the national sovereignty or public safety? I'm not trying to snark at you, because I have a couple proposals, just wondering what you think.

George Washington was against keeping standing armies around in times of peace.

 

[eldirector]

While drive to work this morning I passed a county dump truck going down the highway. I had a thought. Why couldn't/ wouldn't certain services be privatized. A few services departments I had in mind would be the highway department and trash pick up. Couldn't these services be hired out to private contractors through a bid process?

My trash is private. Road crews are pretty much all contracted out now, too. INDOT is just regulatory and planning. The Post Office is essentially private, and even it is being out-competed by other companies. Private schools blow Publics out of the water, almost across the board (too bad I gotta pay twice).

I'm all for private companies and competition for just about everything. Even welfare (non-profits, like churches).

George Washington was against keeping standing armies around in times of peace.

Kind explains why the .gov has kept us at war with someone for the last few decades....

 

[Blackhawk2001]

George Washington was against keeping standing armies around in times of peace.

The problem with that concept is that anymore "warfare" is a highly technical operation and you can't just throw people into a modern battlefield unless you are prepared to lose a lot of them. Just ask any current Infantryman what he needs to know to do his job. Many of our potential enemies are at least nearly as sophisticated as we are in their capabilities and some of the more capable ones outnumber us as well. A standing armed forces buys us time to mobilize in case of an all-out conflict requiring such.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

George Washington was against keeping standing armies around in times of peace.

And if you remember the movie, the "Wolverines" were pretty much destroyed by the occupiers despite their heroics. Their triumph resulted from holding out until the "regulars" could push the bad guys out of their territory. Ask yourself if the French or the Polish would have managed to free themselves from the Nazis or the Soviets during WWII if the Allies hadn't invaded and pushed the Nazis out of France. And as you will probably remember, the Poles didn't ever push the Soviets out; they left on their own.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I don't think the national military can reasonably be privatized. It should be as large as necessary to be able to stand off any reasonable threat that can be foreseen with the equipment available, to give the country time to mobilize and train additional forces.

I could see police being privatized by private security firms which would provide property protection by subscription. If you don't need/want protection, you needn't subscribe. Of course, the same could be done with the fire and emergency medical services; if you want the service, pay a subscription or the cost of the services when you need them.

 

[jsgolfman]

I don't think the national military can reasonably be privatized. It should be as large as necessary to be able to stand off any reasonable threat that can be foreseen with the equipment available, to give the country time to mobilize and train additional forces.

I could see police being privatized by private security firms which would provide property protection by subscription. If you don't need/want protection, you needn't subscribe. Of course, the same could be done with the fire and emergency medical services; if you want the service, pay a subscription or the cost of the services when you need them.

But, why would you make the distinction between the two? Aren't there people now who don't pay taxes, yet still are protected under the umbrella of a national force? Regardless of your method of providing services, there will always be those who don't foot their share of the bill.
What are the reasons people join the armed forces/police/fire and rescue/etc. now? Would those reason disappear because they were being paid by someone other than the state?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

But, why would you make the distinction between the two? Aren't there people now who don't pay taxes, yet still are protected under the umbrella of a national force? Regardless of your method of providing services, there will always be those who don't foot their share of the bill.
What are the reasons people join the armed forces/police/fire and rescue/etc. now? Would those reason disappear because they were being paid by someone other than the state?

The difference between the national armed forces and privatized public safety is that everyone would have to pay a tax for the national armed forces, but no one would have to pay for public safety services; they just wouldn't get any unless they were will to pay for them. TANSTAAFL.

 

[T-rav]

Its funny now that you mention it, I have seen the state mowing tractors in the same spot off 469 up here for about 3 or 4 days. If that was a private business it would of been done in a matter of hours.