Dems Respond to Privatization Scandals

The gist of a bill (HB 711) proposed by the Dems is "Outsourcing's fine, but let's plan ahead". In the linked piece, Tallahasse Dem political editor Bill Cotterell reckons the Fla Dem strategy viz. privatization and asks whether the Dems can really seize the issue even though they've "been outgunned in the Legislature for 10 years and haven't run the executive branch for six"?

Some of the things that HB 711 would require, like making agencies show a "business case" for each privatization project, are already being done without a new law. Cost-benefit analyses, performance monitoring and "contingency planning" for late or lousy service are already being done - but Ryan's bill would require such lifeboat drills before racing into ice fields.

It also calls for annual reports to the House and Senate on which services agencies are privatizing and what measurable savings, or service improvements, they are getting. Agencies would also have to disclose "which work formerly performed in this state by state employees is being performed in other states or out of the country" by contractors.

Once a deal is made, its cost couldn't rise more than 10 percent and its term couldn't be extended by more than a year without approval by the joint Legislative Budget Commission, under Ryan's bill.

Here's some other suggestions for the bill:

- require that the private company performing the work does the work in Florida with Florida workers (as proposed, only "disclosure" of out-of-state work would be required.

- do not permit companies with records of violating enviromental, labor and other laws to bid on, let alone perform, the work.

- track the impact of any proposed outsourcing on incumbent employees, and ensure that senior employees aren't dumped on the street"

- track the political contributions - via PCs, CCEs, and federal PACs - of the companies seeking to perform government functions via privatization.

- determine whether the companies seeking to do the work offer equivalent health insurance, pensions and other benefits to their employees, as opposed to being a financial drag on their communities.

As to this latter point, is it not important that government not spend money - via privatization - to actually hurt our communities? For example, as outlined in the New York Review of Books, a typical

two-hundred-employee Wal-Mart store, the government is spending $108,000 a year for children's health care; $125,000 a year in tax credits and deductions for low-income families; and $42,000 a year in housing assistance. The report estimates that a two-hundred-employee Wal-Mart store costs federal taxpayers $420,000 a year, or about $2,103 per Wal-Mart employee. That translates into a total annual welfare bill of $2.5 billion for Wal-Mart's 1.2 million US employees.

Is that how we ought to be spending taxpayer money - subsidizing employers that actually hurt out communities? Yet, as we read today that "private contractors that run Florida's programs for juvenile offenders pay their workers some of the lowest wages in the nation," it's apparent that privatization decisions are being made without any consideration of the adverse economic impact on communities.