Privatizing Welfare
Published July 17, 2009 @ 12:30PM PT
Or so Schwarzenegger proposes (I swear, this guy'll do anything to keep himself in the PiA headlines!):
A proposal that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been pushing in closed-door budget talks would tie the state, with little oversight or review, into a multibillion-dollar computer system likely to be run by the private sector to enroll low-income Californians in welfare, food stamp and healthcare programs.
The concern laid out in the bulk of the article is the Governator's attempt in times of crisis to ram through a pet project that has not been fully vetted. The Administration makes the usual argument that cost savings lie ahead in a centralized system. Critics point to the disastrous results from other states' attempts to privatize and centralize public assistance admin. And as you might imagine, these enormously expensive investments in system-wide changes can be difficult to undo.
In principle, I am generally supportive of centralized systems, but they present their own set of problems as they tend not to acknowledge or be able to respond to the specifics of certain populations, regions, etc. (A national federal poverty line that doesn't reflect regional costs of living is a good example.) Of greater concern to me here is the privatization piece. Privatization also has its place, but there's a few too many big stories of awarding funds to private contractors on the assumption that they can run programs and services more effectively than the government only to have them completely botch the job. I find this is particularly likely when for-profit contractors enter the sensitive or "niche" space like working with people suffering from economic hardship.
This strikes me as a pursuit on purely ideological grounds - or to benefit cronies. Forgive me for not finding these answers before pontificating, but what exactly are Schwarzenegger's reasons for wanting to privatize public assistance? Beyond the speculative cost savings? What's the problem with the decentralized, county-based system? Are so many recipients so frequently moving around the state that too much data is getting lost in the system? What successes of the existing system would he seek to preserve? How much disruption in service could recipients feasibly expect?
These are just a few of endless questions we should be asking about this dubious proposal. With California, the drama just does not end. And the poorest among us are paying the price.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
CA's Budget Shuts Down over Fingerprinting the Poor
-
Policies that Actually Promote Self-Sufficiency
-
CA to become first state with no public assistance?
Comments (1)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Leigh is a PhD candidate in urban planning at MIT, and a consultant on U.S. Gulf Coast recovery. She sits on the Board of the Allston-Brighton Community Development Corporation in Boston, and has worked with non-profits, foundations and local governments on policies and programs aimed at reducing urban poverty and inequality.
Has anything government every been "privatized" and proven to save money? I know "privatize it" is a popular chorus among many Republicans, conservatives and other categories of capitalists, but the only thing I can figure out that any of this group is getting out of it is that many of them (or their close friends and family) are making money off of contracts or kick backs. Seems like most, if not all, "privatization" schemes have ended up saving little to nothing or even been giant boondoggles - like Medicare Advantage (ok, technically that wasn't quite "privatizing" but still, it was another twisted attempt to marry a government program with letting the private sector provide the actual benefits and look how much the government is having to supplement the plans just to keep them running). At most, I can see letting him get the idea officially on the books for studies of cost and effectiveness to see if it's even worth implementing. But to just do it? This ain't a Nike commercial. This is talk of what would be at least a multi-million dollar computer system, with at least hundreds of thousands going into training people how to use it correctly (hopefully they'd use it correctly, as mentioned the "correctly" bit has been a problem in other states) and whether or not it works to actually save money in the end is totally unknown. I'm thinking they'd be better off going to Vegas and betting some government buildings or some such. At worst, this might leave them renting the Capitol building or some such back while The Governator's plan could cause massive suffering and spend a ton of money all to save nothing.
And have you heard? The Governor's office called off tonight's talks claiming Bass couldn't be there and Bass was quite shocked wondering where they got that idea because she's saying she could have been there any time they wanted her there. Sounds like another good story brewing.
Posted by Danetta Amschler on 07/19/2009 @ 09:43PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.