On 3/26/04 3:00 PM, "Anderson, Mark (GE Infrastructure)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Terrell Brown continued: > Unlike a strike against a profit making business which loses money when > a strike causes a shut down, a strike against a government entity > doesn't cause a financial loss to the employer. In fact, the > government employer may gain in the short run by "saving" thousands of > payroll dollars. > > Mark Anderson: > You are correct here. One more example of the inherent inefficiency of > government programs. It sounds like the bus system would be a great candidate > for privatization. I take issue with Mark Anderson's comment about the "inherent inefficiency of government programs" and his idea that the bus system should be privatized. Several people have commented on the history of our local bus system and made great points about how a privately-run system isn't exactly a great deal. In addition, people might want to recall that it wasn't so long ago that Rep. Phil Krinkie demanded that operation of the LRT line be opened for bidding to see if a private firm could operate it for less than Metro Transit. It turned out that Metro Transit submitted the lowest bid, even with their supposedly overpaid drivers and mechanics. How is that possible? Because the private firms weren't willing to accept a profit margin slim enough to allow them to compete with Metro Transit. For another example, administrative costs for government-run MinnesotaCare tend to run about 2% of the program's budget compared to a minimum of 10% for our "non-profit" HMOs. For-profit HMOs often run even higher than that. Call it efficiency or call it only having to pay out only five or six-figure salaries to top-level MinnesotaCare administrators vs. seven or eight-figure salaries for top-level HMO management, but the result is the same. Administration costs are lower for the government-run program. Which is why a lot of small businesses are pushing to change the rules to let them opt-in to MinnesotaCare because even paying the full premiums without subsidy is cheaper for them than stay with the HMOs. For another example, if government is so inefficient, can someone tell me why the state Department of Revenue was able to process my paper-version state income tax return that I mailed in and send me my refund faster than Xcel Energy was able to process my electric bill and deposit my check? Which is harder, keying an account number into a database and reading a check or reviewing a two-page tax form and routing a direct deposit payment? One final example, what makes more sense - paying a MnDOT engineer $30-40 an hour to design a construction project or paying a consultant $200-$300 an hour to do the exact same thing? That kind of thing is going on at various state agencies to the tune of about $800-900 million annually. It couldn't have anything to do with all those rich consultants funding GOP campaigns, now, could it? The so-called inefficiency of government programs is a myth spun by "garage logic" adherents and (Rich) Taxpayers League flunkies. Mark Snyder Windom Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
