I’m not a communist
Aside from the usual taunts for being “liberal” and of the flag-burning persuasion, I’ve been called a communist on two occasions in my life. The first time I was labeled a communist, I was just 15 years old. My 8th grade teacher, who will remain nameless, called me a communist in front of my entire history class after questioning why I had planned to play soccer in high school rather than football. “What don’t you like about football? Is it the hitting? I guess you communists rather play sissy games with your feet than real games with contact.” (It’s worth mentioning that this teacher’s sport-of-choice was baseball—a really violent game for non-sissies, I guess.) To his credit, he gave me a good grade despite chiding me openly several times for being a girl. Also to his credit, his knowledge of guns and frequent rants about hunting proved useful in pursuing success beyond the 8th grade. Honestly, all I remember from that class is that he had once hunted a squirrel with a Howitzer. Is that even legal? The second time was a few months ago. I was arguing with a public policy classmate about the role of government —a dry conversation among public policy students that somehow turned personal when he threw out the c-word. Silence followed and I turned away slowly trying my best not to kick his ass thoroughly.
(skip down if you're not interested in the boring details) I had argued that there is no evidence in public policy or economics literature of an inherent advantage to providing services through markets or private provision and that the merits of privatization vs. public provision are dependent on the characteristics of the industry, the level of government—whether it’s local, state or federal—and the state of existing markets, i.e. whether they’re competitive, have players with market power, etc. I had just finished a summer of studying privatization theories so I thought I had some pretty good arguments to make here, not intending at all to suggest that capitalism is a bad thing; it’s just not perfect and certain services and products are sometimes better left for public provision. Sensing a certain amount of hostility to begin with, I even started by conceding that as long as accountability, efficiency, and equity concerns can be addressed, private markets tend to be better providers than public; it’s just quite often the case that these concerns are not adequately addressed. I guess he decided not to hear that part.
Anyway, I’m writing this because I’m tired of childish name-calling on both sides. I admit that I’ve been guilty of this in some way, although I don’t recall ever calling a Republican a Nazi. Things are complex. Good debates get cut short without resolution when we resort to misusing labels or creating new ones that are vague and misleading, e.g. activist judges. The most disturbing thing about my story is that the classmate is actually pursuing an in-career masters degree in public policy and holds a prominent position in an Ohio county government agency.
posted by The Decider @ 11:49 PM
19 Comments:
First, let's face it -- for anyone who knows the unnamed teacher (a man who once taught about a place named "Sir Larka", recounted stories about how he punched a cow and ate cattle feed corn, and showed the movie "Ghandi" not once or twice, but three times in one semester) who can blame him for calling you a communist? Give the man a break. Besides, with all the snuff that he chewed during class, I think it's possible he meant to call you a columnist.
Think about it.
Anyhow, I was called a socialist (half jokingly and half not) when I was talking to a coworker about corporations and how they treat their employees. Basically, I argued that corporations really don't (and don't have to) worry about their employees. All they have to do is worry about making profits. While I'm not in favor of tons of government intervention (remember, I'm a government employee, so I know just how much of a cluster-f*ck government-run things are), the way workers in this country are used and abused by their employers (like ConAgra and Tyson to name two) is unbelievable.
It's far easier to deal with problems by applying labels than it is to actually fix the problem. I find that people who tend to use these terms so easily often have no concept of what the problem is. Nan, by calling you a communist, the problem was "fixed".
You're a crazy nutjob Stalinist. End of story.
--Joe
Hi Nan-
I remember a joke by George Carlin that went, "Did you ever notice that when you are on the highway, everyone who is slower that you is an idiot and everyone who is going faster is an a--hole?"
Unforturnately, it seems that political discourse has gone the same way. People half-listen, scan for keywords, apply a label, and then stop listening entirely.
I think we all agree that the free market does a good job at providing mosts of the goods and services we need. I'm very happy with my choices in blue jeans, automobiles, and haircuts.
I think we all agree that national defense and the justice system must be a public service. We would not want to live in a country with warlords and thier private armies.
We also seem to agree (to some degree) that mixed models work for some things. Tax benefits for charitable contributions, home ownership, and healthcare come to mind.
