Although it looks good on paper to privatize some services it is not that good
of a deal. For one is the quaility of services and then the escalating cost
these service contractors always negotiate up to cost even more than what it was
costing government to do. It is always much harder to change the contracts of
services when the negotations of contracts were not properly researched by the
government side and we end up with a conglomeration outsourced jobs with
inefficient and over costly services. Then there is the problem of security and
cost control by the government when privatizing. Government agency's should not
be privatized, even for services because we then lose any controls of that
protion of government and services. With these privatizations the government
must also create a watchdog group to monitor the quality and cost of services
which often times comes under corruption and bribes from these contractors. We
have seen many times the pitfalls of government turning over its duties to
privitization and how inefficient it becomes and the cost overruns it eventually
succombs to. Do not privatize government jobs that are always turning in to
Can we start privatization with liquor stores?
Pass this bill and we'll see public ed back on the list next year as an entity
to be privatized after elections are over. Vote against Frank.I'll
take privatization bills seriously when we don't have to shop at government
stores in order to buy liquor in Utah.
Giving to the private sector does not mean Utah Socialism won't be represented
by cross over nepotism. e.g. Child Protection division of the AG and their
affair with junk psyco-therapy.
Bob G--I think you are just completely wrong on this issue. What evidence do you
have that privatizing government services leads to poor quality and corruption?
I would appreciate you specifically mentioning it rather than vaguely alluding
to it. The evidence rather supports the argument that government provides
inefficient services relevant to the private sector. Health care is a great
example. Compare American health care to British health care. The Brits have
rationing problems (e.g. long lines) and poorer quality health care, all because
its the government provides the service. On the other hand, people come from all
over the world to get health care in the US, which is provided privately for the
most part.Your assertion that we would lose all control of the
services is completely unfounded. If costs continually increase, the government
always has the right not to renew the contract and go somewhere else or provide
the service again themselves. Also, the contract becomes the medium for
controling how that service is provided. If a private provider won't agree to
the terms, you go somewhere else. There will have to be oversight, but that's
required whether the service comes from government or privately.
This is the area of greatest need.We have just found out that UTA
has mislead the public into voting $5 billion in new taxes.It turns
out TRAX is very slow growing. It grows ridership only when new lines are
opened.Their market share is still just 1%.We are giving
them $17 billion in the hope their market share might jump to 2%Their service to large areas of the Wasatch Front has never been worse..never!
There is almost no full day bus service beyond 90th South in Salt Lake County. A
lot of people live out that way.Privatize them. Service will
improve. And, save $10 billion!