Privatization Helps Keep Leaky Ships Afloat : L.A. County: A simple economic Band-Aid is being labeled either a tool to impoverish minority workers or an overtaxed society’s white knight. Neither is correct.

Two opposing views are loudly trumpeted these days on the subject of government agencies contracting with businesses for the delivery of public services, popularly called “privatization.”

One camp sees it as some sort of free-market white knight riding to the rescue of an overtaxed and economically overextended society sorely in need of new ways to finance public services at affordable--if not bargain-basement--prices.

The other side believes that privatization is a fiendish plot engendered by “right-wing obsession”--and, as such it is merely a tool to thump on women and minorities and impoverish displaced government employees.

Both views are wildly off the mark, especially where local government is concerned (contracting out is one of its long-time tools).

There are a number of fundamental laws of politics and government. One of the most basic--going back as far as the beginning of recorded history--is that for reasons ideological or otherwise, politicians (as opposed to rulers) never voluntarily reduce services to their constituents, whether those constituents speak at the ballot box or with stones in hand.

Another is that you get what you pay for (this often works well in economics, too). A third is that negotiable currency is needed to pay for what you buy. In the case of government, as in other facets of daily life, that means goods and services--people and the things they produce.

Trendy political, economic and social theories aside, nothing much has fundamentally changed for decades regarding which public services government in America should--and will--deliver, with the notable exceptions of health care and legal aid for the poor. From national to local levels defense, public safety, education, economic development and the like have comprised the accepted agenda.

To be unaware these days that a buck just doesn’t buy what it used to--government services included--you would have to be Rip van Winkle. Or that the sheer number of public service programs (as opposed to the service categories themselves) has grown enormously in recent years.

Which leaves local governments--those closest to the people--in a special quandary: How do they pay for what by law they must provide?

Some, such as the city of Los Angeles, have turned temporary fees into permanent taxes (which mostly hurts those least able to pay).

Others, such as Los Angeles County, can’t rely on taxes. The county, the second biggest provider of municipal services in the United States after New York City, has virtually no taxing authority. And without special approval from Sacramento, it can’t even ask the voters to OK changes in the local tax structure.

The county has to try to keep a leaky financial ship afloat in large part by financing services through savings. Those savings can be made by improving efficiency or--where appropriate and feasible--by contracting with private companies for the delivery of public services at a lower cost than by in-house staff, and by the contractual expectation that the services will be delivered properly.

Although Los Angeles County is reportedly having problems with its vehicle-maintenance contractor, local governments in the county have had especially good experiences with privatization of services common to both the public and private sectors, such as garbage collection, roadway repairs, tree trimming and clerical help.

Conversely, there are certain functions that do not immediately seem to lend themselves to privatization, such as law enforcement, industrial regulation, basic administration and the like, although in some of these areas, a degree of privatization has been the historic norm (a small city hiring a private attorney as city counsel, for example).

Thus, privatization is not some right-wing scheme to subjugate women and minorities or to impoverish working people. Nor is it any kind of free-market panacea for overburdened government jurisdictions. It’s just a necessary socioeconomic Band-Aid to help keep things together for all of us, minority and majority alike. As such, at least locally, privatization works when given the opportunity.