Government vs Private Sector ...

ViRedd · #1 11-10-2007, 06:34 PM

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit WorldNetDaily: Government: If it ain't broke, they'll break it

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Government: If it ain't broke, they'll break it
Posted: November 8, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Larry Elder
© 2007
The story you are about to read is true. The names have been changed to protect the bureaucrats.

A few months ago, I met a contractor in a bar. He told me about his business, and I asked him how many people he employed. He said, "Forty-nine. If I have one more, then the federal Family Medical Leave Act and the California Family Rights Act kick in. Then if somebody goes out, I have to hold his job open for months, whether I can afford to keep him or not. That's bull––." So here we are. A man that wants to hire more people refuses to do so, because an additional hiree takes a hammer to his profit margins.

I recently visited a friend who lives in the Bay Area. I got through security at Los Angeles International Airport, even through my carry-on toiletry bag included hair paste, toothpaste and deodorant. All went through the security screening, no problem.

On my return flight through San Francisco Airport, however, security made me open my toiletry bag, and I received stern instructions to – in the future – place stuff like shampoo, hair paste, toothpaste, sunblock and deodorant in a zip-lock plastic bag. "No one told me to do that on the way up here," I said. The security screener said, "Those are the rules. Somebody simply didn't follow them."

Not long ago the government released results of a test run last year to determine the efficiency of airport security at detecting fake bombs. The Transportation Security Administration report reveals that screeners at Los Angeles International Airport failed to find fake bombs in 75 percent of tests. Chicago O'Hare screeners failed more than 60 percent. But only 20 percent of the bombs made it through security at the five U.S. airports allowed to use private firms to run their security screenings. Contractors for those five airports are reimbursed for their actual costs, with profit from awards based on performance. San Francisco, coincidentally, uses private screeners, while Los Angeles uses government employees. So which screeners were more efficient – government employees or private ones?

Now consider health care. Great Britain's taxpayer-funded National Health Service (NHS) covers the medical needs of every British citizen in the country's population of 61 million. Yet 60,000 Britons traveled abroad for medical care in 2006. Another 70,000 are expected to do so this year. By 2010, experts estimate the number to increase to 200,000. Credit the frustration of interminably long wait-lists and inadequate care. According to the London Times, the NHS "is in deep trouble, mired in scandal and incompetence, despite the injection of billions of pounds of taxpayers' money."

What about government "disaster" relief? After the Sept. 11 attacks, the Small Business Administration lent $1.2 billion dollars to more than 10,000 companies claiming to be hurt as a result of the terrorist hijackings. Four years later, $245 million – or 20 percent of the loan money – was in default. The loans written off by the government included $992,000 to an Atlanta hotel, $620,000 to a Maine broccoli farm, $985,000 to a Florida boat dealer, and $38,900 to a Lubbock, Texas, computer store.

By contrast, the typical private sector non-performing loans percentage is 1.5 percent for FDIC-insured bank loans and 4.3 percent for credit card loans. If a bank CEO delivered a non-payment rate over 20 percent to his board of directors, well, can you say, "You're fired"?

Government agencies like FEMA go from inefficient over-action to inefficient under-action. After California's 1994 Northridge earthquake, FEMA sent thousands of homeowners unsolicited checks up to $3,450 because they lived in ZIP codes supposedly hard-hit by the quake. When criticized, FEMA defended their generosity and denied making mistakes in the giveaway, because they "received very, very few calls from people who felt they didn't need the aid." You think?!

Why the reluctance to rely on private charity?

Before Hurricane Katrina struck, Home Depot's "war room" transferred high-need emergency items like batteries, lumber, flashlights and generators to distribution centers around the strike area. Afterward, Home Depot teamed up with the Red Cross and handed out much-needed items, including pet supplies.

Wal-Mart handed out $30 coupons to Katrina evacuees, and refilled medication for patients with containers from valid prescriptions. Using its huge database of consumers' past purchases, Wal-Mart determined which goods people needed most after a hurricane. Because of its advance logistics planning, the retail giant quickly moved in to hard-hit areas with mini Wal-Marts, handing out goods. The hurricane shut down 126 Wal-Mart facilities. A little over a week later, the company re-opened all but 14.

More government or more private sector – you choose.

Related special offer:
"Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws"

HOT OFFER: See Larry Elder take on Michael Moore in his revealing DVD "Michael & Me"!

tahoe58 · #2 11-10-2007, 08:51 PM

governments run deficits and accumulate debt with an expectation that the people will pay for it all through taxes - providing all kinds of wonderful excuses why. private enterprise (and the general public - you and me alike) have to run a balanced budget otherwise they/we go bankrupt or go out of business. I have made my choice - I want to stay in business.

medicineman · #3 11-11-2007, 07:57 AM

He said, "Forty-nine. If I have one more, then the federal Family Medical Leave Act and the California Family Rights Act kick in. Then if somebody goes out, I have to hold his job open for months, whether I can afford to keep him or not. That's bull––."

