How does the Bush Administration make government smaller? Outsource governmental functions to private companies at several times the price. And with no accountability! Thats how we make government smaller.. right? Hire the same amount of people or more at a much higher rate, without the obligation of actually providing services.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/washington/04contract.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

2/4/2007 12:26:32 AM

everyone contracts now

not just the government

2/4/2007 12:32:31 AM

I know, I used to work at an engineering firm. Its just very alarming that we continue to give private companies more power over our lives.

Quote :

"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."

We give more money to a single contractor then the entire federal judiciary and the Dept. of Energy that we have tasked to develop alternative sources of energy.

2/4/2007 12:38:49 AM

This is exactly what the Republican congress and Bush administration are doing to the national labs, where I work.

Last year Los Alamos National Lab underwent a change in management. For over fifty years the federal government has contracted out the management of LANL (and LLNL) to the University of California. In 2001 congress declared that the management contract was open and any organization to bid on the contract must be a private entity. Last year the UC/Bechtel LLC won that contract and took over management of the Lab. The result? LANL has a $2 Billion budget and UC operated the Lab with a $20 million management fee. Under the UC/Bechtel LLC the management fee exploded to $200 million. So much for making government more efficient.

[Edited on February 4, 2007 at 12:44 AM. Reason : x]

2/4/2007 12:43:15 AM

I'm not very alarmed

2/4/2007 12:49:37 AM

you probably aren't very informed either

2/4/2007 12:51:53 AM

Quote :

"Under the UC/Bechtel LLC the management fee exploded to $200 million. So much for making government more efficient."

I guess it amounts to publicly funded elections.

2/4/2007 12:58:54 AM

I would think it would be weird for an outside organization to manage your lab. They basically have no stake in your success. Sounds like a recipe for disaster


[Edited on February 4, 2007 at 1:19 AM. Reason : Ideology is more important than reality!!!!]

2/4/2007 1:18:55 AM

Also, government contracting is a horrible way to harness the market. It ends up being a competition to make the best promises, not best product or service.

2/4/2007 1:50:57 AM

^Shit, not even the best promises sometimes.

[Edited on February 4, 2007 at 2:10 AM. Reason : sometimes]

2/4/2007 2:10:04 AM

The reason the nuclear labs are managed by an outside organization is historical. Many physicists wouldn't have worked on the Manhatten Project if the weapon labs were managed by the military. In the long run this has probably been a good thing.

2/4/2007 4:01:52 AM

The reason the nuclear labs are managed by an outside organization is historical. Many physicists wouldn't have worked on the Manhatten Project if the weapon labs were managed by the military. In the long run this has probably been a good thing.

2/4/2007 4:05:34 AM

Quote :

"How does the Bush Administration make government smaller?"

There's your mistake right there. "the Bush Administration" has made it quite clear there is no interest in making government anything but larger.

2/4/2007 7:54:15 AM

I can't wait for 2008, mostly because I want to see a drastic reduction in Executive power asap. I think most candidates in the race would be more likely to reduce Executive power than the current guy.

[Edited on February 4, 2007 at 3:49 PM. Reason : .]

2/4/2007 3:47:17 PM

Quote :

"We give more money to a single contractor then the entire federal judiciary and the Dept. of Energy that we have tasked to develop alternative sources of energy."

the united states has ALWAYS tasked out its defense procurement

look at the things lockheed builds/produces

that "factoid" doesnt really say much. DOJ and DOE don't NEED as much money because they aren't using procurement, ops & maint, and RDT&E dollars like Lockheed, NG, GD, BAE, etc. are...



the stupid thing about contracting though is that it often creates redundant competition amongst personnel like SOF forces which often leave service for lucrative security contracting jobs which are paid for by the govt as well...kinda stupid when you think about it

[Edited on February 4, 2007 at 5:48 PM. Reason : .]

2/4/2007 5:45:22 PM

Quote :

"I can't wait for 2008, mostly because I want to see a drastic reduction in Executive power asap. I think most candidates in the race would be more likely to reduce Executive power than the current guy."

are you serious?

why do you think they want the job

the desire to expand the institution is institutional, not simply the desire of one individual

say what you want about rumsfeld, cheney, etc wanting to expand the presidential powers, and take back power from congress,

anybody who wants the job is going to want to be successful, and to do so requires putting a significant dog in the fight to grab as much power as possible.

2/4/2007 5:50:58 PM

Quote :

"We give more money to a single contractor then the entire federal judiciary and the Dept. of Energy that we have tasked to develop alternative sources of energy."

Out of curiosity, how many JSFs did the DOJ need to order.

2/4/2007 9:23:01 PM

Quote :

" ssclark: I'm not very alarmed Scuba Steve: you probably aren't very informed either "

FTW




[Edited on February 4, 2007 at 9:34 PM. Reason : ]

2/4/2007 9:33:48 PM

nm

[Edited on February 4, 2007 at 9:50 PM. Reason : .]

2/4/2007 9:50:05 PM

Quote :

"Out of curiosity, how many JSFs did the DOJ need to order"

Out of curiosity, how many JSFs would we need if the DOE was properly funded and our policy drove us to sustainable energy, instead of perpetual wars to feed our dependence on foreign oil?

2/4/2007 10:10:14 PM

We go to war because out leaders need to feel important, so they lead us to war. It has nothing to do with energy, that is merely their excuse.

Oh, and no quantity of DOE funding will alter the economics. Oil is cheap at $100 a barrel, there is nothing anyone can do about it.

2/4/2007 10:18:21 PM

Oil is not cheap at $100 a barrel. You would see this country go into a serious economic recession if oil stayed at $100 for any appreciable time.

2/4/2007 10:24:28 PM

Quote :

" LoneSnark: We go to war because out leaders need to feel important, so they lead us to war. It has nothing to do with energy, that is merely their excuse."

thats the dumbest damn thing ive ever heard you say.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Oh, and no quantity of DOE funding will alter the economics. Oil is cheap at $100 a barrel, there is nothing anyone can do about it. "

whoops. i take it back. that was even dumber.






[Edited on February 5, 2007 at 3:44 AM. Reason : ]

2/5/2007 3:42:07 AM

and here i thought this thread was going to be about the press.

2/5/2007 8:53:02 AM