AMEN, George. I think many do not realize that putting your head in the sand leaves your rear exposed and vulnerable.
Dono

Football time - gotta go!

 

Great explanation George! You're kickin' some major Philosophical Butt here cause both sides like to Assign labels to each other and let it go at that. This "Labels" thing is the Mantra of the Drug King of Bombast...aka Rush Limbo. Anyway , i think your analysis is absolutely first rate and very understandable for most of the folks on this website. thanks , s.kuteman

 

I take exception to the opinion that the "private sector" can do everything better and cheaper. I've seen first hand in my area of expertise, transportation, that this is just not so.

 

Transportation covers a broad range of services. A friend who has been in the rolling stock fleet business for umpteen years and editor and writer for industry magazines says federal and larger state fleets generally have 25% more vehicles than they actually need. Most rationalize employees being assigned and taking vehicles home as being more efficient than using pool vehicles (false in almost every case) and in some federal locations reported on in the general press there were two vehicles for every employee.

Cost analysis on government maintenance facilities regularly show that the same services could be obtained in the private sector for 40-50% less and in a more efficient manner.

I don't know the details of highway repair/construction, but find it difficult to accept that civil servants (whoops, politically incorrect) government employees could function as efficiently as a for profit civil engineering firm. It would be the only government service more efficient than private industry. The civil engineers I know (three, including one neighbor) laugh when they talk about the inefficiency of our good sized building code and inspection departments, four, including city, county, state and the feds. The common joke is that if developers didn't furnish all the specs, bid procedures and environmental impact analysis that we'd all still be driving on whatever was built during the 50s while the different agencies determined what brand to use in the office coffee machines and who it would benefit.

I'm not saying its not possible for you or your department to be effective in your vocation, just that the baggage, political infighting, salary and benefit levels and pure layers of bureaucracy generally make governement agencies inefficient before they even attempt to perform their duties.

 

George, would you be willing to share a little of your background with us? Job experience, education, etc...? Your posts never cease to amaze me with their clarity and intelligence. Even those here that disagree with your viewpoints respect you for all these erudite posts. I don't believe I've seen you commit a spelling or grammar error yet!

 

Hi, its that newbie again. All I have to say on this topic is that being a considered Democrat or Republican can sometimes depend on your community. For example, I live in Utah (I know, but the skiing makes it worth it) in most areas of the country my views fall nicely with the a moderate Republican view, however in this state I am considered pretty liberal (yeah, its kinda like Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter with an "L" instead of the "A"). So at least here it makes perfect sence to support the Republicans in national politics and generally Democrats in local politics. So needless to say I voted for option #3.

 

Thanks for the compliments, I wish no spelling or grammatical errors.

 

Wanna know why things wont ever change?
What is the non-political occupation of the overwhelming majority of Congressmen? ATTORNEY.
Who are the largest contributors to election campaigns? LARGE CORPORATIONS.
Where do the most powerful lobbyists come from? BIG INDUSTRY.
How many political parties do the previous two groups endorse? TWO.
What drives Washington? MONEY.
Who can steal more in five minutes than 100 masked gunmen can steal in a lifetime? AN ATTORNEY.
In what profession does lying net you more than the truth? ATTORNEY.
Who can afford to go to law school? WEALTHY PEOPLE.
See where this is going? The common folk have no control at all, and we can elect all the different people we want. It wont matter because the people who are interested in changing things for the better can't afford to, and the people who can afford to don't think things need to change. That's the problem. I could be infinitely better for the task, but the millionaire lawyer with millionaire supporters would absolutely BURY me in an election.
So no, Daily, things won't ever change. It's set up that way. If you have a better idea, please do something.
I point to the recall election as the perfect example: when Kalifornians decided to recall Davis, look who stepped up. The only legitimate candidates were just more of the same garbage as Davis, and the people knew it. So look who won the election...
Change? They elected another millionaire with political ties and no mind of his own. That's not change, it's just different.
BDV