Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on April 25, 2006

Click here to view bill details.

Good for you John Garfield. This legislation is long overdue. Thank you -- and I hope our legislator have the sense to pass it!

It's about time. With all these cities dumping our tax dollars into fitness centers it's hard to believe that the private ones can survive at all. It's real hard to compete with a government operation since they can change the rules at will and keep reaching into taxpayers pockets for more of OUR MONEY whenever they need to.

This may be the most intelligent bill I've yet seen proposed. We know government cannot provide services as efficiently as the private sector. This bill helps ensure that Michigan's economy will prosper, buy cutting out waste.

There are some things they should watch closely!

H***, NO! "Privatization of essential and necessary services would be explicitly allowed, including water supply, sewers, garbage and trash removal, recycling, utilities, streets and roads, public transportation, correctional facilities, fire departments, emergency services, and medical services. " from HB5976 Government needs to watch CAREFULLY where our water goes, how our trash is disposed of, etc. That is their RESPONSIBILITY! Keep the water clean and plentiful. Keep the soil clean and not covered up by tons of landfills and DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN PRIVATE PRISONS! The education groups want to work together with government and GOVERNMENT run prisons to reduce prison population with better EDUCATION practices. I am sorry but private businesses are out to make a buck. Some of them have fantastic moral values and care about the needs of all the citizens, but some are just looking out for themselves and the ASSETS they will leave their family members. GOOD LEADERSHIP CONSIDERS THE NEEDS OF all THE PEOPLE and makes decisions based on the resources they have at their disposal to meet those needs. Private industry does take on that responsibility universally. BAD IDEAS here. Some of it makes sense, but other parts are BAD FOR MICHIGAN! VERY, VERY SNEAKY!

On the side of business or the PEOPLE? You CAN have a capitalistic society and be a good leader too, you know! Capitalism without balance and wisdom in our leadership positions leads to an environment not worth living in and serious social class issues. Take care of the people FIRST, there's plenty of opportunity to take care of your wallet second. Have forethought! And good luck on your reelection. Private prisons? Please. Do you golf with private prison capitalists? What gives?

This is a bill to watch VERY carefully and either not pass or REVISE, REVISE, REVISE. Private prisons a conflict of interest. We will never fix our education system when there is someone that will benefit from prisons being open. Prison stockholders pushing meth? Ok, just kidding, but it is JUST WRONG to have private prisons! We should be working to reduce prisons and be ashamed what we were doing in the past got us so many of them, NOT EXPANDING INTO THE PRIVATE SECTOR. SHAME ON YOU!

What is that you do, Mike H?

thing we could do would be to privatize all government services. I will bet you that a private co. can do it cheaper, better and faster than the bloated state can. Then we could keep more of OUR MONEY. " I am sorry but private businesses are out to make a buck." Why would you be "sorry" about this? The people that "make a buck" today are all the empty suits in lansing and it's OUR MONEY that they are taking.

The WORST thing we could do is privatize public services, just to do it. Many years ago our local school district "pioneered" the privatization of services by contracting out its building and grounds maintenance. It wasn't a disaster, but after watching costs escalate and performance deteriorate for 8-10 years our school board finally said "enough," refused to renew the private contract. In the mid 1990s we went back to providing for hiring, equipping, managing and supervising the maintenance people who worked for the school system. The result has been far better maintained facilities (cleaner and in better repair, thus protecting our investment) and well controlled costs (to the extent that any organization can control cost of goods -- supplies and equipment -- in a "market" economy). Privatization is not a cure-all. It only works when clearly superior service (quality) is provided at a cheaper price. Junk service (quality) never is a bargain at any price, whether it's provided by public or private entities.

anything that the bloated government can do better or cheaper than private company. As long as they have unlimited money (OURS) you can be sure there will be lots of waste. "When a man spends his own money to buy something for himself, he is very careful about how much he spends and how he spends it. When a man spends his own money to buy something for someone else, he is still very careful about how much he spends, but somewhat less what he spends it on. When a man spends someone else's money to buy something for himself, he is very careful about what he buys, but doesn't care at all how much he spends. And when a man spends someone else's money on someone else, he doesn't care how much he spends or what he spends it on. And that's government for you." -- Economist and Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman “Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, 'What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power.' But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.”----Ronald Reagan

I just gave you a real life (true) case: privatization of maintenance services in our local school district resulted in higher cost and poor quality work. And your response is to continue insisting that privatized government services always will be superior. Privatization clearly is not an automatic good solution. When the private maintenance contract contract in our school district was terminated after 8-10 years (plenty of time to determine if privatization was or was not going to work), our school district resumed complete control over the maintenance of its facilities and grounds. Hiring, supervision, management, equipping, supply purchases all were brought back in house. After having to repair the result of years of slipshod service, the in-house approach has been more economical and provided vastly superior maintenance of our schools. As a taxpayer, I appreciate the sound business decision on the part of our school board in terminating the private contract because it has minimized costs and has done a superior job in protecting our community's very substantial investment in school infrastructure. The test of any proposition is in its outcome. Experience clearly demonstrates that privatization of government or services or agencies does not automatically or always yield improvement in services and lower costs. Sometimes -- as in the case of maintenance in our local school district -- it yields higher costs and poor performance. Not a bargain in any way for taxpayers who continue to foot the bill. In fact, it might be called a ripoff. This is not claiming that privatization never can work or never works. It is saying that hate-the-government, one-size-fits-all solutions always should be questioned and any decision to privatize should be based on reality and careful, case-by-case analysis rather than the irrational ravings of idealogues.

