I don’t think politicians understand what privatization means because it’s tossed around like a silver bullet than can fix any problem.
Congressman Luis Gutierrez said he's tired of hearing about problems with Chicago's hiring practices and it's time for the city to privatize the process.Gutierrez told The Associated Press today that recent headlines about patronage hiring and Chicago's history of such problems show that the system can't be fixed and it's time to try something new.The Chicago Democrat said hiring a private human resources firm would help ensure that employees will have the skills and education needed to do their jobs.
Private enterprise doesn’t succeed because its private, it succeeds because the proper incentives are in place to succeed. By simply handing a government process over to a private firm you are just moving the problem somewhere else. The biggest problem with this approach is that when it fails to meet expectations opponents pontificate about how the private sector is just as bad as the public.
Until the entire process is based in free-market incentives (i.e. there are goals that must be met or you will be fired) the hiring process is likely to be poor. Now I will say that if the human resources firm is giving complete control of hiring patronage should – and I do emphasize should, not will – eliminate patronage in city positions.
If the only purpose of hiring a private firm to do hiring is to eliminate patronage, this may actually work, but if you want human resources to improve (better people, etc) then give the services over to the private sector and let anyone and everyone compete to provide those services directly to the consumers.
Replacing a government process with a monopolistic private provider isn’t privatization, at least not in a way that may actually solve anything.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Favre's Back!
I speculated at the end of last season that Favre would probably come back and it turns out I was right. Favre announced over the weekend that he would return for at least one more year.
He loves to play football and I think will continue to play as long as he is capable of doing so, though if the Pack has another losing season the chances that he will return diminish drastically.
The good news is that the Packers had a phenomenal draft picking up several defensive players that can probably make an immediate impact. They also picked up Charles Woodson, though he isn’t he impact player that he was five years ago, can probably mentor the younger players and add some much needed leadership in the defensive locker-room.
Over all, I’m optimistic that the Packers won’t suck this year and am looking forward to beating the Bears on the first and last days of the season.
My desire and my commitment is why I'm here … [n]ot my footwork, not my mechanics, not arm strength or decision making. It's my desire to win. I want to win more than anyone else. I'm willing to do whatever it takes, and sometimes it's not pretty.
He loves to play football and I think will continue to play as long as he is capable of doing so, though if the Pack has another losing season the chances that he will return diminish drastically.
The good news is that the Packers had a phenomenal draft picking up several defensive players that can probably make an immediate impact. They also picked up Charles Woodson, though he isn’t he impact player that he was five years ago, can probably mentor the younger players and add some much needed leadership in the defensive locker-room.
Over all, I’m optimistic that the Packers won’t suck this year and am looking forward to beating the Bears on the first and last days of the season.
The Catholic Church's Slow Decent Into Hell
The Catholic Church doesn’t like the Da Vinci Code, so they are pursuing legal remedies to impose their will on everyone else. What is their legal justification for censorship?
If there is one thing that I know for certain it is that there is absolutely, positively no “fundamental human right” to be respected. You have no right, no priveledge to control what other people think, say, write or act.
The church has a long (very long) sordid history with controlling everything that everyone does, now that they no longer have that direct power I sincerely hope that we don’t give them the indirect power by way of the court system.
HatTip: Volokh Conspiracy
Update: Professor Bainbridge has similar thoughts.
This is one of the fundamental human rights: that we should be respected, our religious beliefs respected, and our founder Jesus Christ respected
If there is one thing that I know for certain it is that there is absolutely, positively no “fundamental human right” to be respected. You have no right, no priveledge to control what other people think, say, write or act.
The church has a long (very long) sordid history with controlling everything that everyone does, now that they no longer have that direct power I sincerely hope that we don’t give them the indirect power by way of the court system.
HatTip: Volokh Conspiracy
Update: Professor Bainbridge has similar thoughts.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Much Ado About Term Limits: Part II
In Part I I discussed why term limits wasn’t going to fix the problems of pork and special interests in Congress.
