3 votes

Converting govt agencies to non-profits

Too often people propose eliminating govt agencies without thinking of the people aspect. Congress won't cut agencies if it means losing jobs in their districts. The federal govt is in effect one big jobs program that no one will cut especially in a down economy.

We need an alternative that will allow the govt to be cut without cutting jobs.

One way to do this would be to have a multi-year transition of gov entities to self sustaining non profits with their own funding sources. This would allow the cut in govt without the extreme cut in jobs - thoughts?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
fireant's picture

Fedguv has no business deciding who's a "non-profit" in the

first place. So no, I don't think it's a good idea.
Let's be real. In order to restore a constitutional republic, there is going to be pain. If we are not willing to face that, then we won't be fixing anything.

Undo what Wilson did

agree in principle

However, no one will vote for pure pain - so we need to be realistic with our aims here

This is bigger than any individual

fireant's picture

Where did I say "pure pain"?

That is a tactic employed by those who wish to guide the conversation.
Attempts to sugarcoat reality is not realistic. People are starving for honesty, and they will respond when convinced through their reasoning.
Ron Paul has stated on many occasions the changes will have to be gradual; it can't be done all at once. So let the people know cut-backs in government are coming, and be prepared.
Bottom line in my opinion, attempting to "ease" through it with the result of leaving a special class of groups in place is a complication of the problem, not a solution. If people understand the long term goal, they will accept the short term pain...well, except for those who have the most to gain from the status quo. They'll squeal the loudest, and devise any sort of tactic to prevent the change.

Undo what Wilson did

You have a lot of faith in

You have a lot of faith in sheeple to believe that pain is acceptable at all regardless of how well it is explained.

In some instances, gradual change involves ushering in an intermediate-term solution that is slightly more palatable and less costly than the status quo.

I believe in radical change - but I am also a change management consultant and I know from experience that change fails if instituted too quickly without proper milestones

This is bigger than any individual

Better a TRUST

It would be better that legitimate and constitutional government agencies be "trusts" with neither profit nor non-profit status. After all our employees are doing our business "in trust" on our behaves, the beneficiaries. The legal precedents governing trustees as fiduciary agents has been long settled.

Great Idea

I think this is an excellent idea! The reason so many are against government programs is that they're inefficient and extremely wasteful. Would you donate to a charity that when 50% of the money didn't make it those it was intended to assist? Probably not.

Another issue with many of these agencies is that they infringe upon your civil liberties. This could be dealt with by getting rid of those agencies entirely. TSA, for example, could be replaced entirely by private security. I think the airlines understand the importance of passenger security and you're less likely to have items stolen from your baggage by private security personnel.

I know that some of you won't agree but who cares. I support Dr Paul. While I may not agree with every position he has, I understand why he holds those positions and I know he's not lying to me.

WRONG!!!

I have worked for my entire adult career in the non-profit area and there is still no guarantee against corruption and special interests. And the name non-profit is bogus. Just think about the joke that are non-profit hospitals. Sorry, but his is not the solution.

beephree

Moving in The Right Direction

Well if they falter and fail eventually, that's fine. I think, if there's a need, the free market will provide a solution. Not everyone thinks that way though.

Even if we can't get to the point of getting them fully defunded federally, I think this would be much more palatable and realistic as far as passing the House and Senate.

There are a lot of people who like certain social welfare programs (in both parties). This would be the right direction to go and, ideally, could be far less expensive than where we're at.

If there's a more realistic, near-term solution, throw it out there.

If they can sustain themselves,

then they don't need our taxes to do it.
Throw them out of the nest and see if they can fly.

99.9999% of all gov't services are not only unneeded, but unwanted.

really?

I think they're wanted - just not by the people who pay for them. This solution would solve that problem

This is bigger than any individual

voted down on that one - some

voted down on that one - some people actually do like govt programs - they just don't want to pay for them

This is bigger than any individual

I'm actually ok with the basic idea

as long as it
a)removes the agency from govt.
b)has no gov't subsidy or backstop or any tax money
c)has no force of gov't or any authority of any type
d)is completely subject to market forces, and allowed to fail, and not be "insured" in any way by taxpayers.

