Public vs. Private Debate
Is there a limit to what services government should provide? Who draws the line? I think the debate between providing public services and competing with private sector is a great discussion. I used find myself strongly in the libertarian camp, but have come to appreciate many of the public programs/services local government provides (maybe not so much with the federal govt). I also think there are a number of citizens that are looking to government to provide more and more services (all with low taxes but that is another discussion).
Anyhow, if you are also interested in this debate you might enjoy a recent discussion on KCPW. Monday on Midday Metro, Roger Tew (ULCT lobbyist/attorney) and Senator Howard Stephenson (R-Draper, President of the Utah Taxpayers Assoc.) debated the issue for 20+ minutes. Sen. Stephenson advocates at a minimum a process to review what local government ought to do and ought not to do. Roger advocates a more democratic process of determining what services should be provided based on the voters and the elected officials of each jurisdiction (maybe city X wants a rec center, city Y a golf course, etc).
Senator Stephenson also suggests the possible idea of doing away with state liquor stores and turning liquor sales over to the private sector…the interview is worth listening to: Midday Metro Monday, July 16, 2007
…city Z a telecommunications company, city O a shopping mall and a high adventure center, city P a reception center, city S a water park, city S a soccer stadium …
first, i want to thank ted nugent for reading my blog (big fan of the Damn Yankees).
so i assume you are opposed to all these services being funded by public funds? i think i can probably agree with you on a couple of these examples. but what about a public private partnership? or if citizens are willing for their taxes to fund one of these activities? i still offer the same question, where do you draw the line?
The line is very difficult. On a federal level, I do not think there should be many of these types of services that are run by the federal government. But, some might need funding by the federal government. As an example, if there’s a problem with inner-city youth, and the city or county want to do something about it (such as a rec center), is there any way the federal government should give them a checklist of what they qualify for and what their rec center should look like and what it should offer? No, the Federal government is far too disconnected. That city might know that the most troubled youth could be helped with a basketball camp, or maybe an education program to propel the kids into a better life. Funding from the federal government might be appropriate, though.
In general, I don’t think a city ought to pay for a shopping mall. But, what if a city wants to give a boost to local businesses? The money stays in the community, and there is much to be gained from taxes. Let’s take Sugar House for an example. If the city decided to help fund restoration in the buildings, rather than allowing them to be torn down for super mega box stores to be put in their place, more of that money would stay local. And perhaps with the city’s help, the area could attract far more people than it currently does. All in all, the community benefits.
I don’t think there’s a black and white answer to these questions, and that’s probably why I’m not an elected official. LOL
Misty, you make some great points. I agree it isn’t a black and white issue. There are a number of examples where the public sector partners with the private or nonprofit sector. And there are definitely examples where outsourcing to the private sector is more efficient and example where public sector ought not to venture. Which is why I think governments should have the flexibility and autonomy to determine the appropriate service deliver in their community/jurisdiction.
For example, I think if West Valley City considered selling the WV Family Fitness Center to a private fitness club you would have huge resistance from the citizens…they enjoy and utilize this service. There are similar examples across the state.
In order to define what is and is not appropriate, you end up having to define a “public good”. Is it just roads and law enforcement? Do we also include schools and parks? What about hospitals or utilities? It seems that leaving that as an exercise to the voters is the only way to get any kind of consensus. I agree that the voters in a city or county are much better equipped to make those determinations than the voters of an entire state or the whole of the country.
As for Ted’s assertion on telecommunications, I’d be delighted to hear an alternate proposal to building a vendor-neutral telecommunications system that breaks the anticompetitive duopolists of their stranglehold (yes, that’s a pun) on the industry. To date, not a single opponent of iProvo or UTOPIA can offer an alternative. They’re also quite silent on the city electric utilities operated in both Murray and Provo. Hmmm.