My personal bias is toward doing as much as possible in the private sector, adopting mixed models to address market failures and gross inequities, and doing things in the public sector as a last resort.
That said, these are questions about which intelligent people can and should disagree.
-Chris
Joe,
You're absolutely right. Calling me a communist, or columnist (I guess we'll never know), is an easy out.
Three times you watched Ghandi? Is this man still teaching? It's shameful if he is. He also followed me down the hall one day after I had given a presentation on The Beatles just to tell me that I knew nothing about them having been negative 10 years old in the sixties. He had it out for me (and squirrels).
Man, I forgot all about the chewing in class. He had that nasty paper cup on his desk that he would spit into, remember? What a role model.
I agree with you Nan - and as for football not being sissy, I find that funny. I know some former football players who had the unfortunate tendency to slap ass in venues not related to football...like the kitchen. I don't know what you call that, but sporting it is not.
As for me, I don't think I've ever been called communist - though I was called fat a lot when I was a kid, but I guess that's neither here nor there. Working in a city that I will refer to as "our nation's capital" (so as not to give away the identity of said city), I have been struck by how sympathetic republicans seem to be towards democrats post-election. I think this is mainly due to the fact that 1) my republican friends aren't representative of the current state of the republican party - meaning they're not going to punch the first 'Hispanic-looking' man they see in the face, call ICE, take his money, and give it to the groups that are protesting Arlen Specter for having some semblance of integrity, and 2) they know that they own the Democrats.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the current state of politics, at least in this mysterious city in which I live, is not as partisan and nasty as it was - at least for the time being. Republicans have no reason to cause friction because, well, they can do what they want and Democrats are too busy living in this temporary state of utter disbelief to do anything. I, for one, will continue to live in this state of disbelief and denial until white-washed tapered jeans come back into style...
White-washed tapered jeans are out of style? DAMNIT!
Chris,
Well said. Good points.
One quick thing:
“I think we all agree that the free market does a good job at providing mosts of the goods and services we need. I'm very happy with my choices in blue jeans, automobiles, and haircuts.”
I just want to emphasize in response that public vs. private provision debates should depend on the situation. Studying the literature, it's clear that there are services that are better left to the government to provide. These situations are not limited to national defense or the justice systems. Certain social services and publicly delivered municipal services, for instance, are known to be even more efficiently provided by the public than private bodies—we have empirical evidence on this. Notice you said “we need.” Needs varied throughout our society. Many people are more concerned about their need for complex services (e.g. certain social services) than the price or variability of toothpaste. Frankly, public policy and economic scholars have a pretty good idea of how private vs. public provision should play out with public administration goals in mind, which go beyond efficiency concerns.
In general, which I caution is a dangerous thing to consider, I don't think we should be using a particular paradigm to make the decision, e.g. let's see if the private sector can do it first because they'll PROBABLY do it better. If we can guess or know that market failures, equity and accountability concerns may be serious to begin with when providing services privately, then we should consider both public and private provision models. There are many frameworks being studied that do this quite effectively. From a political perspective, I can't stand the argument that private sector provision is ALWAYS better or generally better. It depends. Why is it so bad that it's questionable or that it depends? So many people require black and white answers. It depends on the characteristics of the good/service and it depends on the goals (for many, accountability, equity/fairness is not a concern--this seems to be the case for the many that happen to blindly support private provision of most goods. That's not to say it's the case for you :). Too often I hear the claim in popular circles that the private sector works more efficiently or "better" than the public sector. This isn't always the case. We should start off with an open mind. That's difficult to do when those of us who approach the issue with open minds are considered communists.
Chris,
By the way, I just finished “Corporate Warriors” by Singer (Brookings Inst.). National Defense is largely made up of private influences already. Much of the strategic planning, training and operational functions for the US military and intelligence services abroad are contracted out. Private corporations are running militaries across the planet, including many of our own military operations abroad. Looks like warlords are being redefined in the 21st century. Check out the book; it’s excellent.
I've been called a communist a number of times though I don't think I am one. I checked it out on the web (took a test), and it turns out I'm clear.
