henry6 CMStPnP Bucyrus The meaningful, honest, objective, and useful comparison is how much use the average taxpayer gets out of highway per tax dollar, compared to how much use the average taxpayer gets out of passenger rail per tax dollar. What is the prevailing question? Benefit to society, i.e.: ability to transport goods to and from factories and markets, be part of the assembly line, allow for manufactruing and business growth and supply the population, and to help transport people to and from where they must travel including work and home? Or is it if Tommy Taxpayer doesn't use I80 across Nevada or anyother highway except the one in his town, or the locks on the Mississippi or the Dulles International Airport or electricity from the Tennesee Valley Authority, he should not pay the tax? I understand Libertarianism and what it means. But we have progressed so much further by cooperation, pooling resources and work, doing for the good of society, to abandon all that has been done and need be done because one person is too greedy and self important to participate in society. Thus if a rail siding supported by some government funding in California means I can have affordable fresh lettuce on my table in Upstate NY in February I feel the funding is worth it. And the thinking isn't as convoluted as thinking that what happens or is done elsewhere doesn't affect me; no man is an island is more true than ever. If there are those who either don't want to pay their fare share, live up to the responsibity of being a citizen of the United States, then they should find another place on Earth to live...buy an abandoned south sea island someplace and try to start a tax free, resposibity free society and see how long you'll last.
CMStPnP Bucyrus The meaningful, honest, objective, and useful comparison is how much use the average taxpayer gets out of highway per tax dollar, compared to how much use the average taxpayer gets out of passenger rail per tax dollar.
Bucyrus The meaningful, honest, objective, and useful comparison is how much use the average taxpayer gets out of highway per tax dollar, compared to how much use the average taxpayer gets out of passenger rail per tax dollar.
What is the prevailing question? Benefit to society, i.e.: ability to transport goods to and from factories and markets, be part of the assembly line, allow for manufactruing and business growth and supply the population, and to help transport people to and from where they must travel including work and home? Or is it if Tommy Taxpayer doesn't use I80 across Nevada or anyother highway except the one in his town, or the locks on the Mississippi or the Dulles International Airport or electricity from the Tennesee Valley Authority, he should not pay the tax? I understand Libertarianism and what it means. But we have progressed so much further by cooperation, pooling resources and work, doing for the good of society, to abandon all that has been done and need be done because one person is too greedy and self important to participate in society. Thus if a rail siding supported by some government funding in California means I can have affordable fresh lettuce on my table in Upstate NY in February I feel the funding is worth it. And the thinking isn't as convoluted as thinking that what happens or is done elsewhere doesn't affect me; no man is an island is more true than ever. If there are those who either don't want to pay their fare share, live up to the responsibity of being a citizen of the United States, then they should find another place on Earth to live...buy an abandoned south sea island someplace and try to start a tax free, resposibity free society and see how long you'll last.
Henry,
You are missing my point. You may understand libertarianism, but my point has nothing to do with libertarianism. I am not saying that if a taxpayer does not use a particular service, he or she should not have to pay for it. My point has nothing to do with the idea of one man thinking he is an island and should not have to contribute to the socialized portions of society.
My point is that we, as a society, have to decide which are the most essential works to pay for collectively because we only have a limited amount of money as a group. So when we consider which works to produce as a collective effort with public funds, we have to determine how much they are worth on average to the members of society who will pay for them. It is the classic benefit per cost analysis.
I do not believe that a national system of HSR would provide a widespread benefit to society as a whole that would evenly correspond with the widespread cost to society as a whole. Instead, I think that national HSR would merely provide enjoyment and convenience to a very small portion of society at the expense of most of society. I think that there are better things to spend our money on such as paying down the debt.
My view on this has nothing to do with my personal willingness or reluctance to pay taxes for the things we need as a nation. My concern is that we, as a nation, spend our money wisely.
BucyrusMy point is that we, as a society, have to decide which are the most essential works to pay for collectively because we only have a limited amount of money as a group. So when we consider which works to produce as a collective effort with public funds, we have to determine how much they are worth on average to the members of society who will pay for them. It is the classic benefit per cost analysis.
