[notJim]

I'm not really convinced that private industry is any better at avoiding waste than government. I must admit I haven't worked in government, but when I worked at large companies, I was shocked and appalled by how incredibly inefficient and wasteful their internal affairs were.

Furthermore, many of us [of course, you may disagree] would like for the government to provide more services, and that money has to come from somewhere. Even if it's ultimately private companies administering these services, they would need to at least be subsidized by the government to be accessible to the people who need them most.

[temphn]

There is something called "career status" in the federal government that is worth taking into account:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/mrpbs/hr/job_opportunities/fed_emp...

  Permanent – Career status as a federal employee is 
  achieved by fulfilling 3 years of substantially continuous 
  service as a career-conditional employee in the 
  competitive service.

http://ohmygov.com/blogs/general_news/archive/2010/08/18/dea...

  The service requirement for Career Tenure is 3 years of 
  substantially continuous creditable service to become a 
  career employee, i.e. obtain career tenure...Obtaining 
  Career status is crucial for federal employees, 
  especially, during times of instability and economic 
  downturn like we are in today. 

In short, after just three years in the federal government, you effectively cannot be fired except for gross malfeasance. This radically distorts the cost structure of the federal government.

There are many additional checks and balances on private companies. Perhaps the most important is that a poorly managed company will eventually go bankrupt, while the federal government can defer that for decades via quantitative easing.

[notJim]

> Perhaps the most important is that a poorly managed company will eventually go bankrupt, while the federal government can defer that for decades via quantitative easing.

This would be true in an idealized capitalist society, but many companies are one or more of the following:

   - propped up by the government (automotive companies, financial institutions)
   - in industries with incredibly high startup costs and difficult to obtain special knowledge (defense companies like boeing and lockheed)
   - have effective monopolies or oligopolies (utilities in some places, telcos)

Of course these are all far from immune to disruption, but they operate at such a scale that even when disrupted, the competition is often available only for small projects/few customers. The result is while yes they will eventually fail if they are poorly managed, it is unlikely that will be in our lifetime. Personally, I'd rather not wait that long.

Additionally, as I mentioned before, there are some services that I would like to have made available that can't be operated for a profit without government intervention. I am willing to tolerate inefficiency to achieve those goals. (Just as we as a society are apparently willing to tolerate governments other inefficiencies.)

Regarding your point about career tenure, I've often thought that one of the most effective reforms government jobs could get would be making it easier to fire ineffective employees just like a well-run company would.

[chernevik]

The sheer size and complexity of government in the US has reached the point of effective opacity. It's no longer possible to really assess what the government is doing, or what the costs of those activities are. The political class has every incentive to enhance this opacity. Their poor understanding of economics and management -- they are neither selected for nor disciplined on these skills -- only add to the confusion.

At this point all we really _know_ about the government's activities is that they are overpriced, under-effective, and understated in their size.

There is no rational discussion of government's role until these conditions are resolved.

[notJim]

> At this point all we really _know_ about the government's activities is that they are overpriced, under-effective, and understated in their size.

If the government is as opaque as you describe, than we know nothing at all. You're falling back to a popular assumption for lack of information.

>There is no rational discussion of government's role until these conditions are resolved.

Are you going to lead the revolution [edit from here on] or just throw up your hands?

[chernevik]

I invite you to choose one government program and state what it does, what it costs, how well it works, and the specific individuals accountable for its success or failure.

Just one.

But don't forget to include the pension liabilities and regulatory impacts. Or to mention any other social or economic forces affecting the mission targets.