Pawlenty: If you can Google it, cut it.

[JimH52]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/07/news/economy/pawlenty_economic_plan/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1

WHAT IS HE TALKING ABOUT?

[B. Serum]

If anybody else can fulfill the need for a profit, the government shouldn't spend its budget to provide it for citizens for free.

I don't agree with the premise, but I think that's the gist.

[SpoilerVirgin]

He's saying that any service that is offered by a private company should not be provided by the government. So because FedEx and UPS exist, we shouldn't have a Post Office. Because there are private pharmaceutical companies, we shouldn't have the NIH. The idea is that you can Google these services and find someone who will provide them, so the Federal government shouldn't.

[Ferret Herder]

I guess he thinks we should turn the country's defense over to mercenary groups like Blackwater/Xe or homegrown militias?

[JimH52]

A bit of an overreach, as far as I'm concerned. Yes, I think there are some Goverment services that could be scaled back. But his plan has some major flaws.

[Oakminster]

Well, since a Google search for U.S. Government produces 318,000,000 hits, I'm forced to conclude the man is an anarchist.

[gonzomax]

Private companies have taken all the money makers out of the Post office like package delivery. I doubt anybody wants to deliver mail to every door. If they do it will cost a hell of a lot more. Setting up an operation that size would take time and an enormous amount of money.
Plawenty is talking out of his ass.

[Richard Parker]

...I'm forced to conclude the man is an anarchist.

Which isn't far off, actually. He proposed (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/06/07/pawlenty-chicago-economy-speech/) we eliminate all regulations unless Congress specifically votes to keep them. You have to have no idea how the federal government works to think that will do anything but shut down the entire government.

[furt]

He's saying that any service that is offered by a private company should not be provided by the government. This. He's clumsily trying an update of the "yellow pages rule" -- the idea that if there are enough companies providing something that there's a whole category of the yellow pages devoted to it, the government should get out of that "business."

e.g. there's no yellow pages for commercial firefighters, so that needs to be a governmental function. On the other hand, there is a yellow pages for waste disposal, so government should probably contract that out instead of doing it themselves. IIRC, it actually originated as an guideline for businesses looking to subcontract tasks out so they could focus on core functions.

Just substituting "Google" for "Yellow Pages," however, makes the whole thing incoherent.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Has anyone told him that it's more expensive to contract out privately than to have the government do it? The post office isn't trying to make a profit.

[MOIDALIZE]

Has anyone told him that it's more expensive to contract out privately than to have the government do it?

That's a feature, not a bug.

[furt]

That's a feature, not a bug.If contracting out cost more every time, companies would never subcontract; in point of fact, they do so every day.

You could plausibly argue that the government ought to outsource less than they do, but arguing that outsourcing never works is simple ignorance.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Outsourcing works when companies can find slave labor willing to do things cheaper. We aren't going to outsource the post office to India and China. Generally speaking, it's cheaper to do things when you don't need to turn a profit. What private company is going to deliver my letter for 44 cents.

Also, how does it help the economy to throw thousands more people out of work? I can't see any reaon the public should contract out to do something it can (and always has done) cheaply and more efficiently itself.

[Strassia]

Outsourcing works when companies can find slave labor willing to do things cheaper. We aren't going to outsource the post office to India and China. Generally speaking, it's cheaper to do things when you don't need to turn a profit. What private company is going to deliver my letter for 44 cents.

Also, how does it help the economy to throw thousands more people out of work? I can't see any reaon the public should contract out to do something it can (and always has done) cheaply and more efficiently itself.

Wrong kind of outsourcing. Many companies find it cost effective to pay an outside company to run their cafeteria or clean their offices. There are U.S. companies that doe nothing but provide these types of services. There are pros and cons with this, and it should be considered on service by service basis, but it is not stripping people of jobs (although it may replace well paying government jobs with low paying private sector jobs).

[Diogenes the Cynic]

In other words, replacing fair compensation with unfair compensation.

[Skald the Rhymer]

Outsourcing works when companies can find slave labor willing to do things cheaper. We aren't going to outsource the post office to India and China. Generally speaking, it's cheaper to do things when you don't need to turn a profit. What private company is going to deliver my letter for 44 cents.

Also, how does it help the economy to throw thousands more people out of work? I can't see any reaon the public should contract out to do something it can (and always has done) cheaply and more efficiently itself.

You are confusing outsourcing with offshoring.