I would just like to add that I had Mr. GunChew too--in the 8th grade when he made me do the laundry for the basketball team and threatened to call home because I had no middle name, and then again in high school when he took us into the parking lot to read the serial numbers on people's cars in the dead of winter. BOTH times his movie of choice was "Glory" with the great Denzel Washington. He popped it in at least three times each semester--but each time from the beginning. So, I've only ever seen the first 40 minutes, but I've seen it probably 8 times.
Here's a great NYT article on military contracting in Iraq that everyone should check out:
http://www.pepeace.org/current_reprints/16/Nation%20Builders%20for%20Hire.htm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
When you do the law, you do the stuff...Genius!!!
I'm not a columnist either, but I've been called that many times...or was that 'liberal'? The problem with labels and their conversation-stopping power, is that widely known or used as they might be, they carry strong personal meanings. It's more what's not said than what is said or implied by those that use them freely, with exclusively offensive purposes. I'm not offended when somebody calls me anything in particular, if anything, I'm more upset because I know what they mean by that, or by the simple fact that they choose to call you a specific name. Having been called a columnist several times, but having grown in a place that was ruled by an extreme right dictatorship, I don't see much of a difference between the two things.
The GB
I have a few observations:
1) Great article you found there, Nan. A big eye opener. I think it's also important to point out another broad and very dangerous result of such a close, far-reaching relationship between the (public) Pentagon and the (private) military contractors: it gives private companies like KBR a vested interest in continued military growth and activity (read: war), an interest not shared in many (and I would argue most) cases by the taxpaying public.
2) Nan, I have to side with Coach Howitzer on this one: soccer in the U.S. is a pinko endeavor, anarchists and such being the rare exceptions. I think you probably belong in this category, given that you don't actually consider yourself a commie. In fact, now that I think about it, my own (woefully misguided) high school soccer career had communist undertones: I was good in theory, but bad in practice.
3) I feel compelled to correct the spelling of Gandhi's movie title. Understandable -- quite a common error. I myself sometimes have to resort to my mnemonic device to get it right. ("Godliness And Nonviolence Don't Hurt, India.")
Nan-
About the effects of industry on the military:
Today, there are increasing numbers of military jobs done by contractors. It takes a lot of people to support a soldier in the field. In the past, the services had large numbers of officers and enlisted people that were not combat personnel. Today, all services are trying to achieve a leaner force -- one with a better "tooth-to-tail ratio."
As a result, the Army has fewer cooks, and more contracts with SoDexHo. Fewer engineers and more contracts with KBR. My company provides linguists to OIF. Rarely do contractors do jobs more "soldier-like" than rear area security.
Occasionally, the contractors end up too close to the action. One of our employees was captured and executed by the terrorists in Baghdad last month. But I have not seen contractors go beyond the support role in military operations.
Acquisitions might be another area of concern. In the past, defense contractors had undue influence on big procurements. In my judgement, that influence has declined considerably in the last 20 years. The watershed was the 1986 Competition in Contracting Act. Over the intervening years, the scrutiny of most DOD acquistion has grown to the point where undue influence is the exception rather than the rule.
One last thing: Brookings is an excellent think-tank with some really bright people. Unfortunately, they have kept ghost the military-industrial complex on life support equipment in a darkened back room of their DC offices. They should let him expire and move on.
-Chris
Chris,
Good comments. I hadn't realized you were in the field in question. I'm going to add some more things to consider in line with my original point that we need to keep an open mind about making the "make or buy decision."
One thing Singer talks about is the conflict of motivation between contractors and soldiers. What would motivate a contractor to get near combat to provide needed technical support for weapons or vehicles if it's life threatening? Contractors don't have the same motivations to serve as soldiers do. Does this ultimately put the soldier more at risk? I don't know the answer to this, but if so, I would much rather beef up DOD budgets to provide internal production of this type rather than contract out.