OK, that is very clearly stated. So, for illustrative purposes, what would be some other examples (besides paying down the debt) of current or future "works" that have passed or you believe would pass that benefit cost analysis?
Second, what is the basis for your conclusions regarding HSR not benefiting more than a small segment of our society?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Second, what is the basis for your conclusions regarding HSR not benefiting more than a small segment of our society?
I would have to ask the same question. Also I would add how large are the seqments in each of the European countries and Japan?
schlimm OK, that is very clearly stated. So, for illustrative purposes, what would be some other examples (besides paying down the debt) of current or future "works" that have passed or you believe would pass that benefit cost analysis?
OK, I'll bite.
I think that energy independence is an urgent priority. Putting someone in a hybrid vehicle is of comparable energy savings to taking someone out of a car an on an Amtrak train. The tax credit for hybrid vehicles works out to about 4 cents/passenger mile -- the Amtrak subsidy works out to more than five times as much.
Not only that, the hybrid vehicle tax credit has a "glidepath to profitability" built right in -- once a certain brand of hybrid reaches a critical market share, the tax credit is phased out. Efforts at "Amtrak reform" aimed at a similar effect with Amtrak bring choruses of "no one expects passenger trains to ever make a profit" from the advocacy community.
OK, for HSR, I would allow more per passenger mile subsidy, if either the type of streamlined trains with high seating density bring about greater energy savings or if the mix of power used to power the trains is demonstrated to be advantageous over the use of gasoline in cars -- intermittent wind power doesn't count for powering HSR that has to operate on a strict schedule. I would also draw "the system boundary" around the whole HSR project - capital cost of track construction especially included. Yes we are planning on subsidizing the construction of nuclear power plants with loan guarantees, but the expectation is that rate payers would pay off those loans over time. I think it is reasonable to expect the same thing from the HSR.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
blue streak 1 schlimm Second, what is the basis for your conclusions regarding HSR not benefiting more than a small segment of our society? I would have to ask the same question. Also I would add how large are the seqments in each of the European countries and Japan?
Again I'd agree with the idea that we need to ascertain just who will benefit the most from HSR in terms of usage. If anything, the rising cost of the projected fare for the California HSR makes me wonder about the segments and their ability to continue using the service. I'm not looking for single time use here----
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
schlimm BucyrusMy point is that we, as a society, have to decide which are the most essential works to pay for collectively because we only have a limited amount of money as a group. So when we consider which works to produce as a collective effort with public funds, we have to determine how much they are worth on average to the members of society who will pay for them. It is the classic benefit per cost analysis. OK, that is very clearly stated. So, for illustrative purposes, what would be some other examples (besides paying down the debt) of current or future "works" that have passed or you believe would pass that benefit cost analysis? Second, what is the basis for your conclusions regarding HSR not benefiting more than a small segment of our society?
Even though I believe we need a cost/benefit analysis, performing one for massive public works would be so complex that nobody would ever agree that it was accurate. So we are left to our own individual beliefs about necessity, use, rider revenue, cost of operation, cost of construction, cost overruns, effect of politics on how money is spent, etc. Moreover, performing a CBA for a public project is many times more complex than doing so for a private project.
Unlike the private sector business ventures, any cost/benefit analysis in public sector projects is never tested by being held accountable after the project is built. With public sector projects, the fulfilling of a real societal need is often somewhat of a pretext for simply building empires by growing government.
So public sector cost/benefit analysis is often used as a tool to sell the idea to the public, rather than as a tool to assess the actual economic performance or public need for the project.
Following that motive, public sector cost/benefit analyses are free to state the benefits as immeasurable platitudes such as improving quality of life, providing transportation choices, making the nation more competitive with the rest of the world, and showing our friends in Europe that we are not uncivilized.
So I am only saying that we need a CBA because the advocacy pushing HSR seems oblivious to the cost or any measure of whether the cost is worth it. Instead, HSR is regarded as simply being a fashion that we must have.
I can’t tell you why Europe or other countries have it. But they have governments too that are eager to build their empires with the public’s money. Maybe their citizens would be better off without HSR. I would submit that at the rate this county is presently going into debt while the economy is performing so poorly, hardly any public sector project satisfies a cost/benefit analysis, and certainly not HSR.