So, if forcing Congressmen out every couple of years isn’t going to do any good, what is the right answer? Well, there isn’t going to be any silver bullet, but you have to either address the incentives involved or change the process to make it more difficult for Congress to meet those incentives.
The primary incentive is to retain power and get re-elected and nothing can be done to change that incentive, but you can use that incentive against them. One of the reasons that pork barrel spending and special interest legislation has become so prevalent is it is buried in huge bills with hundreds of amendments that are tacked on at the last minute.
The reason that bills are passed this way is that there are competing interests that Congressmen want to keep in the dark. The constituents from NY wouldn’t likely approve of bridges built in Alaska any more than people in Alaska would approve of building subways in NY. So they hide the spending so that the people that matter (the voters) aren’t likely to find out.
The same goes with special interest spending – how do you know whether your Senator is voting for the tax breaks for Big Oil or tougher emission standards when they are all rolled up in the same bill?
The solution is a two parter, both of which have been proposed recently, but are typically tied up with so much extraneous crap to make them unpassable. The first is to mandate a minimum amount of time between when a bill is written and when it can be voted on. First, it can prevent bad law from being enacted like SOX, PATRIOT and the like, second it gives voters a chance to provide feedback to their representatives before action is taken.
The second solution is to limit the number or nature of amendments that can be tacked on a bill. The legislative process is a horse-trading carnival where minority factions in Congress wield a substantial amount of power. “Moderate” members know that they can get nearly anything they want simply by holding out.
The central tenants of a bill are rarely voted on the merits alone, when the leadership starts canvassing for support the natural indication for most should be “Maybe.” By saying maybe the legislator can sell his “Yes” for something else that he wants. So typical legislation includes anything and everything regardless of what the bill is supposed to be about. If each amendment were voted on the merits alone I have little doubt that many of them wouldn’t pass muster.
Unfortunately, the mechanics of a such a measure would be difficult to craft. You do not want to prevent the ability to amend legislation, merely the horse trading that is associated with it. By making our Legislators vote on every bill (without confusing amendments) and giving citizens the time to see what they are going to be voting on, our Congressmen will become more responsive to actual voter needs.
So, if forcing Congressmen out every couple of years isn’t going to do any good, what is the right answer? Well, there isn’t going to be any silver bullet, but you have to either address the incentives involved or change the process to make it more difficult for Congress to meet those incentives.
The primary incentive is to retain power and get re-elected and nothing can be done to change that incentive, but you can use that incentive against them. One of the reasons that pork barrel spending and special interest legislation has become so prevalent is it is buried in huge bills with hundreds of amendments that are tacked on at the last minute.
The reason that bills are passed this way is that there are competing interests that Congressmen want to keep in the dark. The constituents from NY wouldn’t likely approve of bridges built in Alaska any more than people in Alaska would approve of building subways in NY. So they hide the spending so that the people that matter (the voters) aren’t likely to find out.
The same goes with special interest spending – how do you know whether your Senator is voting for the tax breaks for Big Oil or tougher emission standards when they are all rolled up in the same bill?
The solution is a two parter, both of which have been proposed recently, but are typically tied up with so much extraneous crap to make them unpassable. The first is to mandate a minimum amount of time between when a bill is written and when it can be voted on. First, it can prevent bad law from being enacted like SOX, PATRIOT and the like, second it gives voters a chance to provide feedback to their representatives before action is taken.
The second solution is to limit the number or nature of amendments that can be tacked on a bill. The legislative process is a horse-trading carnival where minority factions in Congress wield a substantial amount of power. “Moderate” members know that they can get nearly anything they want simply by holding out.
The central tenants of a bill are rarely voted on the merits alone, when the leadership starts canvassing for support the natural indication for most should be “Maybe.” By saying maybe the legislator can sell his “Yes” for something else that he wants. So typical legislation includes anything and everything regardless of what the bill is supposed to be about. If each amendment were voted on the merits alone I have little doubt that many of them wouldn’t pass muster.
Unfortunately, the mechanics of a such a measure would be difficult to craft. You do not want to prevent the ability to amend legislation, merely the horse trading that is associated with it. By making our Legislators vote on every bill (without confusing amendments) and giving citizens the time to see what they are going to be voting on, our Congressmen will become more responsive to actual voter needs.