What a selfish greedy prick!

7xstall · #4 11-13-2007, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by medicineman

He said, "Forty-nine. If I have one more, then the federal Family Medical Leave Act and the California Family Rights Act kick in. Then if somebody goes out, I have to hold his job open for months, whether I can afford to keep him or not. That's bull––."

What a selfish greedy prick!

how is it selfish to avoid getting caught up in laws that he might not be able to afford to live with? i think the man is being loyal to his customers, his workers and others who depend on him. i am sure that once he has saved enough and built enough wealth that he can afford the risk he'll hire more people but until then it would be reckless to pick up obligations that he can't handle... kind of like those people who buy bad loans, or live in natural disaster prone areas. he choses not to risk it.

also, more private sector superiority: FOXNews.com - 'Anonymous Friend' Gives $100 Million to Pennsylvania City - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

.

closet.cult · #5 11-13-2007, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by medicineman

He said, "Forty-nine. If I have one more, then the federal Family Medical Leave Act and the California Family Rights Act kick in. Then if somebody goes out, I have to hold his job open for months, whether I can afford to keep him or not. That's bull––."

What a selfish greedy prick!

goddamn you're unreasonable. either that or your terrible at making jokes.

a buisness owner can do whatever he can, within legal rights, to insure the success of his buisness. if you ran a buisness you'd know which laws will hurt you.

if his buisness fails, what good is he to his employees? ignorant.

ViRedd · #6 11-13-2007, 08:24 AM

"goddamn you're unreasonable. either that or your terrible at making jokes."

Perfect! ~lol~

Vi

GoldenAss · #7 11-13-2007, 09:29 PM

Not a very good article, simply another pundit fanning the flames that'll burn us all.

The point is, there are some things that the private sector excels in, and things that the public sector excels in. Neither is perfect.

But the private sector, in regard to health care--which is really all this debate is about--is better. It comes down to a simple question: efficiency and profit, or some wasted money and compassion?

I would rather lose profit than people.

"A man that wants to hire more people refuses to do so, because an additional hiree takes a hammer to his profit margins."

A greedy prick? Well, yeah, kind of. He cares about his profit margins more than things like insurance and healthcare for his employees. Sure--if he goes belly up, his employees will be worse off. But that's not the situation he will probably find himself in, with one more employee.

As for his cheap shots at England, compare some numbers this way.

According to him, about 1% of Brits went out of the country for treatment last year (what percent actually did this because they are dissatisfied with NHS, this pundit doesn't care. He's flashing numbers.)

According to my memory, 40-50 million Americans lack health care--PERIOD. That's around 13% of Americans who don't even get England's "inadequate" care.

Compassion or efficiency where one out of every 10 Americans gets the boot. Some choice.

iblazethatkush · #8 11-14-2007, 01:12 AM

This is why the federal government needs to be small as possible. They fuck everything up. Nice article, VI. Now if you could just spend more time on worthwile posts, such as this, and less on defending Bush...

medicineman · #9 11-14-2007, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ViRedd

"goddamn you're unreasonable. either that or your terrible at making jokes."

Perfect! ~lol~

Vi

I stand by my initial Greedy prick statement: The guy may have to keep the employees job open if he goes on medical leave, but he doesn't have to keep paying him. If he had to pay the guy for taking off then I'd agree that it would be way too much of a burden, but to keep his job open for a pre-determined time, what is it 6 mos., is feasable, Employers have to keep jobs open for National Guard troops if called up. Why should an employee be forced to lose his job if he has a medical emergency. An employer can replace the employee with help from a temp. agency, no harm done. So yes he is a greedy prick. If you had a heart attack and would be off for 6 months, why should you be forced @ 50+ years of age to go look for a new job if after surgery you were back to normal and ready to work?

ViRedd · #10 11-14-2007, 12:37 PM

[quote=iblazethatkush;353889]This is why the federal government needs to be small as possible. They fuck everything up. Nice article, VI. Now if you could just spend more time on worthwile posts, such as this, and less on defending Bush...[/quote]

Attacking statists, progressives, socialists and communists isn't "defending" Bush. In fact, "statist" is an apt term to describe Bush. And, if you've read through my posts, you must know that I've attacked Bush for his lack of a veto pen and his open border policies.

Vi