Airlines are "for the middle-class, and above"? Just go to LGA, EWR, or JFK, of a Friday afternoon and check the lines for "Vomit Comets" to San Juan, PR. Enlightening, methinks!
Hays
Question: I am a disadvantaged person (we won't get into citizenship) living in Manhattan, address confidential (New York City). I could afford to buy a cheap car, but can't afford to park it (thanks, Mayor Bloomberg). How would I get the wonderful tax rebates by stealing a Chebby "Volt"? We can change the VIN in an instant! I do need to meet with my "man" in Brooklyn, but the subway fares are outrageous, greatly increasing my cost of doing business. Any advice? Don't Amtrak go to Brooklyn? How fast?
BNSFwatcher Airlines are "for the middle-class, and above"? Just go to LGA, EWR, or JFK, of a Friday afternoon and check the lines for "Vomit Comets" to San Juan, PR. Enlightening, methinks! Hays
I've been to San Juan several times, and I find it to be a pleasant American city. It must be American since you don't need a passport to get there from here. While getting through security is a real pain (Americans are overly paranoid), airline travel can still be pleasant, even on a regional jet.
Paul MilenkovicI would also draw "the system boundary" around the whole HSR project - capital cost of track construction especially included. Yes we are planning on subsidizing the construction of nuclear power plants with loan guarantees, but the expectation is that rate payers would pay off those loans over time. I think it is reasonable to expect the same thing from the HSR.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
DMUinCTIs that why the U.S. Government built hunderds of miles of Interstate Highways through Farm Country. We in the Northeast didn't gain from that, Why not build Interstate Highways only where we have high populations ?
Paul MilenkovicSo we are wasting money on highways in remote areas, we need to waste money on trains to even things out?
Ok. So I come along with a hairbrained idea that I want a HSR from Portland, Maine to Port St. Lucie, Florida. So it only benefits the eastcoasters but I need financial help from the government to get it done. Those between Portland, OR and Port St. Joe on the west coast get no benefit.
But you want a water supply system from high up in the Rockies to supply west coastal cities with potable water. So it benefits only the westcoasters but you need help from the government to get it done. Those between Portland, ME and Port St. Lucie, FL on the east coast get no benefit.
So do we all go without what we want and need?
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6 Ok. So I come along with a hairbrained idea that I want a HSR from Portland, Maine to Port St. Lucie, Florida. So it only benefits the eastcoasters but I need financial help from the government to get it done. Those between Portland, OR and Port St. Joe on the west coast get no benefit. But you want a water supply system from high up in the Rockies to supply west coastal cities with potable water. So it benefits only the westcoasters but you need help from the government to get it done. Those between Portland, ME and Port St. Lucie, FL on the east coast get no benefit. So do we all go without what we want and need?
Again, that is not the point. It is a straw dog. The relevant point is the determination of whether either of those two projects is necessary, worthwhile, and cost effective.
The point is not whether everyone who benefits from those two projects pays for them and those who do not benefit do not pay for them.
Obviously, with any socialized improvement or service, the cost to individuals is not going to be divided up precisely according to their exact usage of the service.
OK then let's make them both potable water pipelines. Mine doesn't benefit you and your's doesn't benefit me. By your statements there is no reason for me to pay for yours nor for you to pay for mine.
BucyrusI would submit that at the rate this county is presently going into debt while the economy is performing so poorly, hardly any public sector project satisfies a cost/benefit analysis, and certainly not HSR.
Your answer seems a bit convoluted for me, but your bottom line seems to be paying off the debt is the only sensible thing to do. Given that much of that debt is held by China, I fail to see how that advances our economic productivity. A transfer payment simply does not have the same positive economic benefit as an infrastructure investment. I do agree with you that the costs and benefits of various rail improvements (passenger and electrification) need to be examined in as accurate a way as is possible.
henry6 OK then let's make them both potable water pipelines. Mine doesn't benefit you and your's doesn't benefit me. By your statements there is no reason for me to pay for yours nor for you to pay for mine.
Well in a perfect world, your example would be the fairest approach to paying for the water service. But since we all use water, I assume that these things balance out. Therefore, I have no desire to assure that the money I pay for taxes and water bills only goes to the lines and system that are directly responsible for providing my water.
