Redo privatization

[aspirant]

Here's a job program that doesn't need an approval from Congress. When all these overpriced federal contracts come up for renewal in each dept. cancel them and start hiring American people at decent middle class wages.

For example,I remember reading that Edward Snowden (a hero) was making $200,000/year as a privatized NSA employee. We could turn his job into FOUR #50,000/yr jobs with federal benefits which people can raise a middle class family. Don't forget about the pay of the executives and board of directors that skim millions off the top. The spy agencies and Defense dept.would be good places to start and maybe taking a new perspective on the banking industry.

These would be good American jobs that won't fly over to Vietnam.

After decades of corporate media propaganda labeling government as the inept Keystone Cops that must privatize everything to function, it is time to reverse this nonsense. The banking industry sent us into a depression and we're on the verge of another. The privatized aerospace industry is crashing rockets into the desert after NASA retired shuttles that took us into space.

I remember growing up and realizing that if I took a govt. job I would probably never get rich, but I could be secure and safe from poverty.

If we privatize anything, start giving priority and funding to workers co-ops

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. The US Goverment uses the "General Schedule Classification and Pay" (currenlty 1.5 million workers)

General Schedule Classification and Pay

So how much a government employ earns depends the GS Level and those pay scales and the numbers of employees are set by Congress. In order to transfer those jobs to GS employees the Congress would have to be involved.

There are things the President can not do.

[aspirant]

3. Once the contract is canceled or up for bid

Could each dept. start awarding union contracts to fill these needs which could result in a bonanza of different trade unions emerging to fill the gaps

What about awarding contracts to workers co-ops on a priority basis?

Does Obama have a direct or indirect influence on how and to whom govt contracts are awarded?

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. The President has some leeway in the bidding process.

If it is a new contract for a new program or facility, it must get funded by the Congress. Only Congress can fund a program. That is why many in Congress require new programs or expanded programs to happen in their state in "pork barrel spending."

[aspirant]

5. Redirection

Do you think there are a lot of bloated contracts out there (federal,state,local) that could be redirected to unions and co-ops instead of private industry with outrageous executive compensations?

[sabrina 1]

12. Democracy can do it if they are determined enough. The problem is enough of them are funded by

these Private Corporations that with the current makeup of Congress and the WH too is funded by them, nothing will happen that will hurt them.

Take Clapper eg, he was a CEO for Booz Allen, an old Bush loyalist. We elected a Democrat to clean up after Bush. Clapper has the power to ask to for funds for Private Corporations. Does anyone think he is going to do anything other than keep telling Congress how much money these Private Security Corps need? They have received BILLIONS with most of it going into private hands.

Why is he there? Can anyone answer that question? The conflict of interest is so glaring it's hard to believe anyone could have missed it. When he leaves this position he will be rewarded for the work he did for Booz Allen and other Private 'security' Contractors. And with all the billions they have received, they could not stop the Boston Bomber with all the spying and 'data collecting' they are doing, and all information they ALREADY HAD on those two.

First, if a Dem wins, we need to know who s/he will have in their cabinet. This president's cabinet does't look much different from Bush's. Gates, Clapper, Hagel et al, all Republicans in Defense. Are there no Democrats around who are qualified or do we continue to put these foxes in charge of the henhouses to make sure our tax dollars keep going to Private Corporations?

The president has a lot of power over his own party btw.

[Scuba]

13. +1

[Cosmic Kitten]

2. Public works over private enterprize?

That is a VERY Populist initiative.

Now if you can get the republicans to agree
we are gonna have a real chance to succeed.

Wanna start with lobbying the T-party?
They would be most likely to go along...
mushy brains and dirt poor, they might
support public works projects!

But seriously, it's a good approach to raising
the floor and improving the lives of the general public.
How we get there and who are the allies is the big question.

[djean111]

6. Look what the TPP will do to government procurement contracts - buy/hire American - gone....

https://www.citizen.org/documents/TPP-Buy-American.pdf

TPP Government Procurement Negotiations:
Buy American Policy Banned, a Net Loss for the U.S.