Providing goods internally looks bad politically, regardless of the merits of doing so. Singer--your reservations of Brookings addressing this issue notwithstanding--makes an excellent point throughout the book; a point echoed by many scholars: contracts help distort the real costs--in this case the cost of war. It's difficult for the public to keep track of all contract-related costs, especially if you include contract monitoring costs (i.e. transaction costs). To me, some of the questions that need addressing are 1) does contracting out compromise or improve quality of the product, 2) are we considering ALL costs associated with contracting in our analysis, and 3) how does the development of asset specific services impair future competition in similar contracts (e.g. Halliburton/KBR) and, in turn, are we not just creating new private, but regulated, monopolies? The discussion needs to be elevated beyond 'private businesses do things better'. Our political representatives need real analysis and need to get beyond the notion that privatization is ALWAYS the optimal choice. Politics shouldn't play a role in this. We should do what costs less and produces more--in regards to all definitions of welfare--and that doesn't always mean privatization.
Nan-
I'll try to answer as many of the questions as I can.
Q: What would motivate a contractor to get near combat to provide needed technical support for weapons or vehicles if it's life threatening?
A: Many of these guys are ex-military and have the same sense of duty as the (generally younger) guys in uniform. I work with a guy who is 68 and was a Navy Captain in the Intelligence area. He came back to work on computer systems related to the War on Terror. Needless to say, he is not dodging bullets, but he is making a contibution that he hopes will benefit his grandchildren.
Q: Does contracting out compromise or improve quality of the product?
A: I think that depends. I'd bet that most soldiers think the chow is better in the contractor-run mess halls than it was when disgruntled sergeants ran them and soldiers got KP as punishment. I'd also bet that companies that run hotels would do a good job at managing barracks and dormatories. Shipping companies would probably be good at rear-area logistics.
The difficult thing in this war is that the rear-area and the front line are not clearly defined.
Q: Are we considering ALL costs associated with contracting in our analysis?
A: Despite the horror stories about poor accounting at Halliburton, defense contractors are actually very good at accounting for, and reporting, all their costs. Since most work on cost-plus-fee contracts, it is a matter of survival. Improper accounting can also get you barred from new contracts.
Q: How does the development of asset specific services impair future competition in similar contracts (e.g. Halliburton/KBR) and, in turn, are we not just creating new private, but regulated, monopolies?
A: In specialized services, incumbent contractors have a big advantage because they can show strong experience. However, I've observed that companies that have long-term contracts get fat and happy. What ususally happens is this: the job gets put up for competition, a new company gets the job, and then the new company hires the high performers from the old company.
I hope I've shed a bit of light on this tangent.
-Chris
Chris,
As for your first point, most retired government employes come back to work as contractors for one main reason: money. Most of them are able to retire from their thirty years of government service and go to work for a contractor earning more than they did as a government employee.
Contracting is much more expensive than anyone outside of the government can ever know. Most contractors in the DC area charge *well over* 100% overhead. When you add in the costs associated with tracking those contracts (which consists of contracting officers, contracting officers technical representatives, budget analysts, yadda, yadda, yadda) you find out that contracts aren't as efficient as they appear on the surface. We won't even talk about the process you have to go through to get a contract in the first place.
While the contractors themselves tend to be hard workers in the government because of the huge amounts of accountability they take on, there is absolutely NO accountability for the contracting firm beyond what the contract states. There is no reason for concern for anything outside of the contract, at all.
The reason for this is that the company is out to make as much money as it can for doing as little work as possible. While it sounds crude, it's absolutely true.
--Joe
Chris:
Thanks for your comments. I'd really like to talk more about this with you some day. You seem to have a lot of personal experience with DOD contracting, which I admit is probably the one area I’m least familiar with (most of my research was in high tech development , social services and municipal services—where most of the contracting takes place). Most importantly, I think we agree that the dangers and merits of contracting out are very much dependent on the situation.
The only point I'd like to address from your last post, and I’ll make this my last comment, is the reintroduction of competition. While you may know something I don't in the area of defense, this is usually not the case across other areas, especially highly specific products, which are the products governments tend to contract out. The transferring of skilled labor to new contractors is not new competition. In most areas where contractors compete with bids, there are usually only a few players involved and too often they collude to benefit everyone (and I know the few players situation sometimes is wanted by the government—I’m talking about oligopoly markets). While this may be fixed by using multiple contracts or setting strict bidding rules, the truth is that in many parts of the country—especially on a local government level—large contractors will swallow up smaller ones after the contract has been awarded.