When my former employers at Stellar Nordia moved the vast majoirty of their relay operator jobs to the Philippines, they were offshoring but not outsourcing; the US lost those jobs, but the people doing it still worked for Stellar Nordia.

When my former employer Mimeo.com hired a call center whose name I can't remember to set appointments for them, they were outsourcing but not offshoring; the jobs were in the US, but the persons holding them were not Mimeo employers. Likewise, when Sears pays local companies to do same-day deliveries in a given city rather than hire its own shipping staff, that is outsourcing.

There's no reason a job can't be both offshored and outsourced, of course. And it's not necessarily unfair. It just is.

[Chronos]

Relevant link (http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&c2coff=1&source=hp&q=tim+pawlenty&aq=0&aqi=g5&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e28a97840bb57e9&biw=1199&bih=889)

[Voyager]

In other words, replacing fair compensation with unfair compensation.

Sometimes, but that isn't the only reason. Sometimes it makes sense to outsource a job function where the need fluctuates throughout the year. Sometimes management wants to focus on the thrust of the business, not on how well the floors get mopped. And it also is done to prevent a company having third class citizens. If the benefits packages are structured for engineers, and you hire janitors, either you put them in a different peon class or you overpay them.

However, a lot of times the government outsources for ideological reasons, not to save money. Look at how much we paid contractors in Iraq to electrocute our troops. Any business leader proposing such a deal would get kicked out the door, but with an administration for whom government bad, private good, it happened.

[The Hamster King]

More outsourcing of government functions = more opportunities to funnel taxpayer dollars to your cronies.

Like most Libertarian ideas, it only exists to provide ideological cover for the wealthy to screw the middle class.

[JimH52]

This seems like a no starter. Pawlenty has shown that he doesn't really understand the system. Somehow, his "Google" idea has a "Ryan smell to it.

[Profound Gibberish]

His "Plan" has all of the depth of the bumper sticker you could print it on.

[Jas09]

And yet, the Google part of his plan is the most sane part of it.

He also calls for tax cuts three times as large as the Bush ones (including completely eliminating capital gains taxes). Then says that this will create GDP growth at a sustained 5% (which hasn't happened since the post-war boom AFAIK). Which will then create enough revenue even under slashed taxes to balance the budget (which even Ryan's plan doesn't purport to do).

It's complete economic madness... and this is the "serious" candidate.

[JimH52]

And yet, the Google part of his plan is the most sane part of it.

He also calls for tax cuts three times as large as the Bush ones (including completely eliminating capital gains taxes). Then says that this will create GDP growth at a sustained 5% (which hasn't happened since the post-war boom AFAIK). Which will then create enough revenue even under slashed taxes to balance the budget (which even Ryan's plan doesn't purport to do).

It's complete economic madness... and this is the "serious" candidate.

VooDoo Economics?

[Polycarp]

I can agree with him, to this extent:

It's very easy to find, on the Internet, any number of opinionated idiots with simplistic solutions to budget issues.

Therefore we don't need Pawlenty in office. Any office.

[Balance]

Relevant link (http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&c2coff=1&source=hp&q=tim+pawlenty&aq=0&aqi=g5&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e28a97840bb57e9&biw=1199&bih=889)
Since it appears no one else is going to say it: I see what you did there.

:D

[Captain Lance Murdoch]

The question is, will this plan play with Republican voters? It sounds all kinds of nuts to me, but for folks who wish Bush were back in office it might sound sensible - especially when the alternatives are flip-flip Mitt and Batshit Bachmann.

[furt]

More outsourcing of government functions = more opportunities to funnel taxpayer dollars to your cronies.

Like most Libertarian ideas, it only exists to provide ideological cover for the wealthy to screw the middle class.Less outsourcing of government functions = more opportunities to funnel taxpayer dollars to the cronies who run the programs.

Like most Statist ideas, it only exists to provide ideological cover for the government to screw the taxpayers.

[Strassia]

In other words, replacing fair compensation with unfair compensation.

Less outsourcing of government functions = more opportunities to funnel taxpayer dollars to the cronies who run the programs.

Like most Statist ideas, it only exists to provide ideological cover for the government to screw the taxpayers.

It really depends. Take janitorial. That is a function that is often outsourced. Big companies, and government agencies would rather simplify and pay a monthly fee then deal with all the line items involved with janitorial. Let a company specialize in that and harness economies of scale.

But then you end up with minimum wage contractors vetted by outside companies running around CIA headquarters.

