Does government save money when it hires independent contractors instead of more civil servants or soldiers?

Answer 1

Sometimes but not always, take a look at outsourced tollroads, yes the government saved money by not spending $$$ on these roads but the citizens (taxpayers) who use them still do. And for the citizens it would have been much cheaper to utilize tax dollars to pay for the roads 1 time then to have to pay each time they drive on the road.

Also look at the Blackwater and other contract work in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are providing a service which would be much much cheaper if performed by the millitary, not to mention the service would be performed by better trained, more respected soldiers.

But there are times when the government saves tons and tons of money by outsourcing. Is it worth the savings though?

Answer 2

Yes it saves a ton of money. There are no long term pensions and medical expenses or beneifts to pay. No housing or training to consider. No infrastructure to build. No long tem commits what so ever. Just the cost of the contract at the time. That is why we have moved away from civil service positions and tripled our government contractor over the past 10 years.

Answer 3

Not if you're talking about Blackwater, Enron, the Savings and Loan disaster, and the Katrina mess.

Deregulation caused Enron and the Savings and Loans crisis. Blackwater gets paid 6 times what the military gets paid for doing the same job. And Katrina is an example of what happens when you leave private contracters without oversight.

Corporations are not in the business of getting the job done for the least amont of money. They're in the business of making the most profit for the least amount of work (keep labor costs down).

If you let them abuse you, history has shown, they will.

Answer 4

Yes.

If you really look at what blackwater does most often is to provide security to individuals, not the US. They are glorified valets and body guards. They may also be called on to do things across borders that are not appropriate for the US military under flag.
Besides, I don't want my tax dollars going toward training uniformed, permanent body guards. Just buy it contractually when it's needed.
The service allows the military to concentrate on combat and not have to worry about a secure environment for companies to work in.
We need the companies there to help rebuild the infrastructure and the economy. The quicker that's done the sooner we can get out and that savings is incalculable.

Answer 5

They are called Public Servants in India and not Government servants, as they are supposed to serve the public. Everybody working in a Govt Dept is a Public servant, whether he likes it or not.

Answer 6

NO NO NO NO NO, maybe if we didnt pay contractors to do some silly stuff over seas. And then they turn around and pay forgieners instead of americans so its a lose lose situation.

Answer 7

Absolutely, it is the use of private actors, and it gives it the chance to maintain what we call "plausible deniability". The previous century equivalants to this would be the British Empire's use of the British East India Trading company to help pave the way for the country's international iterests.

Answer 8

Yes, because independent contractors are not full-time government employees. They are hired for the duration of the job and usually come with their own equipment.

Answer 9

Not a chance. Look at the mess by Halliburton and KBR.

It is nothing but pay offs from Cheney to his former employer.

Answer 10

probably. i say that because the more money you spend, the better something is. the U.S hired Blackwater USA(independent contractor). now they are getting investigated for shooting at civilians. so we must have chosen the cheap option.