Then, it's a private company who is paid by its customers
I'm fine with that.

Completely on board

I think that would definitely be the roadmap - but in reality, I think there would have to be a slight subsidy attached for the first year or two to guarantee no job loss in order to get politicians to agree to it - I would definitely be up for floating without the subsidy first to see if it sails

The key point for me is:

Is a partial subsidy more palatable than full funding from a taxpayer perspective - for me the answer is yes. For others, it may not be acceptable with any funding attached - even at the onset

This is bigger than any individual

Exactly and there would be

Exactly and there would be more money to put towards the non profits.Check out how many top rated non profits there are already.
http://www.charitywatch.org/toprated.html

Ralph Nader In the early 70s

Ralph Nader has never belonged to a political party. MANY third parties have supported his presidential runs. The Green Party split over Ralph Nader, GPUSA supported Nader, GPIntr would NOT.

Ralph Nader had the idea that consumer protection should be on the FREE MARKET. People should be able to form companies that offered consumer reports and protection, like "Seal of Good Housekeeping", businesses could choose to participate or not.

Jimmy Carter pandered Ralph Nader and tried to get him to run VP (join the Democrat/ic Party). Nader refused and Jimmy Carter (and the Democrats hated Nader ever since)

Richard Nixon decided that Nader had a good idea and that instead of it being on the Free Market, Richard Nixon established EPA, OSHA, and many more departments to give Americans jobs returning from Nam. Ralph Nader sued, and lost.

No one has sued the Federal Government than Ralph Nader. He claims he has sued every department, but that was a decade ago, I'm sure there have been new departments since that perhaps Nader has not had the opportunity to sue.

Nader's presidential campaigns led to suing states, last round 22 suits in 17 states over corruption and ballot access. Nader simply asked: "Does an Independent Candidate have the right to be on the ballot?" 17 states said, "NO!"

I have always agreed with Ralph Nader, who MSM LIES about, and censors, long before Ron Paul. To think Ron Paul is an exception on MSM lies would be an error. Ralph Nader paved the way. One of the things I LOVE about Ron Paul is he opened the door to the GOP, a major party, so we who do not agree with the "establishment" have an opportunity to change it from the inside.

MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY...WAS GOING TO POST SAME THOUGHT TODAY!!!

I work for a nonprofit and have thought lately that I wouldn;t mind paying taxes if I could DIRECT WHERE, AND TO WHAT AGENCY my taxes go to support. This the same premise that nonprofits use to fund their programs. If a donor gives money to support a specific program that my nonprofit supports we MUST USE THE MONEY TO SUPPORT THAT PROGRAM.

Really WIERD...I was planning to post the same thought today but you, CNNROCKS, beat me to it!!

I think this concept warrants SERIOUS CONSIDERATION!

libertybella

- libertybella

Millenials

The younger generations would be really interested in a system where one could direct where one's taxes were spent

This is bigger than any individual

Honest nonprofits

are okay with me.

The jobs will still exist in the private sector, unless the only

function of the jobs is to forcibly extract money from one individual and transfer it to another.

Given the relative efficiency of private markets compared to the government, there may be a net loss of jobs, but I see no Constitutional authorization for the federal government to operate a jobs program.

Congressmen who believe federal government exists to provide jobs should be fired at the next election.

+1

Private not-for-profit is a wonderful type of business for some individuals. I would just like to see the bureaucracy with the IRS minimized.

So how do we get from here to there?

Agree that gov't shouldn't be a jobs program. But it is - so what can we do - I don't think we can expeditiously throw the bums out - so what can we do?

Carefully craft legislation that gradually transitions the subsidized jobs to a non-subsidized state. Otherwise, I don't think we can get political buy-in.

This is bigger than any individual

I believe Candians privatized their air traffic control system

I am not familiar with the details, but perhaps that is one path to examine.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/canadas-private-atc-wins-award/