Much Ado About Term-Limits: Part I
It seems like every political season the subject of term limits makes it rounds amongst the punditsphere. This season doesn’t seem to be much different.
So by proving that there are, indeed, some good eggs in Congress we should chase everyone out? I’m not sure I understand, but Mr. InstaPundit himself seems to agree
The second reason is, perhaps, somewhat counter-intuitive – by imposing term-limits we make congressmen more likely to waste government resources. Why do I think so? Look at what incentives are driving behavior. Congressmen want to retain power, so they spend government resources buying influence and increasing their public standing.
Sometimes that means promoting a big name project that they can bring back to their constituents to flout how much he/she has done for them (i.e. the Bridge to Nowhere). Sometimes it means making life easier for a politically powerful ally in the form of corporate welfare or permissive legislation. All the time the Congressmen must at least give the appearance of doing what is best for his constituents, if they push the envelope too far it will weaken themselves politically.
So what happens when you remove the incentive to retain power? You remove all need to please the constituents, and leave only the self interest. There is no longer a need to temper spending at all, in fact you have given them every incentive to increase spending in ways that benefit, not the people that he/she is representing, but themselves. Instead of Bridges to Nowhere we’ll build specific projects for specific people or businesses.
If Joe Congressmen wants to become a lobbyist for Big Oil after his term limit is up he will fight like made to get Big Oil anything that it wants without even a thought about the political consequences. Term limits are going to exacerbate a problem that is already pretty bad. I’ll address my thoughts on how to fix the problem in Part II.
By standing up by himself in the beginning and then persevering through the insults, counter-attacks and tirades of the old bulls of the Senate, Coburn has given the country a vivid demonstration of genuine political courage. One result has been that many more Members of the Senate have begun to vote with him instead of against him.
But there is another aspect of Coburn's demonstration that bears comment and that is how he has also provided a demonstration of the tremendously salutary effects of term limits.
So by proving that there are, indeed, some good eggs in Congress we should chase everyone out? I’m not sure I understand, but Mr. InstaPundit himself seems to agree
I think we should term-limit some folks this November, but he's right. The argument against going ahead on term limits was that electing Republicans would fix things. It didn't.I think there are two primary arguments against term limits. The first is a very practical one, you get rid of the good along with the bad. As a proponent of limited government I am quite happy to retain Mr. Coburn, Mr. Ron Paul and others that actively pursue a small government agenda. Why should we eliminate those that we like in order to enforce our preference (an opposition to big government) upon a populous that seems to disagree with us? Especially when there is no reason to believe that our big budget foes won’t be replaced by big budget replacements. Or worse, our small government heroes replaced by big budget busting antagonists?
The second reason is, perhaps, somewhat counter-intuitive – by imposing term-limits we make congressmen more likely to waste government resources. Why do I think so? Look at what incentives are driving behavior. Congressmen want to retain power, so they spend government resources buying influence and increasing their public standing.
Sometimes that means promoting a big name project that they can bring back to their constituents to flout how much he/she has done for them (i.e. the Bridge to Nowhere). Sometimes it means making life easier for a politically powerful ally in the form of corporate welfare or permissive legislation. All the time the Congressmen must at least give the appearance of doing what is best for his constituents, if they push the envelope too far it will weaken themselves politically.
So what happens when you remove the incentive to retain power? You remove all need to please the constituents, and leave only the self interest. There is no longer a need to temper spending at all, in fact you have given them every incentive to increase spending in ways that benefit, not the people that he/she is representing, but themselves. Instead of Bridges to Nowhere we’ll build specific projects for specific people or businesses.
If Joe Congressmen wants to become a lobbyist for Big Oil after his term limit is up he will fight like made to get Big Oil anything that it wants without even a thought about the political consequences. Term limits are going to exacerbate a problem that is already pretty bad. I’ll address my thoughts on how to fix the problem in Part II.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
A Blow to FDA?
I have no choice but to mimic Mike’s response.
WOW!