dig deeper you will probably find that the company that was hired was in cahoots with the board that hired them. Why on earth would any sane person keep a company for ten years that was not getting the job done? Probably a connection somewhere. Maybe if they would have fired the incompetant company and tried a new one it would have worked great. A sample size of one does not prove a thing.

I don't know why you'd care, but do tax work for corporations mostly. How about you? Concerning the writer who was concerned that essential services must be provided by some governmental group, I simply ask "Why?". My trash isn't picked up by a government unit. It is picked up by a private company. I didn't like the fees my company charged, so I went with another one that was cheaper. I have four or five contractors in my area, and that seems to be enough competition. Once upon a time, I made my own trash runs to the dump, but I got tired of the hassle and smell and was willing to pay someone to do it for me. All of those are choices that I can make. If we had governmentally run disposal services, I don't have that choice--all I have is a governmentally enforced monopoly to deal with. Many places still have volunteer fire departments, so what's the problem? There is no reason why EMS and medical services shouldn't be privatized as well. I would be very interested in details on the school maintenance example. If true, it is the first example of government delivering quality and price that exceeded that of private enterprise that I have ever heard of. Can you deliver the details or tell me where to look?

>dig deeper you will probably find that the company that was hired was in cahoots with the board that hired them.< How facile an explanation. The school maintenance services got looked into extensively for this purpose, and suspicions had no basis. So this doesn’t wash. >Why on earth would any sane person keep a company for ten years that was not getting the job done? Probably a connection somewhere.< The connection was a contract. This company was hired to replace a school staff operated maintenance program tat was perceived as being inefficient. After a while, it became quite evident that a mistake had been made. So it got corrected. Some things take a little time to emerge. What started out looking good in the end turned out to be a boondoggle. >Maybe if they would have fired the incompetant company and tried a new one it would have worked great< Actually, that is exactly what happened. The private maintenance service got canned when its contract was not renewed. Incompetence ousted. The school board regained local control of hiring, equipping, supplying, managing and supervising maintenance operations. Money was saved and quality of maintenance service improved dramatically. You can’t do better than that for the taxpayers. >A sample size of one does not prove a thing.< Quite true. But one incident like this also demonstrates, rather conclusively, that privatization of government agencies and services is not a silver bullet that automatically results in improvement. Only fools see just one solution to things.

Not all services by government, but prisons? Nope. We need to reduce prisons with better dyslexia understandings not delve into the private sector, increasing the number. A prison in private sector would to motivate to expand. That's not what is good for the people. We should be solvig our educational issues and increasing remediation understanding in literacy in prisons. They shouldn't be a business. Some environmental things, I don't trust business to do. Heck, I don't trust the government some of the time on that topic, but business has even less accountability. Businesses sometimes look out for number one and stockholders. Government is supposed to lead and look out for the common good of ALL the people. Some services are appropriate for business. Some most definitely are NOT! I don't trust a private prison to have that much compassion, frankly.

Are there bottling plants in YOUR district? GOVERNMENT/LEADERSHIP needs to be involved ENOUGH to make sure that the basic human needs for all people (like clean, plentiful water, environment) are taken care of. A government that does not do this and does not MODEL these behaviors is not doing a good job. I think both parties can do this and can see the importance of it. Business owners don't automatically come with the morals to look out for other people. Government is held accountable for doing so.

What are you up to exactly? Who are YOU looking out for?

Don't go there!

We have too many prisons because of inappropriate growth of government. We have too many "crimes" now. Any consentual crime should be removed from the books and anyone in prison solely for that reason should be released. Immediately. Consentual crimes are "crimes" that do not directly harm someone else. Drug use or sales, weapons possession, working without permission, building without permission, buying without permission, drinking without permission, prostitution, school truancy, tax evasion, and political and hate speech are all examples of victimless crimes as no one is directly harmed except the perpetrator, who must bear responsibily for his actions. The focus on justice needs to be restored from punishment by government to restoration of victim. Doing that would help decrease prison population as well. Get rid of these sources of the problem and I'd be happy to let prisons stay in the hands of government. Everyone just assumes that because we currently over-criminalize behavior that we must continue to do so. If you buy into that premise, then the conclusion that we need twice as many prisons as we have now is inevitable. I just don't buy the premise.

GOVERMENT EMPLOYMENT NUMBERS ARE BEGINNING TO OUT NUMBER THE PRIVATE SECTOR.THIS CAN'T HAPPEN.THE PEOPLE DON'T NEED TO COMPLETE AGAINST THEIR TAX DOLLARS.

