You suggest the profit motive might work as well for government as it does for free enterprise.
If that means “privatization,” return swaths to the free market, that's a great idea.
But if it’s “performance based pay” in government, forget about ambition and incentives. How will “for-profit” ever discipline losers?
Employees choose government because it is easy duty for above-average pay, and far safer than private work.
Govt. pay is already far too high, and with far too many employed.
“For profit” govt. will never accept pay cuts for bad performance.
Fired for failure is inconceivable.
Fatally, no part of govt. can ever go “bankrupt.”
Govt. already interferes in far too much in the economy. By nature govt. seeks to grow at every opportunity.
No assistant-deputy-under-secretary will stop grasping for more, much less let go of anything already in his grip.
Pure tax-and-spend govt. is terribly inefficient, ineffective and prone to corruption.
“For-profit” just throws more fuel on the conflagration.
You suggest the profit motive might work as well for government as it does for free enterprise.
If that means “privatization,” return swaths to the free market, that's a great idea.
But if it’s “performance based pay” in government, forget about ambition and incentives. How will “for-profit” ever discipline losers?
Employees choose government because it is easy duty for above-average pay, and far safer than private work.
Govt. pay is already far too high, and with far too many employed.
“For profit” govt. will never accept pay cuts for bad performance.
Fired for failure is inconceivable.
Fatally, no part of govt. can ever go “bankrupt.”
Govt. already interferes in far too much in the economy. By nature govt. seeks to grow at every opportunity.
No assistant-deputy-under-secretary will stop grasping for more, much less let go of anything already in his grip.
Pure tax-and-spend govt. is terribly inefficient, ineffective and prone to corruption.
“For-profit” just throws more fuel on the conflagration.