Quote:
Originally Posted by Wasillaguy
I don't believe that's what I said. Let me check... nope, that's not what I said. I'm pretty sure you can go back and read what I said too, so why do you intentionally twist people's words when anyone can go right back and see what the poster said?
My suggestion was that we dismantle the FCC, as it apparently isn't doing jack doodly squat. Then perhaps if we could get the GSA out of the nightclub, they could write a RFQ (full open bid, for U.S. based companies only) for a private contractor to patrol the spectrum and seek out bandits. You'd have hundreds of bidders, and could award several either regional or bandwidth divided contracts and then reward the best performers with additional territory.
I just think it makes more sense than paying people to do nothing.
|
I understand your point, however;
I still fail to see what makes a private contractor less corruptible than a public employee, seeing as how these private contractors are hired by public employees, (and politicians), and there is usually some kind of wheelin' and dealin' going on anyways.
We have had many a case of private contractors receiving special favor (Halliburton, for example.) and providing kickbacks to friendly politicians in the past to serve as precedent.
In otherwords, you can pay a public employee to do nothing, or you can pay him to hire a private contractor to do nothing. I witnessed this first hand during my time in the military. By the 1980s, the Navy had already turned over much of the depot level aircraft maintenance to private contractors-----Who did next to nothing and would raise hell if you asked for their help.
That's my own personal experience.
I suspect that use of private contractors only make the numbers
look better, because an employee hired by a contractor does not show up as a direct expense on the government payroll. Yet the budget continues to expand anyways..........................