Political Horizons for Oct. 11, 2009

• By MARK BALLARD
• Advocate Capitol News Bureau
• Published: Oct 11, 2009 - Page: 7B

• Print
• Email
• Save
• Reprints
• Twitter
• Share

• Del.icio.us
• Digg
• Facebook
• Reddit
• 

The Commission on Streamlining Government returned from its listening tour last week with an earful of complaints by state employees.

Like puppies in a veterinarian’s parking lot, state workers apparently can sense that the pain that accompanies strong medicine is in their near future.

After 80 years of government efficiency studies that listed “reducing the number of state workers” as one of their key savings points, the fear is palpable that Louisiana’s largest employer might finally follow that advice.

True, so far all the talk about massive layoffs has resulted in about 500 people losing their government jobs. But when Gov. Bobby Jindal in July inaugurated the Streamlining Commission, he repeatedly extolled the virtues of paying private companies to do services now handled by government workers.

The commission, whose initial recommendations are due Dec. 15, could provide political cover to fire state workers and shift some government services to private companies — long a dream of conservatives.

Commission members say that privatization is but one of the avenues being considered.
Jim Brandt, who heads the government policy analysis group Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, says privatization should remain in the mix. But he recalls the fiasco of the privately owned juvenile prison in Tallulah, which ended up costing state government millions. Though private contractors have provided good service to government in some instances, Brandt said Tallulah, alone, is reason to exercise caution in the pell-mell rush to transfer taxpayer money to private businessmen.

“Privatization is not an automatic panacea by any means,” Brandt said. “It’s wrong to assume that it’s going to be the salvation of the state.”

Anyone who has flown recently or is depending on a 401(k) to retire, certainly has ammunition enough to avoid government workers and wish them ill at every turn.

On the other hand, about this time last year, a privately owned insurance company decided, based on a single inspection, that the cost of storm repairs to my house was less than the deductible that they had inflated when the hurricane was officially named Gustav. My homeowners insurance, which is required by the bank to protect their loan to us, covered virtually nothing.

Facing about $50,000 in repairs and abandoned by the private insurer, we saw no choice but to turn for help to the U.S. Small Business Administration.

The federal agency sent three different inspectors, all of whom found damage far in excess of what the insurance company recognized. We filled out a mountain of forms with instructions so complex they read like calculus textbooks written in another language. We had to navigate a warren of bureaucracy.

It was messy. It was frustrating. But in the end it was government workers who came to help, not the good neighbors of the insurance company who for years had promised that they would be there.

Shifting government services to the private sector would reduce the size of government and its role in society. Certainly the sector is tidier and, under certain conditions, can provide services far more efficiently. But some situations transcend the bottom line. Government is about helping everyone, even when it is unprofitable.