Negotiators from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) are currently engaged with
Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and
Vietnam in a closed-door process that has been branded as a “trade” negotiation on a possible TransPacific
Partnership (TPP) agreement. But the issues under discussion extend far beyond tariffs and
other traditional trade matters. Under the proposed framework, U.S. states and the federal government
would be obliged to bring our existing and future domestic policies into compliance with expansive
norms set forth in 29 proposed TPP chapters, including one imposing limits on government
procurement policy. Failure to conform our domestic policies to these terms would subject the U.S.
government to lawsuits before dispute resolution tribunals empowered to authorize trade sanctions
against the United States until our policies are changed. Also, any “investor” that happens to be
incorporated in one of these countries would be empowered to launch its own extra-judicial attack on
our domestic laws in World Bank and UN arbitral tribunals with respect to changes to procurement
contracts with the U.S. federal government.

The TPP’s procurement chapter would require that all firms operating in any signatory country be
provided equal access as domestic firms to U.S. government procurement contracts over a certain
dollar threshold. To implement this “national treatment” requirement, the United States would agree to
waive Buy American procurement policies for all firms operating in the TPP countries.

Some corporate TPP proponents argue that this is good for the United States because these rules would
apply to all signatory countries, so U.S. firms would be able to bid on procurement contracts in other
countries on a national treatment basis. It is a ridiculous notion that new access for some U.S.
companies to bid on contracts in the TPP countries is a good trade-off for waiving Buy American
preferences on U.S. procurement: Taking even the most favorable cut on other countries’ markets,
the total U.S. procurement market is significantly larger than the combined procurement market
of all other TPP negotiating parties: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico,
New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

Looks to me like the TPP would make a mockery of attempts to rebuild American infrastructure by hiring and buying American, not to mention putting those expring contracts out there for other countries. We would get sued in a private court staffed by corporate lawyers if we tried to buy/hire American.

And note - ALL of the contracts available from other signatories are a fucking pittance, next to USA contracts. So anyone who says this is a good thing for Americans is either lying or math-challenged or delusional.

[aspirant]

7. This is nuts

We all will be flipping burgers but nobody will have the money to buy them.

If I understand this, any foreign business who bids on a contract and doesn't receive it, even if their is a lower American bidder can sue for lost profits?

If there are 1,000 foreign companies bidding and don't get the contract, can all 1,000 sue for lost profits?

[djean111]

9. No, it means that American businesses would have to bid lower than foreign businesses that

may pay their workers a lot less than American workers can get by on. Lowest bidder wins and this is a deliberate race to the bottom. A foreign company can sue if a contract was only given to American businesses to bid on, or if an American company won a contract even though their bid was higher.

This means that Bernie Sanders' lovely idea to rebuild American infrastructure while giving Americans jobs would be a non-starter. The money paid to out of country companies would not even necessarily be spent in America - most of the H-1b visa folks I worked with sent most of their money back to the head of the family in India, and got an allowance, roomed three to five people in an apartment leased by their contracting firm, shared the home internet and a car. Brought their lunch to work, etc. Nothing wrong with being thrifty, but they did not exactly boost the local economy. It was hilarious when the giant telecom I worked for (I got a contract job there after I was RIFed (reduction in force)) complained that the number of friends and family referrals for new installations was way down. Heh, they replaced a lot of long time employees with folks whose friends and family lived overseas.

Anyway, the TPP says that over a certain dollar amount, government contracts have to be let out for bids to signatory countries. Who probably will bid lower due to lower wages and benefits.

[aspirant]

10. ?

So if a foreign company got a five year contract for building bridges and brought over 10,000 Vietnamese laborers, immigration would give all 10,000 H-1b visas for 5 years?

Could an American company do the same?

[djean111]

11. I do not how that would be worked out.

But the TPP says that signatory countries must be allowed to bid, so I am sure there is going to be a mechanism for that.
H-1b is not the only type of work permit - here is a page about this.
http://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/working-us
I do think Hillary was asking to increase the number of H-1B visas, right now 65,000 is the limit.

Also, looks like the new Congress may raise the 65,000 limit to 300,000 or more....

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2861584/new-congress-may-move-swiftly-to-raise-the-h-1b-cap.html

[aspirant]

8. Governments can hire.

I called the Democratic Committee on Appropriations on got further info on govt hiring. Talked with a gentleman that works on Defense Dept. appropriations which was very revealing.

He said that for a long time they have included in the appropriations the wordage "not to manage on end strength", deciphered not to manage on head count. That means they are free to hire within the allotted contracted monies. He only spoke for the Defense Dept., for other depts, their is a different specialist. Also informed me many contracts can be awarded on a lower level than Hagel.

He further stated that if it was more economical to redo privatization they would be encouraged to do it.I specifically asked about food service from Halliburton who served expired, rotten food to our service people and responded again with the above statements.