[MOIDALIZE]

Less outsourcing of government functions = more opportunities to funnel taxpayer dollars to the cronies who run the programs.

Like most Statist ideas, it only exists to provide ideological cover for the government to screw the taxpayers.

You are 10 years old.

[Wesley Clark]

Him and Mitt Romney would be great together, each one saying stupider and stupider things they don't really believe to appeal to the arch-conservatives who control the GOP base and decide who will win the primary.

It'd be like two junior high kids fighting over whose older brother is the strongest.

"My older brother bench pressed the car"
"my older brother beat up 15 cops, and that was when he leg was broken"

etc.

[furt]

It really depends.Of course; I was being sarcastic to mock MOIDALIZE's blanket assertion. There's plenty of things the government can't outsource, and arguably things currently outsourced that shouldn't be. But there are also things that could be outsourced that aren't.

An example would be NFC -- it's a subsidiary of the USDA that is in charge of processing payroll for most of the federal government. Most companies nowadays outsource payroll to ADP or the like. In the federal government, this process is undertaken by the Department of Agriculture. It would be much more efficient for each government agency to independently contract out payroll. But NFC is an entrenched fiefdom, and anyone seeking to take their agency off it would make enemies, and so it stays.

It should be noted that the principle of the Yellow Pages rule is already commonly embraced -- e.g. Raines Rules #2 (http://www.balancedscorecard.org/RainesRules/tabid/114/Default.aspx). But getting those policies actually enacted is a whole different kettle of fish, as Pawlenty will find out should he be elected.

[furt]

You are 10 years old.I have no response to such a devastating retort. Truly, you are keen of mind and quick of tongue.

[Chronos]

An example would be NFC -- it's a subsidiary of the USDA that is in charge of processing payroll for most of the federal government. Most companies nowadays outsource payroll to ADP or the like. In the federal government, this process is undertaken by the Department of Agriculture. It would be much more efficient for each government agency to independently contract out payroll. But NFC is an entrenched fiefdom, and anyone seeking to take their agency off it would make enemies, and so it stays.
Isn't this, effectively, an example of outsourcing in the government? Rather than each agency having their own payroll staff, they have all of their payroll done by the same group of folks who specialize in doing it, so the individual agencies don't have to worry about it. It seems to me that all the other agencies (except for the USDA itself, of course) are effectively outsourcing to NFC.

[stpauler]

Ahh, this runs in complete agreement with his previous opinions on this like when he wanted a state run casino. (http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/12/06_zdechlikm_govgambles/)

:rolleyes:

[Balance]

Isn't this, effectively, an example of outsourcing in the government? Rather than each agency having their own payroll staff, they have all of their payroll done by the same group of folks who specialize in doing it, so the individual agencies don't have to worry about it. It seems to me that all the other agencies (except for the USDA itself, of course) are effectively outsourcing to NFC.
Yeah, but that's, y'know, still the Gubmint. Which is intrinsically eeeevil.

[Merijeek]

Ahh, this runs in complete agreement with his previous opinions on this like when he wanted a state run casino. (http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/12/06_zdechlikm_govgambles/)

:rolleyes:

Clearly the plan was to build it using taxpayer money, and then sell it off to the private sector so it gets run "right".

-Joe

[furt]

Isn't this, effectively, an example of outsourcing in the government? Rather than each agency having their own payroll staff, they have all of their payroll done by the same group of folks who specialize in doing it, so the individual agencies don't have to worry about it. It seems to me that all the other agencies (except for the USDA itself, of course) are effectively outsourcing to NFC.You are correct that it's inter-agency oursourcing. The problem is that unlike normal outsourcing, it's not a competitive contract.

Any agency that tried to solicit competitive bidding from corporate payroll providers (e.g. ADP), would be inviting political friction. More fundamentally, the agencies do not pay NFC to do their payroll -- the Department of Energy (e.g.) does not send money to NFC to get their payroll done; as far as the DoE's budget is concerned, the cost to process payroll is zero. So obviously, the DoE has no motivation to call ADP and see if they can offer a better deal -- you can't beat free.

Of course, it's not free to the taxpayer -- the cost of processing DoE's payroll will be reflected in NFC's budget, which is within USDA's budget, which taxpayers still pay. Of course USDA has no desire to put themselves out of the paymaster business. And so the status quo stays. In the corporate world, if you outsource a task to another division of the same company, accounting is done to reflect that a cost is being transferred from one division to another. This is generally not done in the federal government.

