[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]Some security clearances can take more than a year to obtain, and the top levels need to be re-investigated on a regular basis.
I don’t think you understand the enormity of handling all of the administrative duties and security clearances for all of those people. It’s much easier for them to go through a company.
This is one of the things that far too many people do not understand about govt work. It takes a tremendous amount of resources to recruit and train people, and the sheer number of employees working for the government is unfathomable for most people who work in the private sector, even to those who work for very large corporations.
By using companies, it’s easier to keep these individuals in the “govt fold,” where they might work for one public agency, and then another, then another, and then back to the original agency…but all under the control of one company. By using the company, all of the administrative work is streamlined and, once the relationship between company and the various govt agencies has been established, it’s easy to just tell them that you need a person with x qualifications for x amount of money, and then that person arrives as soon as they are needed.
And yes, it does prove my point about privatization being more expensive than the govt having its own employees. The privatization movement wants to **expand** government (especially as it relates to expanding government spending for private contractors), and they spend a tremendous amount of money lobbying to get this done. With govt employees, while they might lobby for better pay and/or working conditions, they do not usually lobby for expansion in the way that private contractors do, and they cost less per employee.[/quote]
I think you just contradicted yourself in this post. If it’s cheaper to do it in house, then why outsource? I never knew the privatization movement was for expanding government and increase government spending. If that’s the case, then I’m very anti privatization. What would you call completely offloading the service/job to the private sector then? Keep in mind that there are some jobs where I don’t think should be privatize. Jobs that need clearance are usually the one that needs to stay in house. In stead of paying contracting firms to do the clearance process that you set up. Why not just stream line the clearance process and allow your employee from one agency to move to another more easily. Streamline the process instead of paying extra money to not have to deal with the process.[/quote]
No, I didn’t contradict myself. It is cheaper to use government employees, but with the growth of certain industries being fed by tax dollars, that’s not always possible, nor desirable. The government is (IMHO) paying for things that we have no business paying for, but the lobbyists are extremely powerful, and they (the people who hire them) control who we get to vote for, how much we spend, and where we spend it. This is why we’ve been seeing the huge moves toward privatization, even though it’s more expensive and more vulnerable to abuse.
Some good resources to get a better understanding of the privatization movement:
It’s very important that people understand what’s going on WRT privatization and our government. Most important is that if we lose this battle, it will be almost impossible to turn back.
