If your second company is supposed to represent the government, then we'll politely disagree on relative efficiency. The reason the government is not profitable is because it is not allowed to charge for it's services according to their costs. Instead, it is instructed by fiat to produce X services with a tax base of Y.
I've seen millions spent on a software design initiative, only to be scrapped for another million-dollar initiative two years later, only to be scrapped again after a merger two years later. This was in one department at Anthem, but I've heard of similar things in various departments at all sorts of private companies. There is a lot of randomness in whom the free market rewards.
The VA has horrible administrative efficiency, the IRS and SSA have high administrative efficiency (as a comparison of administrative dollar to amount of money moved). Naturally, the former gets headlines.
I agree with investment, and with fighting waste. I just don't think "let the private sector do it" will be a waste-fighting solution.
I was not implying that the 2nd company is the government.. but it's immaterial.
If what you and I are debating, in your mind, is whether we should allow the public sector "to do it", then we may very well be in closer agreement. I was simply arguing for more focus on cost-cutting. Btw, cost-cutting does not automatically imply program cutting (though I feel there are many that need cut).. I am happy to start by leaving ALL programs in place, but search better/cheaper methods of running them.
Most of my gripes stem from budget issues. The 'use it or lose it' without considerations for cyclical aspects of various initiatives. I hate seeing, on a daily basis, branches of government scrambling to spend money so they don't get their budgets reduced under the next review. It's maddening.
One such example I gave was a very good friend of mine invented thermoplastic and pioneered its application to road striping (vs paint). He proved that though it costs 3x more than paint, it last nearly 10x longer. So he was an overnight multi-millionaire and his factory was supplying thermoplastic for roads across the U.S.
Within 3 years he's was getting orders for the same highways he had already provided product for. He made the calls to question and was told the lines had faded. Not believing it (and taking pride in his work) he went to one of the highways and using his reflectometer deduced that the lines were still more than 2x the required reflectivity.
He pushed and was finally told that the savings wasn't wanted, that they didn't want a lower budget, but haven't yet figured what to spend the money on. He said he got these calls on a weekly basis and the dollars had to have been into the hundred's of millions annually.
That's ONE example of dozens that drive me nuts.
My complaint of raising taxes is because if that ... and, frankly, I resent being told (not by you) that if I am not willing to pay more in taxes it means I do not support the idea of helping those in need. I want to help them MORE.