I suppose it's theoretically possible that the USDA really is the best possible payroll contractor. (My wife, a high-level bureaucrat, would beg to differ) The problem is nobody is even checking to see -- it's really not in anyone's interest to. And on and on down the line.

[Backcountry Medic]

Fight my ignorance here- I have no idea what ADP charges to do payroll for a large company or even how many people NFC does payroll for. Do you have any reasonable estimates for savings here? What is the NFC's operating budget this year?

I can't believe all of this outsourcing talk is anything more than smoke and mirrors. Being generous, say you outsource all non-defense discretionary spending to the tune of 50% savings. Congrats, you've solved about 2% of the debt problem. What about the other 98%?

[Jas09]

Congrats, you've solved about 2% of the debt problem. What about the other 98%?Tax cuts will fix that, of course.

[Frostillicus]

This Google idea is almost as brilliant as Herman Cain's "I will veto any bill longer than 3 pages" idea. Truly, it is a race to the intellectual bottom in the GOP primaries.

[furt]

Fight my ignorance here- I have no idea what ADP charges to do payroll for a large company or even how many people NFC does payroll for. Do you have any reasonable estimates for savings here? What is the NFC's operating budget this year?NFC does payroll for a large chunk of the federal government; their website says 140 federal organizations. The Interior Department has a similar organization that does similar stuff. There are others as well. As far as the savings, it'd be in the tens of millions.

Being generous, say you outsource all non-defense discretionary spending to the tune of 50% savings. Congrats, you've solved about 2% of the debt problem. What about the other 98%?Of course. I was not trying to defend the idea of outsourcing as some kind of magic bullet for the deficit; just that it's a good idea as far as it goes.


If you want to indict Pawlenty for not addressing entitlement reform, tax reform, and military spending -- the three big things that could make an impact of the deficit, I'm with you. But pretty much every politician in the country and 80% of the population aren't.

[Chronos]

Well, when you say entitlement reform, most of the Democrats tried to address that (remember something called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act?), and if by tax reform, you mean the kind that would reduce the deficit, well, pretty much all Democrats try for that, and if by military spending, you mean reducing it, that's predominantly a Democratic issue, too. But if by "pretty much every politician in the country" you meant that pretty much every Republican is ignoring those issues, then I agree.

[Duke]

It seems to me that Pawlenty is terribly incapable of articulating this idea. "If you can find it in the Yellow Pages, the federal government shouldn't provide it" makes sense as an idea, even if one doesn't agree with it. "If you can Google it, cut it" makes no sense--are we supposed to derive from that phrase that because we can Google "Army" or "public highways", the government shouldn't provide those? Obviously this wasn't Pawlenty's intent, but it's hard to figure out exactly what he did mean.

It's a desperate attempt to provide a soundbite, and Pawlenty made it one in which the words have been reduced to absurdity.

[Profound Gibberish]

So once you privatize all of these government functions, who oversees their peformance and what do we do when these private entities inevitably defraud the government? A private entity that operates on a national level is going to end up being too Big to Fail (heard that before?) and cannot be easily replaced, so they will be bailed out (heard that before?) and continue business as usual, to include a tidy EOY bonus (heard that before?).

And are these private entities going to sit on the sidelines and hope they get picked for a multi-billion dollar contract? Of course not! Money will freely flow over and under the table to secure these contracts, and to resecure them, and ensure the contracts are so lopsided on performance measures that just showing up at the office will meet it.

I think any savings one could find in privatization would be offset by the cost of oversight and inevitable bailouts ("Oh, we had no idea it would cost that much?!?!?"). There is a reason the government operates certain things--it works. It may not be perfect (nothing is) but it sure beats the alternative.

I can envision it now: The Office of Privatization Oversight. By reducing work in one area you will just create it in another.

[Merijeek]

It's a desperate attempt to provide a soundbite, and Pawlenty made it one in which the words have been reduced to absurdity.

I can google Tim Pawlenty. Should I cut him? Can I? Isn't he telling me I should? Does this count as permission?

-Joe

[furt]

Well, when you say entitlement reform, most of the Democrats tried to address that (remember something called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act?), and if by tax reform, you mean the kind that would reduce the deficit, well, pretty much all Democrats try for that, and if by military spending, you mean reducing it, that's predominantly a Democratic issue, too. But if by "pretty much every politician in the country" you meant that pretty much every Republican is ignoring those issues, then I agree.