It is unrealistic to try to compare absolutes, so we are left with comparing degrees. Not everybody uses every highway. Some people do not use any highway for personal transportation, and yet they benefit indirectly from goods that are transported by highway. So, generally, I would conclude that use of and payment for highways is quite evenly dispersed among all users and payers.
On the contrary, in general, I would conclude that while the payment for HSR will be evenly dispersed among the payers, the use of HSR will be enjoyed only by a very small percentage of the payers.
So there is a point where the use of, and payment for public works can become unfair. And I think that HSR is far beyond that tipping point.
schlimm BucyrusI would submit that at the rate this county is presently going into debt while the economy is performing so poorly, hardly any public sector project satisfies a cost/benefit analysis, and certainly not HSR. Your answer seems a bit convoluted for me, but your bottom line seems to be paying off the debt is the only sensible thing to do. Given that much of that debt is held by China, I fail to see how that advances our economic productivity. A transfer payment simply does not have the same positive economic benefit as an infrastructure investment. I do agree with you that the costs and benefits of various rail improvements (passenger and electrification) need to be examined in as accurate a way as is possible.
Reducing debt advances our economy because debt places a drag on the economy that increases as the debt increases. While there might be economic benefit from the product of an infrastructure investment per se, that benefit might easily be more than offset by an economic detriment from adding its cost to an already high debt load. It would be Utopia if all we had to do to achieve prosperity were borrow money and spend it on things we need to make life more convenient.
Most of the Puerto Ricans on those flights I would wager are Middle Class.
BucyrusReducing debt advances our economy because debt places a drag on the economy that increases as the debt increases. While there might be economic benefit from the product of an infrastructure investment per se, that benefit might easily be more than offset by an economic detriment from adding its cost to an already high debt load. It would be Utopia if all we had to do to achieve prosperity were borrow money and spend it on things we need to make life more convenient.
I agree, lets reduce our debt by cutting the larger Interstate Highway and Airport budgets.
Phoebe Vet What a surprise; a Republican is trying to disrupt yet another piece of legislation or it's implementation. I know that is a political statement, but it is what it is. I will not pursue it any further.
What a surprise; a Republican is trying to disrupt yet another piece of legislation or it's implementation.
I know that is a political statement, but it is what it is.
I will not pursue it any further.
In reading the article, I don't see where anybody is trying to disrupt a piece of legislation. On the contrary, it sounds like representative John Mica of Florida is criticizing the FRA for their inability to manage HSR spending, rather than criticizing HSR itself. The following quote from the article seems to summarize Rep. Mica’s position:
"I'm very concerned that FRA's work missed the mark, and maybe hijacked the ability of the country to see some true high-speed rail-operations," Mica said in a telephone interview.
CMStPnP I agree, lets reduce our debt by cutting the larger Interstate Highway and Airport budgets.
For one thing, we already are (cutting highway and airport development). If we are not cutting those things, we may be faced with cutting them on account of the same budget situation that makes funding for trains hard.
A good measure why people are even thinking of HSR is California is that adding lanes to I-5 is considered to be a non-starter based on the shape of State and Federal budgets.
But a good question to ask is whether HSR is a good subsitute for expanding I-5.
The Amtrak/intercity portion of the NEC replaces, probably, one freeway lane in each direction, and that is the "densest" Amtrak route. Pacific Surfliner and Hiawatha are nowhere near that level of traffic.
My back-of-the-envelope calculation for the projected ridership of 50 million passengers on the CA HSR suggests that it would substitute for multiple freeway lanes in each direction, and on that basis alone, the HSR is a good value. Some intuition tells me that those ridership projections are way over-projected.
Someone mentioned that the NEC does 3 million passengers/year on Acela -- when you add in Regionals, does this bring things up to about 10 million? Mind you, Boston, New York City, Philly, and more recently DC have rail transit "feeder" networks into the NEC. OK, SF perhaps has rail transit on the level of DC, LA is getting there. But even so, I don't so how you have the supporting infrastructure in CA for the 50 million passengers.
