Reply #25: Always [View All]

we should always be reviewing, assessing, addressing and fixing.

We should also recognize that the capacity for waste expands in large institutions - especially large monopolistic organizations (like - 1 of 2 possible contractors for a major govt contract due to sheer size (and political connections).

There seems to be this myth that business is inherently efficient. I suggest the large the business, the more two things happen: a) more bureacraticization (inherently - though ironically - inefficient); and b) more places for the greed impulse to be fed (more players at more leverage points). I think that very large corporations are excessively inefficient. Give me midsized or smaller businesses anyday - where the concepts of competition really DO play in real time.

I also find many nonprofit organizations follow the same pattern. The large the entity - the more leverage points for inefficiency - and fraud. The midsized and smaller organizations have to make due on very little, yet have to perform (or not be able to get funding). These are much more efficient organizations.

So yes, I think there is waste in government. I do not think it is inherently MORE wasteful than private industry (esp with BIG organizations). Where it is most blatantly wasteful is in 1) duplication of services (huge!) and 2) in pork projects that are political spending rather than necessary funding. Love that Newt used to bring BIG coast guard dollars back to his district...even though it is a land locked district!

Oh ya - there is inherent waste in government spending when it comes to protected bidding for HUGE projects (protected being - giving dictated by political considerations) this can be both like the egregious examples highlighted in Newsweek about Iraq reconstruction spending, but also in funky targeted "tax break" programs (tailored to fit only one or two companies - and that do not bring any inherent good back to the tax payers).

Thus - I believe that there needs to be good oversight. Frequent reviews on what needs are supposed to be addressed - are those still needs - are monies spent in ways that address those needs - are those monies spent efficiency. Reviews should not be like an audit - looking for a clean bill of health (though that should be a component) - but really the priorities (needs), (should those be adjusted??), study whether the programs meet those needs (evaluation, and change in programs if NOT meeting needs) etc.

I also think that periodic review of private costs for similar services is a good thing. I am not against all aspects of privatization - I just think review needs to happen to study efficiencies (so many states just jump to privatization - look at Jeb! - and in many cases it has been documented that costs have increased to the tax payer due to privatization - what good is that?!) - and best forms of deliveries - which very well might be private, but I believe often - is not.

I favor (gasp the heresy!) Block grants - where the goals (even standards) are set at the federal level (for federal monies) and then distributed to the state and local level for distrubution (private or public) to ensure that public needs are being met.

How is that for a long - convoluted - and probably a bit off the mark of what you were looking for - answer.