a/k/a

“We’re from the Government and we’re here to help you.”

“One of my stops in Brooklyn, the employees ran away and refused to talk to us,” Ms. Lee said. “Even if we’re there to help them.””

No, you are not there to help them. “We’re from the government and we are here to help” is the biggest lie ever told.

One of the theories for having contractors instead of the government performing chores is that the private sector is more efficient. But the contractors operate under a different set of rules, i.e., they can have lower labor costs.

IMHO, the best policy is that both the contractors and government would have the same employee costs. To do this, we would either have to reduce government employee benefits or increase private sector benefits. Let’s even the field and see what happens.

I think a good argument might be made that government benefits should be reduced. However, that argument has not won the day.

Is there any cogent argument that allowing contractors to band together to lobby the government is any different (or better) than allowing government employees to do the same in unions?

Finally, having government contractors instead of government employees performing jobs is hardly a conservative/libertarian principle. As I see it, the goal should be to reduce the size of government programs. Transferring functions paid by the taxpayers from the government to the private sector does nothing to achieve the goal.

Let’s see, two liberal rags often vying for the same eyeballss and pocket books. One owned by a guy who knows how to make billions on the internet, the other really good at losing millions anyway they can. No possible conflict of interest there.