But there is the temptation to say, not only are we going to thave rains and train ridership by not building more expensive highways, but if we didn't have the highway system we have (Interstates), we could have more trains. Kind of like, OK, if we "train people" can't get funding for our train, we will oppose funding for that highway that "you highway people" want. I figure that kind of thinking is popular in some circles, but is that the way to "win friends and influence people" to get more trains.
I don't say this just for idle discussion. The idea of not only advocating trains but opposing highways has worked its way into public pronouncements of our local passenger train advocacy group.
Paul MilenkovicFor one thing, we already are (cutting highway and airport development). If we are not cutting those things, we may be faced with cutting them on account of the same budget situation that makes funding for trains hard. A good measure why people are even thinking of HSR is California is that adding lanes to I-5 is considered to be a non-starter based on the shape of State and Federal budgets. But a good question to ask is whether HSR is a good subsitute for expanding I-5 The Amtrak/intercity portion of the NEC replaces, probably, one freeway lane in each direction, and that is the "densest" Amtrak route. Pacific Surfliner and Hiawatha are nowhere near that level of traffic. My back-of-the-envelope calculation for the projected ridership of 50 million passengers on the CA HSR suggests that it would substitute for multiple freeway lanes in each direction, and on that basis alone, the HSR is a good value. Some intuition tells me that those ridership projections are way over-projected. Someone mentioned that the NEC does 3 million passengers/year on Acela -- when you add in Regionals, does this bring things up to about 10 million? Mind you, Boston, New York City, Philly, and more recently DC have rail transit "feeder" networks into the NEC. OK, SF perhaps has rail transit on the level of DC, LA is getting there. But even so, I don't so how you have the supporting infrastructure in CA for the 50 million passengers. But there is the temptation to say, not only are we going to thave rains and train ridership by not building more expensive highways, but if we didn't have the highway system we have (Interstates), we could have more trains. Kind of like, OK, if we "train people" can't get funding for our train, we will oppose funding for that highway that "you highway people" want. I figure that kind of thinking is popular in some circles, but is that the way to "win friends and influence people" to get more trains. I don't say this just for idle discussion. The idea of not only advocating trains but opposing highways has worked its way into public pronouncements of our local passenger train advocacy group.
But a good question to ask is whether HSR is a good subsitute for expanding I-5
Even the NEC comes up short in comparison to a lane on I-95. Between 5 pm and 5:59 pm there are only the Acela, Regional, and Keystone; and those may come up short. Once past Newark (NJ), the NEC has lots of underutilized capacity; but getting out of Manhattan is the issue where NJT moves a lot more people. If NJT needs capacity enough to justify a second set of tunnels, maybe there would be some residual capacity that would allow Amtrak to increase Acela and Regional frequencies and new routes to Norfolk, VA and Dover, DE. Then maybe hourly ridership may exceed lane capacity, nominally 2,200 auto drivers and passengers an hour. Offhand, I'd say there is a better argument for more rail tunnels into Manhattan instead of more highway tunnels.
Even if Amtrak Hiawathas could run evey half-hour in the peaks, that might amount to half a lane on I-94. The key is that Hiawathas could operate in conjunction with Metra whose Milwaukee North ridership represents roughly two lanes getting in and out of downtown Chicago. 110 mph Talgos aren't possible in the peak because of the lack of a sufficient service window with Metra, and the hundreds of millions for a third track just isn't going to happen for only three trains in each workday peak. Building a new high speed line just won't happen between Chicago and Milwaukee for the same reason as for New York - Washington, DC.
As it is Amtrak fares could exploit the cost of driving to downtown Chicago more than at present; but fares already exceed the driving costs getting to outlying parts of the City and suburbs which is the larger, if dispersed, part of the urban area market. Options for more direct routes to the suburbs may be over the CN, either continuing from Rondout to O'Hare on the former EJ&E, around the suburbs to Joliet, or by way of Waukesha. Using existing railways, even with improvements, would be less costly when taken together than additional lanes on I-94.
