Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] The G.W. Bush Presidential Library

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Rick wrote:

> Mike Miller wrote:
>
>> Which programs are those?  I would be surprised if they aren't 
>> extremely wasteful because the money goes to corporations that provide 
>> services and lobbyists and campaign contributions.  Related to this -- 
>> here's a good question:  Why don't Republicans want the Federal gov't 
>> to negotiate prices with drug companies?  It's comically wasteful not 
>> to do so.  It makes Bush and cronies look really corrupt to me. 
>> Here's a story:
>>
>
> They're wasteful because there's a huge government bureaucracy involved 
> in it.
>
> http://www.lp.org/issues/poverty-and-welfare

I can't read very far into that article because one of the first claims is 
that there is more poverty now than in 1965, which obviously is not true.

What is the reason why there should be more "waste" in government than in 
a private company?  It seems to me that the leadership in the private 
company have an incentive to create efficiency so that they can profit 
from it.  The result can be lower prices, but not necessarily.  Why should 
the leadership lower the price if it will mean lowering their salaries? 
Unless they are faced with a serious rival, they will not lower prices.

Bechtel provided workers in New Orleans after Katrina.  They billed the 
government $900 per day per worker and they paid the workers $300 per day. 
Is that "efficient?"  What causes the high overhead in the private 
company?  Is Bechtel better than the US government?  Is it wasteful for 
the government to essentially pay a CEO $50 million/year, or to contribute 
$500 million to a corporation's profits?  Or is it only waste if the money 
is absorbed by midlevel functionaries, by thieves or by poor people?

You might say that we can now stop giving money to Bechtel because they 
have shown themselves to be unworthy.  I would strongly agree except for 
several problems.  First, Bechtel started screwing us many decades ago and 
they are still at it, so it seems unlikely that we will stop paying them. 
Second, what would stop the Bechtel leadership from reforming a new 
corporation with a new name to get back on the gov't gravy train? 
Nothing, I suppose.  I'm sure that the leadership at Bechtel and 
Halliburton agree strongly with your idea that private contracts are more 
efficient, that government is wasteful, and that we need smaller 
governmnent and more contracts for private companies.  This is where they 
idea comes from and why it is promoted -- rich manipulators want more 
government money for themselves and they want you to be their unwitting 
pawn.  You won't believe this, of course, but you should think about it.


>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/washington/13drug.html
>>
>> Most federal tax money goes to defense, but much of that is also money 
>> that goes to corporations that provide services and weapons and 
>> lobbyists and campaign contributions.  Companies like Halliburton and 
>> Bechtel are especially parasitic.
>>
>
> And you would prefer, perhaps, that the federal government own it's own 
> means of production? Can we even imagine what a nightmarish debacle that 
> would be?
>
> This becomes even more frightening under the specter of the 
> nationalization of the oil industry that Dems seem to be stumping for.

The problems are not caused by a difference between government and private 
industry.  The problems are caused by incentive structures that make 
corruption possible.  The next question is what can we do to create and 
maintain desirable incentive structures?  It is a complicated and 
difficult problem but it has to be solved.  It will be hard to design a 
good system, but much harder to get it implemented because it will mean 
vastly reducing the power of certain powerful people who will adamantly 
oppose it.


>> If you want to save money, start at the DoD and you'll save plenty.
>>
>
> If you really want to save money, start in the voting booth and you'll 
> save a lot more.

That's one reason to vote for Obama.  He knows how to use diplomacy to 
reduce conflict and save on defense spending.  Yes, he will maintain 
programs that aid for the poor and disabled and that doesn't bother me. 
He'll also want to encourage higher education and better access to health 
care.  It's all good.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion