Z,
But it doesn't have to be that way... obviously, bureaucracy has its plusses and minuses, and in its present state, the federal, state, and local governments screw things up, but it doesn't have to be that way, and what I'm arguing is that state-run programs have more positive potential than private ones do, even if it's just for the feeling of security that knowing that you're taken care of.
There is a trade-off between security and opportunity. The more security, the less opportunity. You may want take into account that over the last 25 years or so, the countries that previously went for security (at expense of opportunity) have reversed course. The extreme cases of communist countries have done so, the less extreme cases, such as Germany are in process of doing it now.
As far as efficiency, it is just not the highest priority for governments - federal, state or local. They have their job protections, out of this world job benefits, unions, affirmative action, political posturing, agendas, patronage, payoffs to political contributors, political bosses, "community groups"
Beating these would require a mother of all re-inventions of the government, and it is just not in the cards.
There are just no incentives. Those on the gravy trains - beneficiaries, such as the recepients and the providers (beaurocrats) have no interest in efficiency.
Joe |