NJ's congestion of roads and railroads is not the same as other parts of the country...yet. It has been stated by urban and transportation planners that there is no more ground to be taken by highways nor can the air take on any further pollution. The whole of transportation has to be rethought, reworked, rerationalized in NJ. You cannot add highway lanes but you can't just say add trains or tracks and catenary either. But since NJ is not alone in this problem, virtually every spot on the Corridor from Portland, ME to Norfolk, VA and west to at least Schenectady, NY, Harrisburg, PA, and eastern sections of West Virginia and western parts of Maryland, are in the same fix or soon will be. It is time to seriously think through options and plan carefully with political opinions and lobby monies put aside. California has done this, Washington State and the Pacific Northwest in general, too. Chicago between Detroit, Cleveland, Louisville, St. Louis, Minniapolis/St. Paul and Milwaukee is very close to having to carefully think this through, too..
oltmanndBucyrusReducing debt advances our economy because debt places a drag on the economy that increases as the debt increases. While there might be economic benefit from the product of an infrastructure investment per se, that benefit might easily be more than offset by an economic detriment from adding its cost to an already high debt load. It would be Utopia if all we had to do to achieve prosperity were borrow money and spend it on things we need to make life more convenient. Government spending in and of itself is neither good nor evil. It depends totally on who is the most efficient goods or service provider.
I can’t disagree with that as far as it goes. But I do believe that, for a host of fundamental reasons, government is the least efficient producer of goods and services 99% of the time. Government spending and investment is always sapped by the inherent corruption of the individual players using the money to fulfill political motivations and expand their empires. That motivation is the true greed if you want to use a fashionable term.
About the only function that I can think of where government might be the most efficient provider is dealing with national emergencies, national defense, and things of that nature where an overarching organizational effect is beneficial.
Bucyrus I can’t disagree with that as far as it goes. But I do believe that, for a host of fundamental reasons, government is the least efficient producer of goods and services 99% of the time.
That would explain why every time the military subcontracts one of it's functions, like feeding the troops, guarding VIPs, or transporting material, out to a civilian contractor the cost quadruples.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe Vet Bucyrus I can’t disagree with that as far as it goes. But I do believe that, for a host of fundamental reasons, government is the least efficient producer of goods and services 99% of the time. That would explain why every time the military subcontracts one of it's functions, like feeding the troops, guarding VIPs, or transporting material, out to a civilian contractor the cost quadruples.
No, I think that what would explain why the cost quadruples every time the military subcontracts one of it's functions out to a civilian contractor, is the fact that the government is the prime contractor.
I disagree. When the military does it itself it is much cheaper than it is when they sub it out to a for profit company.
If you get the Republican stated plan to eliminate Medicare and replace it with a voucher system you can use to buy insurance, just watch the cost go through the roof. We have Medicare because the insurance companies don't want to insure old people. There is no profit in it. Old people go to the doctor and the hospital too often and take too many drugs.
Check around your area. Compare municipal water systems to private water systems. Compare municipal garbage collection to private garbage collection.
Phoebe Vet I disagree. When the military does it itself it is much cheaper than it is when they sub it out to a for profit company. If you get the Republican stated plan to eliminate Medicare and replace it with a voucher system you can use to buy insurance, just watch the cost go through the roof. We have Medicare because the insurance companies don't want to insure old people. There is no profit in it. Old people go to the doctor and the hospital too often and take too many drugs. Check around your area. Compare municipal water systems to private water systems. Compare municipal garbage collection to private garbage collection.
I cannot think of any way to personally compare the cost of a service provided by the private sector to one provided by the public sector. I have private trash service and public water/sewer. There are no public trash pickup or private water/sewer services available. Noteworthy, however, is the fact that the public water/sewer abruptly raised the rate 100% in 2008 with no commensurate improvement in service. The city hired a consultant and paid him for over a year to study the rates and come up with the idea for a 100% rate increase. If a private sector provider did that, they would be put out of business by a consumer backlash, but we consumers have to choice to get our water/sewer elsewhere.
I don’t doubt you when you say that private contractors charge more to the military than the cost of the military doing the work themselves. But I would not necessarily conclude that that proves that the government is more efficient at delivering goods and services than the private sector. If the government were more efficient at providing goods and services, they would demonstrate it by doing so. The fact that they hire sub-contractors and pay them far more than the military cost for doing the same work might just as well be regarded as evidence of the relative inefficiency of government compared to the private business.
Moreover, if the government were the most efficient provider, why not just empower them to do everything? What’s stopping us?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.