Politics As Usual

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I sure hope we never see this guy on the evening news...

Justice Dept. releases terrorism suspect - to Syria

Maybe they venue shopped this guy to the Syrians. I imagine Syria has more humane forms of sentencing for whatever it this guy has done.

After the latest Supremes we should venue shop most of the Guantanomo Bay guys, perhaps they are wanted in Kuwait or Pakistan or South Korea or Saudi Arabia or Israel.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by the Spartan
Maybe they venue shopped this guy to the Syrians. I imagine Syria has more humane forms of sentencing for whatever it this guy has done.

After the latest Supremes we should venue shop most of the Guantanomo Bay guys, perhaps they are wanted in Kuwait or Pakistan or South Korea or Saudi Arabia or Israel.

I think they're shipping people to places like Syria which can extract information from them quickly and quietly without rabble-rousers in the Democratic Party and the liberal media causing any problems.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think they're shipping people to places like Syria which can extract information from them quickly and quietly without rabble-rousers in the Democratic Party and the liberal media causing any problems.

Hmmm, I hadn't thought of that. Could be.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The cost savings in hospitals I doubt has to do with pure admin. It has to do with waste, overbilling, etc. If you're talking pure admin, which we are for SS, figure out whether Ross Perot or the US gov't is likely to do it better and cheaper.

Would Enron or WorldCom do it cheaper, and provide better customer service?

Maybe we could hire Charles Keating for the job -- everyone knows how he LOVED handling old folks' money.

I know -- government bad, private sector good. But you are talking about privatizing an administrative function where competition will be absent and opportunities for fraud, cheating, and excessive cost-cutting (excessive because it damages a service essential to many people) will be rampant.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
In which program? Because I gave you the figures already. SSA has about an $9B budget for $400B in outlays. 2% isn't high even by credit card company standards.

Burger, you are schizo on this issue. You say the above, but you suggest that private industry will do this more cheaply. How? Your own data suggests that is extremely unlikely, especially given that there needs also to be a profit margin built in.

And even if privatization saves the gov't half -- and how likely is a reduction to 1% TOTAL for admin costs and profit? -- we've saved a whopping $4.5 billion. Woo-de-fucking-hoo.

On the other hand, that leaves Club with only $653 billion more "pork" to cut, so.....

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
*This is not a response to my conversation with Sidd. I obviously need to do some more homework on that issue before returning to it.

A short memo with the authorities attached will suffice. Please use only yellow highlighter on the authorities.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
But you are talking about privatizing an administrative function where competition will be absent and opportunities for fraud, cheating, and excessive cost-cutting (excessive because it damages a service essential to many people) will be rampant.

I repeat: If there's real money to be saved here, why haven't a Republican Congress and a Republican White House found a way to do this yet, presumably in a way that enriches corporations which give money to Republicans?

The answer, presumably, is that there's not much of an upside here. The real money is in slashing benefits.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I repeat: If there's real money to be saved here, why haven't a Republican Congress and a Republican White House found a way to do this yet, presumably in a way that enriches corporations which give money to Republicans?

The answer, presumably, is that there's not much of an upside here. The real money is in slashing benefits.

Because they will be demonized by the left in an election year, plain and simple.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Because they will be demonized by the left in an election year, plain and simple.

For saving administrative money without cutting benefits? Not even. And they could have done it three years ago.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Um, weren't you (Burger) saying that private companies could do it more cheaply?

JFC, weren't you talking about the price of tea in china?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Burger, you are schizo on this issue. You say the above, but you suggest that private industry will do this more cheaply. How? Your own data suggests that is extremely unlikely, especially given that there needs also to be a profit margin built in.

And even if privatization saves the gov't half -- and how likely is a reduction to 1% TOTAL for admin costs and profit? -- we've saved a whopping $4.5 billion. Woo-de-fucking-hoo.

On the other hand, that leaves Club with only $653 billion more "pork" to cut, so.....

JFC to you too. The cc comment was a fucking joke, people. And it's an entirely different system.

That said, there are two separate points here:

1) SS admin doesn't provide for much cost savings for club's $800B spending cut (other than benefits).

2) Despite that, putting that admin in the private sector could still be cheaper.

Why do people assume that corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse infects only the private sector? If that's the case, though, I'm sure we can create some savings by eliminating every inspector general's office.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
For saving administrative money without cutting benefits? Not even. And they could have done it three years ago.

No, for shrinking the size of government. That is the underlying problem. The spin would be that this jeapardizes SS.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Most of the cuts would come from non-defense discretionary spending, of course. . . . But I would also propose changes in the ADMINISTRATION of these programs, because I am certain there is an obsene amout of money being wasted in the beauracracy that is administering them.

RT has probably already hit you on this -- but you are living in a fantasy world.

For example, Medicare's admin/overhead costs are consistently at or below 1% of the total claims submitted. That is vastly better than ANY private insurer. So go ahead, cut that "waste."

When faced with reality -- you would be forced (if you are an honest man truly concerned with the fiscal well-being of the country) to support tax increases of one kind of another -- as did Bush 41. Then the unprincipled demagogues and/or ignoramuses on both sides of the aisle would crucify you for doing the right thing -- as they did with Bush 41.

S_A_M

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
2) Despite that, putting that admin in the private sector could still be cheaper.

Could, might not, any savings might result only from shorting service that for many people is critical, wouldn't save much in any event, and the risks are too high to be justified by such a small potential savings.

Why do people assume that corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse infects only the private sector?

Who makes that assumption? I am attacking the assumption that the private sector is utterly uninfected, which seems to underlie the constant calls for privitization. You say "would Ross Perot do a better job", and I say "would Kenneth Lay or Charles Keating".

As an aside -- serious question -- since the right always likes to hold out the postal service as the sine qua non of government inefficacy, is there any law or regulation preventing the Fed Exes of the world from offering a service to compete with First Class Mail? I suspect there is not, and that the only reason they don't is that the private sector cannot compete with the post office at this price point (even though -- I believe -- the postal service is entirely self-financed)..... even though it's had since the times of the Pony Express to try. I really would like to know, though, if there is some legal obstacle present.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
When faced with reality -- you would be forced (if you are an honest man truly concerned with the fiscal well-being of the country) to support tax increases of one kind of another -- as did Bush 41. Then the unprincipled demagogues and/or ignoramuses on both sides of the aisle would crucify you for doing the right thing -- as they did with Bush 41.

The Dems didn't crucify Bush for raising taxes. They crucified him for making a bogus pledge -- "read my lips" -- to get elected. And then for denying that he had gone back on his pledge.