More on conservatives and the government mammary

When I suggested that many conservative-leaning industries make their money directly or indirectly from the government teat, it didn't seem to go over too well with the commenters. But nevertheless, it's true. We discussed natural-resource industries, but another huge example is no-bid government contracting. This is where (Republican) politicians outsource government functions to companies owned by their personal friends and associates, under the bogus name of "privatization". Unlike corporate outsourcing, however, this no-bid bogus privatization loses money, and lots of it. Taxpayer money, of course.

Matt Yglesias reports:

The President today released an important memo outlining plans to try to reduce the amount of money lost on the wasteful and abusive government contracting industry that conservatives love:

Since 2001, spending on Government contracts has more than doubled, reaching over $500 billion in 2008. During this same period, there has been a significant increase in the dollars awarded without full and open competition and an increase in the dollars obligated through cost-reimbursement contracts. Between fiscal years 2000 and 2008, for example, dollars obligated under cost-reimbursement contracts nearly doubled, from $71 billion in 2000 to $135 billion in 2008. Reversing these trends away from full and open competition and toward cost-reimbursement contracts could result in savings of billions of dollars each year for the American taxpayer. […]

However, the line between inherently governmental activities that should not be outsourced and commercial activities that may be subject to private sector competition has been blurred and inadequately defined. As a result, contractors may be performing inherently governmental functions. Agencies and departments must operate under clear rules prescribing when outsourcing is and is not appropriate. […]

Barack Obama doesn’t like to talk in broad ideological terms. But to provide some background for this, the very same right-wing politicians who like to complain about government spending actually love increasing spending in a variety of circumstances. Any time you can make something less efficient, more costly, and more wasteful by laundering public funds through a private, for-profit firm, they’re for that. That’s why they love subsidies for private student loans and hate cheaper, direct lending. They also like to deal with “out of control entitlement costs” by overpaying private insurance companies to handle Medicare patients rather than the cheaper option of doing it themselves.

Yup. For years, we've been told that "privatization" was the key to efficiency, and that paying friends of Republicans ("rugged individualists", perhaps?) to do the same job for twice the (taxpayer) cost was "reducing the size of government."

But it isn't. What it is, is good old-fashioned patronage. This is the same kind of thing that drives the Chinese economy - local official is buddies with a "businessman", and gives him all kinds of government support (land formerly owned by poor peasants, the right to pollute the local river, etc.) in exchange for stock and kickbacks and a cushy job after the government retires him at age 55. In China they call this "communism." In America we now call this "privatization." A hundred years ago, before we got as good with words as we are now, we called it "graft," which is what it is.

In any case, my hunch is that the more a company is involved with conservative politics, the more likely it is to make its profit out of the pockets of John and Jane Q. Taxpayer.