Joe:
I'm all about transaction cost theory. When you look at the long term of many contracts, the transaction costs, which are the costs you mentioned—in addition to the direct and indirect costs—often leads to higher costs than anyone expected. Worse, they’re VERY difficult to predict in many instances.
To sum up my contribution to this post, I guess what I'm trying to get at is that we're too often set in on particular perspective and that sometimes limits our ability to choose the most efficient, effective and equitable method. I don't believe government production is inherently a good thing. Private firms don't necessarily produce better than public bodies. My point is, let's keep an open mind, learn from history, use what we know about transaction costs, and act accordingly (and if that means choosing government provision, that doesn't make you a communist). I have to make this point because this is exactly what we have NOT been doing over the last 10-20 years. It's too often the case that we're stuck on this idea of starving the government and artificially making costs look low by contracting when contracting can in reality raise costs for many areas of government. There should be mix of methods used which is dependent on the industries in question.
Joe-
It is certainly true that federal employees, including military personnel, make more money as contractors than they did before retiring. It is also true that most contactors make less than they would in commercial work.
My 20 year career does not include Federal service, but does include 12 years in businesses that primarily served the government and 8 in business that were primarily commercial (business-to-buiness but not business-to-consumer).
My personal observation is that people all businesses are motivated by a combination of financial gain and the desire to make a contribution. Commercial folks tend to define contribution in terms of creating jobs and building value for shareholders. Government contractors define contribution as helping the client accomplish his mission.
In my observation, folks in commerical businesses tend to be more financially motivated and loyal to their company that folks in government business. Folks in goverment contracting tend to be less financially motivated and more loyal to their customer. I perceive a higher level of personal integrity on the government contracting side.
Regarding efficiency, you are generally right. There are areas that are very inefficient, e.g. small contracts to get specialized senior-level services. Other areas, like big IT contracts and facilities services are not too bad. And accountability always trumps efficiency in goverment contracting. (We joke about $500 toilet seats, but get furious over someone embezzling a few thousand dollars.)
Overhead rates are a complicated topic for this forum, but think about this: can you name a single services company that charges the government a higher rate than it charges its commercial clients?
Last, I'm really content when company management simply serves the shareholders who employ them. I don't expect them to aspire to any higher purpose.
Net-net: the goverment has been outsourcing a lot longer, and on a far bigger scale than industry. The mix of competition and regulation work reasonably well, but certainly not perfectly. There are areas of extreme inefficiency and shameful abuse, but you should not believe they are the norm.
-Chris
Chris:
I lied. I feel I have to respond to this:
"Last, I'm really content when company management simply serves the shareholders who employ them. I don't expect them to aspire to any higher purpose"
I really appreciate your honesty about this. I feel like this statement rests at the core of something that divides those of who believe in our system as it functions without government intervention and those of us who believe intervention is necessary.
I’ll readily admit that serving the interests of shareholders is important for our system to work efficiently and effectively for players in the market in question. But, as we are all aware, it's often the case that as a company aspires to satisfy its shareholders, it often does not act in the best interests of society as a whole— interests that exist outside the market in question. I'm always curious to understand how some observers approach business practices with the premise that we should only create an efficient market environment in order to meet optimal economic potential, as though externalities and social welfare are somehow not a factor in formulating economic models or evaluating individual business practices. You are doing nothing less than picking those economic factors that are relevant to profit and ignoring the factors relevant to social welfare.
Businesses get regulated when they are harmful to society for a reason. Our government DOES hold them to a higher purpose (and rightly so). A business, like anything else, feeds off the welfare of our society and is thus obliged to behave and operate in a manner that serves the purposes for all that provide the means for the business to exist in the first place. A business or an individual market does NOT exist in a vacuum. We justify regulation of individuals with this logic; companies should not be held to any lower standard.
To be clear, I’m not saying that a company, like an individual, should have to behave optimally, which would require some subjective measure or an arbitrary one at best. But there ARE basic principles that many of us feel should not be violated (e.g. a healthy natural environment) while seeking economic profit in the interest shareholders. Profit interests do not provide protection for these principles and I personally have no faith in managers’ abilities to consider them when profit is at stake.
Post a Comment
<< Home