There is no doubt that we are in tough financial times. The DOW industrial average is still down 6000 points from it's all-time high, the dollar is down to an all-time low, and unemployment is at a 26 year high. Now with rising interest rates and the threat of inflation looming over an uncertain future it seems we all have to make sacrifices.
In our personal lives, I'm sure all of us have put some thought into cost-cutting measures. Perhaps you're packing a lunch instead of eating out, renting movies instead of going to the theater or car pooling to save on gas money. Americans have faced tough times before and have always persevered. Is it so wrong to ask of our elected officials to do the same in a safe and ethical manner?
It seems that every time we ask our government to slim down and go on a diet we're met with threats of teacher and police layoffs, fire stations shutting down, and hospitals and schools going without textbooks. While we are all too familiar with the fact that any time government is met with a budget shortfall our taxes are sure to go up. Rarely is a government program, even the most obscure and unused, ever put on the chopping block. This is an old phenomenon, going back as far as 1964. Then actor Ronald Reagan shared his view on the subject:
"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments' programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth."
~Ronald Reagan 1964
As if higher taxes and immortal government bureaucracies weren't bad enough, outsourcing has now crept from the private sector into the public sector. While in the private sector the idea of outsourcing, or subcontracting a service - such as product design or manufacturing - to a third-party company may make financial sense, government has a greater duty to more than just the bottom line.
We all remember back in February of 2006 when the Bush administration announced that the security of 6 major US ports would be outsourced to the DP World, a state owned company of the United Arab Emirates. While the thought of lower security costs and more efficient implementation of security to crucial transit and commerce hubs appealed to my fiscal conservatism, the thought of a foreign nation being in control of security at what could be high value targets left a bad taste in my mouth. I wasn't alone on this. Even Democrat Senator Charles Schumer from New York, who I never agree see eye to eye with, said the following:
“Should we be outsourcing our own security?”
Charles Schumer (D) NY
In the end the Dubai ports deal was blocked. Some things in our society are too important to be auctioned off to be run by the highest bidder, or at least this is what I assumed until news broke from Chicago last night.
Over the weekend Chicago Mayor Jim Daley announced that his administration is looking into leasing the entire Chicago municipal water system to private companies. The same arguments for the support of the Dubai ports deal can be made here. Private companies will always out perform their public sector counterparts, but again the issues of safety and security are paramount. The idea that a foreign nation could be in control of what is essentially the building block of life here on Earth doesn't sit well with me, and frankly, it shouldn't sit well with you either.
If you think that I'm being paranoid consider this: the cities of Homer Glen, Orland Hills and Bolingbrook, all in Illinois, have leased their municipal water supplies to the German company Rheinisch-Westfälisches Elektrizitätswerk. (For the sake of this article we'll refer to them as RWE.) Now I don't want to besmirch RWE by implying that they are some sort of nefarious foreign company that has some sort of evil plot against the American people. There is nothing in their history to ever suggest such a thing. However, after they secure a lease, what is to prevent RWE from being bought out by a larger international company who may have more sinister intentions? What if profits are not their sole motivation? What if they are willing to sacrifice profitability in order to crush the infrastructure of America's 3rd largest city? I could go on with more questions, but you are probably thinking of your own right now.
Let me wrap all of this up by suggesting that government, both federal and state, should take this time of financial strain to eliminate some of these “immortal” bureaucracies. While the private sector has it's place - and it's close to my heart - there are some things that should stay within the umbrella of government and should not be privatized, regardless of the potential benefits. Like Charles Schumer said, “Should we be outsourcing our own security”?
