[const_cast]

While this is all true, you've sort of pointed out what the problem is here: the private sector.

Conservative policies consistently "outsource" public services to the private sector, allowing corruption and greed to grow. When things are done publicly, they're very efficient. We don't do that here. We outsource steps A-X to private companies which outsource to other private companies which all essentially launder government funds. At each "hop", there is a massive loss, because each party needs to turn a healthy profit. In addition, each "hop" introduces communication barriers, which further drives inefficiency and even results in failures.

Doing it all under one roof is just good sense. The American Republicans are explicitly against this, and will dismantle it whenever possible. They're not actually "starving the beast". They're just taking the beast's food and giving it to their buddies, who have no intention of helping the public.

The unfortunate reality is that simply cutting funds doesn't do what we think it will. DOGE will cut funds to service X but service X still needs to be done. Now, it will be mostly conducted by the private sector at 10x the cost, and will be paid for by government contracts. Congratulations, everything is worse.

[j_walter]

Private sector can make it more efficient for some things...but what I'm referencing is the use of NGOs for public services and the most wasteful I've seen are in the "Large Blue Cities". CEOs of relatively small firms that get millions of dollars in funding but also give themselves 6 figure salaries for "charity work".

I saw a recent article about an NGO that was going to not be able to help immigrants learn how to navigate the path to citizenship. Big story about losing $300K a year in federal grants. However they also took in $2-3M a year in other funding and spent most of it on lobbying for immigrant law changes, as well as paying their CEO a decent 6 figure salary. However the sob story about cutting services to immigrants was the only thing they talked about cutting.

[const_cast]

The use cases for outsourcing to the private sector are few and far between. Only if the product or service is extremely difficult, complex, and one-off. Other than that, you save money in the long-run doing it in house, and long-run is MUCH more important for governments than companies.

[j_walter]

>>>and long-run is MUCH more important for governments than companies.

Yes, but rarely for the people in charge of spending the money in the government or the people who were voted in to do so.