Government by Contract
This morning's New York Times reports on the growing trend of outsourcing government activities via contracting duties to private firms. The result is an increasingly common accounting trick, in which the state can expand its activities while both reducing its size and increasing the scope of activities that occur without public scrutiny. And like most every other aspect of government during the Bush II era, spending on federal contracts has almost doubled, from $207 billion in 2000 to about $400 billion in 2006.
An excerpt:
The most successful contractors are not necessarily those doing the best work, but those who have mastered the special skill of selling to Uncle Sam. The top 20 service contractors have spent nearly $300 million since 2000 on lobbying and have donated $23 million to political campaigns. “We’ve created huge behemoths that are doing 90 or 95 percent of their business with the government,” said Peter W. Singer, who wrote a book on military outsourcing. “They’re not really companies, they’re quasi agencies.” Indeed, the biggest federal contractor, Lockheed Martin, which has spent $53 million on lobbying and $6 million on donations since 2000, gets more federal money each year than the Departments of Justice or Energy.
There is little evidence that government by contract will be curtailed anytime soon--the top 20 service contracting firms in the U.S. provided $82 million on lobbying contributions in 2005 alone. Indeed, it has become one of the more popular schemes through which taxpayer dollars flow back to the political class and promote its entrenchment.
But the practice may have a saving grace. The Times article also noted that "[a] just-completed study by experts appointed by the White House and Congress, the Acquisition Advisory Panel, found that the [outsourcing] trend 'poses a threat to the government’s long-term ability to perform its mission' and could 'undermine the integrity of the government’s decision making.' "
Comments (12)
What does the NYT expect companies to do? Sit there and give the contract to someone else? And as usual the NYT misses the point. If the Federal Government spends %25 of the GNP then there are going to be a lot of contracters out attempting to get the bucks through price competition, monopolization and corruption.
There is one and only one solution: Reduce the size and scope of government and you will naturally have less corruption.
Published: February 4, 2007 3:51 PM
Even better than Bill's idea: a system of laissez faire capitalism with constitutional limiting of governmental power that is non-contradictory (unlike the American Constitution in both its original and current form).
Published: February 4, 2007 4:35 PM
Kane, your notion is easier said than done- particularly amidst the paternalistic masses of today. My primary question to you: is "government" a necessary component of a laissez faire economic system? My secondary question to you: is "government" an inevitable result of market forces?
I am not the optimist that you appear to be, Kane.
Published: February 4, 2007 7:22 PM
The worst thing about these deals is that people think it's some sort of "privatization" because a governmental function is being contracted out to a private company. If it goes bad, people point at it as some kind of example of how trying to privatize government services just doesn't work.
Published: February 4, 2007 8:55 PM
I don't think it is possible to decrease the size of govt without decreasing the tax raising potential. One way would be to dissolve the USofA into 50 sovereign nations. This would eliminate the entire federal govt.
Published: February 5, 2007 11:41 AM
So you reduce one authoritarian government into fifty authoritarian governments, Billwald. "Federal" government is not the problem, government itself is the problem.
Published: February 5, 2007 7:55 PM
Belfort:
I agree that government is the problem. However, government is not likely to go away anytime soon. The smaller the governmental unit, and the closer it is to the people, the less chance for abuse. I wouldn't go so far as to establish fifty independent republics, but would instead seek a loose confederation, ala the Articles of Confederation.
To answer your question further up. Government is NOT the result of market forces. Rather, man's innate lust for power leads to government. Even if anarchy was successfully established, the charismatic leaders would eventually establish power and a state once again.
Published: February 6, 2007 10:37 AM
Belfort, I am not an optimist. I also know it is easier said than done. I meant only that such a system is the best (as the novels I plan to write will illustrate). Is it realistic that such a system will be introduced in the near future? No. If it ever happens it will be after the West has a massive collapse (one ten time or more worse than the Great Depression) as a result of our growing statism.
As for the necessity of government in a laissez faire government, the answer is yes. Anarchy would eventually result in civil war in the form of riots and the "privitised competing courts" waging legal wars where they sentence each other.
However, under laissez faire the government would only provide the courts, police, and armed forces, nothing else. The only moral purpose government has is to protect us from the initiation of force or from fraud. This means the only laws a government can morally pass are ones that outlaw fraud and the initiation of force.
"Federal" government is not the problem, government itself is the problem.
No government isn't. It is the way all governments in history in history have operated that is. The system the Founding Fathers of America created was the best system ever and even it had its flaws and contradictions that violated freedom and rights.
