I have already said that public agencies may provide useful and even necessary functions. That was not the issue, as far as I am concerned.However, they are not by any means all so exalted in either intention or outcome, as you suggest. These programs are often conceived and defended as means to please constituents and secure election. That is why there is a problem with pork, and so many programs are not subjected to rational scrutiny, but are attached as riders to bills with which they have little connection, with a view to vote trading. Some amount of inefficiency is inevitable and tolerable, both in funding trivial programs and in failing to achieve maximum efficiency in useful programs. But it is desirable to keep waste to a minimum, which is a good reason for seeking effective proxies for market discipline, or to cure some of the more egregious abuses.
Thus, for example, I supported the line item veto, as a way to combat pork. I support vouchers, to introduce a stronger market element in schools. I support contracting those things that can be handled in that way, such as trash disposal and the maintenance of auto fleets. I also support comparisons among jurisdictions, so that, for example, if the NYPD has a higher clearance rate on homicides, the Baltimore police will have a chance to see if there is anything they do different that might improve performance. My take is that one has to acknowledge a problem to be addressed, however, in order to contemplate possible remedies that will enhance performance in the public sector....... |