I’m not convinced that such a ruling would weather a Supreme Court review, but it certainly puts a dent into FDA’s power, which would be welcome news in my opinion. Orin Kerr has a bit more.
WOW!
the right of a mentally competent, terminally ill adult patient to access potentially life-saving post-Phase I investigational new drugs, upon a doctor’s advice, even where that medication carries risks for the patient.
I’m not convinced that such a ruling would weather a Supreme Court review, but it certainly puts a dent into FDA’s power, which would be welcome news in my opinion. Orin Kerr has a bit more.
I Guess That Means Schools Are Better?
The U.S. Justice Department and the city's school system have reached a tentative agreement to release the district from a 26-year-old desegregation case as early as next year.
Under the settlement filed in federal court Monday, the district would be allowed to set its own plan and budget for integrating schools starting with the 2007-2008 school year.
Schools chief Arne Duncan has called the agreement "a huge victory for the schoolchildren of Chicago."
In 1980, the federal government ordered the city to desegregate its public schools, requiring it to provide additional educational services for children in racially isolated schools and to integrate to "the extent practicable."
How many millions of dollars were wasted for absolutely no gain? As long as schools are not segregated by legislative decree what difference does it make what the makeup of a school is?
Government continues to prove time and time again that it is capable of accomplishing little more than spending money.
Hard Problems Require Clever Solutions
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) pinpoints the problem.
I think I have a solution – no new legislation for six months prior to an election. Heck, given the growing length of the election cycle, it may be safer to make it a full year. Given congressmen’s penchant for getting something for nothing, I don’t even think it would be a hard sell.
Political anxiety in an election year is to blame for a lot of the bad bills Congress passes," said Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, who on Monday called the rebate a "knee-jerk populist idea" that voters would see through.
I think I have a solution – no new legislation for six months prior to an election. Heck, given the growing length of the election cycle, it may be safer to make it a full year. Given congressmen’s penchant for getting something for nothing, I don’t even think it would be a hard sell.
Try Commuting for Two Hours!
The Environmental Economist thinks that gas prices will hit $4 by the end of July. I’m going to make a bold prediction that gas prices will cap at $3.50 or $3.60 barring major disruptions in the supply chain.
I think that consumers, in general, will balk at prices as high as $3.50 and will drastically change their habits if it gets that bad. $3 sucks, but it’s not that bad when you know that it’s a temporary condition - $3.50, on the other hand is just way to freaking much.
I know that I would have a little sit down with my boss and tell him my days of a two hour commute are over and I assume that others would do the same.
I think that consumers, in general, will balk at prices as high as $3.50 and will drastically change their habits if it gets that bad. $3 sucks, but it’s not that bad when you know that it’s a temporary condition - $3.50, on the other hand is just way to freaking much.
I know that I would have a little sit down with my boss and tell him my days of a two hour commute are over and I assume that others would do the same.
Monday, May 01, 2006
The New Face of the Low-Wage Labor Force
The rhetoric that surrounds immigration is rife with protectionism, the same protectionism that has plagued the US forever. Whites were fearful that blacks were going to take "our jobs" so "prevailing wages" regulations were enacted to make it harder to hire blacks.
After WWII it was women that were taking jobs away, so Congress enacted minimum wage laws to protect men against the new low-wage entrants to the work force. Fortunately these protectionist schemes didn't work and we became a wealthier country in spite of attempts to maintain the status quo.
Change is hard, but change is what drives progress forward. Can anyone honestly say that we would be better off today if we had succeeded in protecting "our" jobs from blacks and women? The circumstances today are identical to the circumstances of yesterday, merely the faces have changed.
After WWII it was women that were taking jobs away, so Congress enacted minimum wage laws to protect men against the new low-wage entrants to the work force. Fortunately these protectionist schemes didn't work and we became a wealthier country in spite of attempts to maintain the status quo.
Change is hard, but change is what drives progress forward. Can anyone honestly say that we would be better off today if we had succeeded in protecting "our" jobs from blacks and women? The circumstances today are identical to the circumstances of yesterday, merely the faces have changed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)