Mike, do you have many friends?

Clark Equipment? Tons of chemicals into river, soil, groundwater found to be harmful. Just an example, but there are some things government employees should be entrusted to do. I don't want a private business taking care of my water. That's government's responsibility. That's called LEADERSHIP. LEADERSHIP and business don't always mix.

It seems like I may have one fewer than before I posted! 8^) Simply selling drugs does not hurt families. Misuse and addiction does hurt the ones who use them. The whole point is personal responsibility. People need to take personal responsibility for their actions and the consequences of those actions. Trying to shove governmental control into someones' brain as a replacement for responsibilty, conscience and morality will never work.

...by drugs. You are heartless. Bush speaks of a compassionate conservative. You're not there yet! Go crunch some numbers, you leftbrained bean counter.

It's a rosier one than I see. Morality is not an inborn trait in human beings. Church folk don't have the corner market on it either. Society dictates what is moral to some extent and that changes over the years. What do you propose we do with parents who spend all their money on drugs instead of the heating bills and neglect their children. It's a very common path. Not true for everyone, but... There are those that need to be in prison when they cross certain lines. Since you know everything? What would YOU do with those people? I am sure you have an answer.

I have the answer, but you don't want to hear it. Jesus Christ. He's the only way to the best possible society. When all individuals submit to Him, I don't think any of this wrangling will matter a great deal. Until then anything we do here is a weak, make-do, band-aid solution. Since some won't follow Him, there will be problems. It's the consequence of our actions. We don't love our families and children suffer. What should we do with children who are abandoned by parents lost in drugs? Be like my compassionate teacher friend and try to help them. Maybe he'd adopt one, give them a safe place to avoid beatings, give them food. Offer to raise the kids instead of the biological parents. Maybe go to court and testify to the abuse. My point was that the person selling drugs to the parent isn't the problem. The actions of the parent are the problem and the simplistic solution of chucking every drug dealer in jail cannot solve the problem of parents who fail to love their children. If it wasn't drugs, it could be food, or computer games or work-a-holism, or poker-nights with the boys or Save the Whales meetings if it keeps you from loving your kids. Do we start making those illegal? Pass more laws requiring minimum amounts of time spend with children in governmentally approved activities? We'll need monitors to assure compliance. What happens if Dad misses a piano recital? Fines, incarceration, or death? Maybe we should have governmentally approved child-rearing camps to assure that all children are equally loved(abused) by officially sactioned governmental caregivers? The solution to every problem is not more government regulations, programs and the taxes to support them. The solution is a changed heart and I only know one Person who can do that. His position doesn't require a vote, law change or tax increase.

Very well said.

If Clark Equipment pollutes waterways, then it can be sued to stop and fix the problem. That doesn't mean that private business can't be trusted to care for the environment. The largest polluter is not a private enterprise. It is the US Army. And you can't sue them to stop and fix the problem unless the government consents to let you sue. Which polluter is more dangerous to the environment?

People ALREADY had cancer. Curious whether they REALLY got caught for all they did.

By the time they figured out Clark's, it was WAY too late.

Da Vinci Code

Wake up. Face issues and deal with them. Stop hiding behind religion. Yes, the teacher probably testifies and writes letters and gets the problem solved, but it is not their responsibility to adopt. Get real. How many kids have you adopted? I'm sure some teachers do. Some of them run foster care centers in their homes for that purpose. You are a piece of work.

Our Constitution gives you freedom of religion, but also gives freedom to have no religion and to be a productive member of our society and to not be discriminated against for that choice. Sometimes those basking in their religion forget it goes both ways.

That is your right.

can not have any contact. You know they'll just try to keep the business going. They do ruin lives and start families down the wrong path.

Look at this bill closely. It doesn't say that services should be privatized if they can be provided more economically or efficiently by the private sector. It merely says that they must be privatized if they can be supplied by the private sector at all. For example, a county health department supplies vaccinations to low income families for $7. Private medical facilities provide the same vaccination for $35. Under this bill, the health dept could be made to stop. Result -- child doesn't receive vaccination. Privatization should always be an option, but not a requirement. Once everything is privatized, where is the accountability? Now, a privatized service can revert to the government. The loss of the contract can serve as a motivation to do good work. However, if the contractor knows that the government can't take the work back because that would be "competing" with the private sector, the motivation to succeed isn't there. This is especially true in rural and outstate areas where the private competition isn't there. Local government can't raise revenues without a vote so it has to watch costs closely. A private business can raise rates as necessary -- without a vote of the people.

You might want to check with your local road commission and hear how thrilled they are to have 4 or 5 garbage trucks driving down the same gravel road each week. You save money on garbage pickup, but I guarantee you end up paying more for road maintenance. Cost savings have related cost increases somewhere. Often they are worth it. But sometimes they are not. You have to look at the whole picture.

I do not support this bill.