Print

[ducksoup]

PHOENIX (CBS5) -
It was a prison break that made national news.
Two convicted killers and a third dangerous criminal broke out of a medium security private prison facility in Kingman Arizona in July 2010.
The escapees were eventually caught after a nationwide manhunt, but not before an Oklahoma couple was killed.
The escape and murders that followed raised some serious questions about private prison safety standards and whether new policies should be put in place to prevent prison breaks from happening again.
Two years later, Arizona lawmakers have decided to go in a different direction.
Buried in the $8.6 billion budget proposal passed at the state Capitol this week is a plan to "eliminate the requirement for a quality and cost review of private prison contracts."
It means there would no longer be an annual review of how private prisons operate.
House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, voted against the new provision.
"It's insanity, that's the only way to describe this, removing the ability for the state to do a cost and quality analysis of the private prison contracts that are being funded by taxpayer dollars makes absolutely no sense whatever," said Campbell.
Arizona currently has about a dozen privately operated prisons.
State Rep. John Kavanaugh, R- Fountain Hills, is the lawmaker who proposed the plan to remove the review process.
CBS5 asked Kavanaugh why the change is good for Arizona.
"Because it's a study that was bias from the beginning and never used," said Kavanaugh."So rather than have a report that is biased and nobody listens to and costs money to produce. We simply eliminated it."
According to Kavanaugh, the recent reports on private prisons have been put together by state prison officials, skewing the data.
Kavanaugh said that doing away with the annual review will not impact public safety.
"This study has nothing to do with oversight," said Kavanaugh. "This was simply a study where the number crunchers compared the costs of public and private prisons."
That study found that in some cases private prisons cost taxpayers more than state-run facilities.
"Some people are saying we are not reviewing private prisons," said Kavanaugh. "That's not true. Every private prison we have has standards and requires DOC on-site inspectors be present at every prison to make sure it is run properly."
Campbell and other Democrats claim there's more to it, suggesting that by getting rid of the data on private prisons that show how expensive they are, will simply make it easier to get more built in the future, said Campbell.
"This is what I believe is a hand out to private prison corporations operating in Arizona right now," Campbell said.
http://www.kpho.com/story/18143695/state-lawmakers-look-to-ease-oversight-on-private-prisons

Wow!  So, the number crunchers show that some private prisons cost MORE, so what to do?  Kill the reports that say that, of course.

[Baggins]

FFS, who's brilliant idea was it to privatize prisons in the first place...I don't know how this could have even been considered a good idea in the first place...

[Mayonnaise]

FFS, who's brilliant idea was it to privatize prisons in the first place...I don't know how this could have even been considered a good idea in the first place...

Maybe it was the ones that want to build another bridge to Canada?

[ducksoup]

My opinion, it all goes to the idea that government is ALWAYS more costly, and privates can do it (whatever it is) better AND cheaper and still make a profit for the money people.

Also of note is how it seems that every time something like this comes up the ones making the bucks are tied at the hip to the politicians making the law to allow it.

[Baggins]

Also of note is how it seems that every time something like this comes up the ones making the bucks are tied at the hip to the politicians making the law to allow it

How shocking...

[BigRedDog]

My opinion, it all goes to the idea that government is ALWAYS more costly, and privates can do it (whatever it is) better AND cheaper and still make a profit for the money people.

Also of note is how it seems that every time something like this comes up the ones making the bucks are tied at the hip to the politicians making the law to allow it.

I believe that is where the expression "follow the money trail" originated ducksoup

[Professor H]

The question is do citizens support or want their government to provide  certain services - or farm them out.  There has been a lot of discussion about cutting government jobs and/or private sector doing it "cheaper" (well at least what they pay their labor force)...

Can't have it both ways - either government stays in the employment business or they pay for profits to do it. 

[ducksoup]

The question is do citizens support or want their government to provide certain services - or farm them out. There has been a lot of discussion about cutting government jobs and/or private sector doing it "cheaper" (well at least what they pay their labor force)...

Can't have it both ways - either government stays in the employment business or they pay for profits to do it.

Exactly.  As in the case of those prisons, they changed higher paid government employees that did the job well, for lower paid employees that, at least seem, to provide inferior work.  Cost is the same or sometimes more.  Sometimes, ya get what ya pay for is applicable.  That isn’t to say that all places it would not be better. One I can think of is DMV.  It doesn’t seem like a job that requires rocket scientists, and just well educated high school grads should be able to efficiently run a DMV location for less cost to the taxpayer without a loss of quality. 

It seems to me that the push is always about cutting labor costs and not the question of cost and quality.   What I wonder is it a good trade to have something cost exactly the same, yet the private version makes a profit by cutting labor cost and quality.  Isn’t the requisite of lowering wages to make a profit also guaranteeing lesser quality employees with the resulting lack of quality work or output in many cases?

[Baggins]

The question is do citizens support or want their government to provide  certain services - or farm them out.  There has been a lot of discussion about cutting government jobs and/or private sector doing it "cheaper" (well at least what they pay their labor force)...

Can't have it both ways - either government stays in the employment business or they pay for profits to do it.

Whether it's "farmed out" or not, still seems to be a government cost...If private costs more than government ran, where is the savings...