Published: February 6, 2007 3:53 PM
Mark,
I agree that government- as we know the concept today- is not a result of market forces. I also agree that governments are inevitable, though not for the same reason why you do. Government exists because of the herd mentality of the masses. The unfortunate fact is that the masses desperately want to confer the responsibility of existence onto your "charismatic" leader. A free society can only exist in the midst of independent men, men with a will to individuality.
As for you, Kane, government is inherently compulsory and when man is compelled to act, morality disapears and the fight for survival begins. You too easily attempt to prove your views with non sequitars. How do you know mob warfare would result from anarchy? Have you experienced such a society of non-compulsion before? Do you not think that one would recognize the beneficence of lassez faire social interaction? Do you really think the only reason why you do not slaughter your neighbor is because there is a government? Do see man as an animal that must be chaperoned lest chaos ensue? Government, in all of its varied forms & styles, has been the single greatest danger to human life- note the gas chambers of Nazi Germany. Observe your daily life, Kane, and you will be pleasantly surprised to see how very little you actually need government.
Published: February 6, 2007 9:41 PM
Belfort, the reason I think riots would happen is because in a system of anarchy because people would still need protection from the few animals that exist (murders, rapists, thieves, etc). With no government there would be no police and courts unless they were run privately. But they would really only be protection agencies not police and courts. Of course there would be competing agencies. Now what would heppen if a criminal hired a corrupt agency to protect them from another corruption agency? And this would eventually happen as there would be nothing to stop the animals from doing this. The protection agencies would fight each other. Now eventually one such battle would escalate to the level that people not involved in the dispute would have to hire a different protection agency to protect them from the other protection agencies. This would eventually degenerate into a mob war.
Even if no such agencies existed, the mob war would happen. instead of a protection agencies it would be the friends and family of the two that fight out. One such battle would get so big others need to use violence to protect themselves. Eventually such an occurrence would turn into a war.
I am not saying all or most men are animals. I am saying the worst of society (who are animals) would fight amongst each other and eventually some of the non-animals would understandably need to protect themselves or hire others to do it for them.
Now not even anywhere near 50% of a nation would need to do this for it to become a massive problem. Ten percent could massively disrupt a nation if the activity had a large enough geographical spread or was in a economic center.
Now under a laissez faire system government would not act compulsorily. They would act in a rational and moral way, i.e., only punish those that it can be objectively proven have breached the rights of others. They would not tax anyone. Voluntary donations or court fees would cover all there expenses.
Now I admit that with the way most people think today that such as system would never come into place. However, such a system is the best. No other system is consistent with human rights. Laissez faire (also known as laissez faire capitalism) does. The best descriptions of the greatness and morality of laissez faire capitalism were provided by novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand.
As for this:
Observe your daily life, Kane, and you will be pleasantly surprised to see how very little you actually need government.
I know I don't need government for much. That is why I want them out of almost all aspects of our lives, except protection of individual rights.
Government, in all of its varied forms & styles, has been the single greatest danger to human life
The original American system was only the slightest threat (as opposed to the mixed system of today). It was one of the smallest threats to human life. Proof of this is in the fact the Industrial Age was the most productive period and had the most rapid advancement of technology and quality of life style in existence? Why? Because the government barely got involved except to protect individual rights (with a few minor exceptions). This freed up people like Thomas Edison to invent things that improved everyone's lives (over 200 inventions in Edison's case), all of which he had the intention of profiting off (and rightly so).
Now all the many times in history that any other system, be it socialism, communism, fascism, anarchy, monarchy, or any other system, has been tried, they have not managed to match that level of production and invention. There can be no better proof than that of how successful laissez faire capitalism is. And that is with just application of partial laissez faire capitalism. With full application such production and invention would not only be matched but rivaled.
Published: February 7, 2007 2:27 PM
Now how did I know, on reading his(?) first post, that Kane Bunce was going to be a Randian? :)
Published: February 7, 2007 6:19 PM
Kane, I disagree with you and I feel there is nothing that I can say to change your mind. My thought process is fairly simple: Governments become better as they decrease in size and scope. There is no logical or empirical correlation between governments and freedom (in a positive sense, of course). Therefore, a total abscence of government mustn't be too bad.
Peter, I gathered the same impression from Kane as well. Don't fret Kane, there are far worse things to be called than a Randian.
Published: February 7, 2007 8:53 PM