Most of the Democrats seek to slash military spending?
Most of the Democrats seek to raise taxes on anyone except "the rich?"
Most of the Democrats seek to reform Social Security?
Most of the Democrats have actually supported changes to Medicare or Medicaid that reduced federal spending -- not theoretical projections for 2019, but actual changes that have actually led to real savings?

No, they don't. Nor do most pubs. Any politician in either party that has floated changes of the kind we need to make to get back to a surplus has gotten buried by the partisans. And logically so, because we the people are living in a fantasy, believing that if we raise taxes on millionaires and cut foreign aid (and do things like outsourcing HR), everything will be ok.

[Chronos]

Why exclude the rich from tax increases? They're the ones with the money-- You can't get blood from a stone.

And the problem with entitlement programs is mostly that health care costs are rising too fast. We already know how to slash those costs in half: Everyone else in the world has it figured out. If we could get over our obsession with being "exceptional", then we could do the same.

[furt]

Why exclude the rich from tax increases? They're the ones with the money-- You can't get blood from a stone.I said nothing about excluding them. But just taxing the rich, which is what most people (and most dem politicians) want, simply isn't enough. The numbers don't add up unless you either start hitting the middle-class as well or else massively cut spending far more than anyone will countenance.

And the problem with entitlement programs is mostly that health care costs are rising too fast. It's a problem, by no means the only one. Social Security is already running a deficit, and it will only get much worse. The issue there is pretty much sheer demographics.


All of which is off-topic from the OP, so I'll stop.

[TimeWinder]

But just taxing the rich, which is what most people (and most dem politicians) want, simply isn't enough.

Go ahead, provide a cite for this.

The democrats I've talked to are perfectly happy to tax everybody except perhaps the very poor, but by and large feel that in the last decade or so the rich have been grossly over-benefitted by tax cuts, and that we want to go back to taxing the rich, too. And it doesn't take anything but a history book to realize the the current tax burden is (historically speaking) absurdly low.

[asterion]

Heck, I was perfectly happy for the Bush tax cuts to expire and to take the tax increase caused by the elimination of the 10% bracket. I also wouldn't mind paying a bit more in payroll taxes if they'd uncap the SS contribution while capping the max benefits (the cap can be higher than the current payout currently). It's a welfare system, so can we please get rid of the fiction that the payroll taxes deducted from my paycheck today is the same money I'd get 40 years from now?

[foolsguinea]

However, a lot of times the government outsources for ideological reasons, not to save money. Look at how much we paid contractors in Iraq to electrocute our troops. Any business leader proposing such a deal would get kicked out the door, but with an administration for whom government bad, private good, it happened.It's a free country; Pawlenty is free to think, "government bad, private good." But if the "government bad, private good" types take over the reins of government, what are "government good, private bad" types to do? Take over business? And do what exactly?Of course, it's not free to the taxpayer -- the cost of processing DoE's payroll will be reflected in NFC's budget, which is within USDA's budget, which taxpayers still pay. Of course USDA has no desire to put themselves out of the paymaster business. And so the status quo stays. In the corporate world, if you outsource a task to another division of the same company, accounting is done to reflect that a cost is being transferred from one division to another. This is generally not done in the federal government.

I suppose it's theoretically possible that the USDA really is the best possible payroll contractor. (My wife, a high-level bureaucrat, would beg to differ) The problem is nobody is even checking to see -- it's really not in anyone's interest to. And on and on down the line.If only we had some sort of committee to oversee government agencies, one that was elected by & answerable to the general populace.And are these private entities going to sit on the sidelines and hope they get picked for a multi-billion dollar contract? Of course not! Money will freely flow over and under the table to secure these contracts, and to resecure them, and ensure the contracts are so lopsided on performance measures that just showing up at the office will meet it.

I think any savings one could find in privatization would be offset by the cost of oversight and inevitable bailouts ("Oh, we had no idea it would cost that much?!?!?"). There is a reason the government operates certain things--it works. It may not be perfect (nothing is) but it sure beats the alternative.Yeah, once the government starts handing out contracts to for-profits, you lose the efficiency of a not-for-profit government office. I'm not sure the downward price pressure of competition is enough to make up for that, & any exclusive contract for a moderately long term will lose that pressure past some length of time.I can google Tim Pawlenty. Should I cut him? Can I? Isn't he telling me I should? Does this count as permission?I think it's more than that. Almost a request.