Sherry Chandler » Privatized right out of business
Privatized right out of business
Here’s an old article from the Washington Post that I meant to link and then I got distracted.
The Bush government has been busily privatizing as many aspects of our defense as it can. I’ll leave you to decide how effective that’s been. This article speaks to its cost effectiveness.
Contracting specialists said companies are increasingly being called upon to handle duties once considered appropriate only for government workers. And because the number of federal procurement workers responsible for overseeing spending has not kept pace, the spending on such contracts often soars far beyond approved estimates, the specialists said.
The average annual cost of a contract employee is $250,000, almost twice that of a federal employee, according to an estimate recently cited by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Good on Barney Frank; he has impressed me lately, although my only previous knowledge of him was through...
4 Comments
1. Tommy replies at 19th July 2007, 9:29 am :
I wonder how much of that figure is salary, and how much incidental costs and their share of overhead?
Surely they can’t be paid a quarter of a million dollars a year.
2. sherry replies at 19th July 2007, 11:23 am :
Good point, Tommy. When the government gives a research grant, the institution of the grantee (say for example a university) is allowed to add a certain (fairly high) percentage to the actual cost of research to pay for its own overhead (a facilities and administration cost). But the government has to pay overhead for its own offices anyway. So it’s possible that we’re paying double overhead on these contract workers.
It would be interesting to see figures that compared the overall cost of a government bureaucrat working in a government office to a contract worker.
3. Rosalie replies at 19th July 2007, 3:25 pm :
While driving to work this morning, I composed a response to yesterday’s post (“Fighting them there so we can fight them here”). When I read your post this morning, I see that my comments apply to today’s post as well.
We need to remember something the Bush administration said during the prelude to the invasion of Iraq: that this war on terror would go on for a long time, as long as it takes, maybe a very long time, as long as the threat of terrorism exists…
So, now that we find ourselves in a state of perpetual war, and not unintentionally, my question is why? For what purpose? Or, more importantly, for whose benefit?
Yes, for the oil. Yes, to establish military bases in Iraq (most likely to replace the ones in Saudi Arabia). Yes, to overthrow Saddam and his government. But, if the purpose is to have perpetual war, who benefits from that? Hmmmm…could it be the military industrial complex President Eisenhower warned us of fifty years ago?
Y’all might find this video interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cJlJudDtVE
(Iraq for Sale banned excerpts)
Rosalie
P.S. A few days ago I heard from a former coworker who has signed up with a former Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, (http://www.kbr.com/) to go to Iraq. She has been assigned to work in postal services for a salary in 6 figures.
4. sherry replies at 22nd July 2007, 9:44 am :
Thanks, Rosalie, for you astute comments. Everyone should watch that Iraq for Sale video. And we really really really should demand accountability from our government, whether it be Republican or Democratic.
Leave a comment