What does the phrase "Close enough for Government work" mean to you?

[alanquatermass]

According to the Urban Dictionary, it is --

"-- used to describe the quality of work difference of that of private enterprise and the government." Example, BILL: I think we should start over, we did a poor job and someone may get hurt. WALTER: Don't worry, its close enough for government work.

Like it or not, this phrase carries with it the frissure of recognition. We all know what it means and (most of us, anyway) pretty much agree with that meaning. We all know what generally happens when something from the private sector gets taken over by the State or Federal Government: It ends up being run less efficiently.

So with that in mind...

Should America be turning over MORE or LESS of its private enterprise to the State and Federal Government?

[liberal N proud]

1. Less efficiently?

What about all those government programs that were given to some cronies in the private sector, like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac?

They sure were efficient.

I am not for privatizing anything the government runs now. Every time something gets privatized, some friend of the right Senator gets rich while milking the life out of the very service they were given from the government.

[alanquatermass]

3. That's a straw man argument...

-- because I never said the Private Sector was ALWAYS run efficiently. Of course it isn't. Businesses go under all the time. And I also wasn't calling for privatizing anything that the Government runs now, either (although that's an excellent topic for another thread)...

I merely said that when Private Sector jobs get taken over by the State or Federal Goverment, you can pretty much depend on them being done worse than before.

And no, the Armed Forces and Police Forces and Sanitation Departments don't count, because those were NEVER Private Sector jobs.

[pokercat999]

43. But they ARE becoming private sector jobs. Also it is well

know in government contracting if you want your buddy (or the guy that bribed you) to get the contract all you have to do is put in a specification that only his company can fulfill due to patent rights or existing product features that maybe be useless but to expensive to add to the competition's product for them to win the bid. Government workers are like any others with both good and bad, those looking out for the company and those only interested in enriching themselves at any expense.

[FBaggins]

9. When were Fannie & Freddie ever part of te government?

I mean... Apart from now of course.

[creon]

2. projection

It tells me that they are satisfied with the poor quality of their own work.

[alanquatermass]

4. WHO is satisfied with the "poor quality of their own work," Creon -- Goverment employees?

And if that's the case, why is it they are more willing to accept unsatisfactory work?

[creon]

16. said it wrong

I said it wrong.

People who say that are describing their own work and that they are satisfied with the poor quality of their work.

They are not decribing the work of govt employees.

[alanquatermass]

22. You're right, creon! But according to the people using and understanding that expression...

-- which is MANY people in North America -- the phrase "Government work" is a SYNONYM for poor quality work.

Mediocre work.

So where did Government employees earn this reputation for doing mediocre work?

Out of thin air? Just... arbitrarily?

Or is this reputation perhaps not to some extent DESERVED?

[creon]

29. hard to say

Like so many things said, a lot of it is just copy cat. Saying it because they have heard it.

personally, I do not think much of that comment. I found mediocre work to be common place in the private sector. At least as common as the govt sector

[alanquatermass]

30. You are not alone!

Kennah just said the same thing! (see below)

In fact, I may be one of the few DU'ers who agrees that 10 of the scariest words in the language are, "I'm from the Federal Government and I'm here to help."

But again, that's just me. My parents' best friends were Blacklisted during the 1950s -- the Gov't swept in, and stripped away their livelihoods -- so I have always been a little leery of Authority.

[DrDan]

5. "pull out in 2011" . . . . 2014 will be close enough for Gov't work.

[alanquatermass]

7. That's right, Doc!

You can bet they're gonna get the pull-out wrong, too.

[iamtechus]

6. I've always wondered about this myself

Because it implies that government work requires lower standards. Never true. Having done contract work for the gov, I can say that "government work" always requires higher standards.

This is certainly true of construction work, electronics manufacturing and maintenance as well as documentation of same.

[alanquatermass]

10. Really, iam? So what accounts for this cliche, then?

Seriously. Not only is "Close enough for Government work" a familiar quotation, but everyone who hears it seems to know what it means.

And if the Government always requires higher standards, then why can't it even run a railroad properly? Here's what I mean:

Amtrak is a Government run railroad and bleeds losses every year for the U.S. taxpayer. In 1970 when Amtrak was founded, $300 million was approved by Congress to run it. The government predicted profitability within 5 years. That was 39 years and over $30 billion dollars in losses ago.

[iamtechus]

13. "then why can't it even run a railroad properly?"

First of all, the government doesn't run the railroad. It is managed by a private company.

Secondly, the funding the government provided was to insure that, since it provides a vital service, it didn't just go out of business.

Republicans are fond of saying that the government should be run like a corporation -- for a profit. Where you are wrong is that the government was not intended to turn a profit like a corporation. To better understand why our government was created, read the preamble to the constitution.

[alanquatermass]

17. No question that the Gov't shouldn't be run For Profit...

-- I agree with you fully -- and I friggin' LOVE the preamble to the Constitution (both the song from Saturday morning, and the actual text, LOL) -- no kidding -- but the fact remains that while the Gov't shouldn't be run for profit, it tends to be VERY inefficient and when you compare its day-to-day machinations to the private sector, well...

THE SERVICE ISN'T AS GOOD.

Not nearly as good.

So when you eliminate the profit motive (and this is just human nature), WASTE FOLLOWS. Always.

But forget profits for a moment -- if Gov't services are so godawful rotten compared to the private sector (and they ARE! Ever been to a DMV lately? No? I envy you), then why privatize?

Because again, when Gov't gets involved, waste follows.

Show me one exception.

[creon]

19. ya think?

[alanquatermass]

21. Ha! I'm POSITIVE! When the Gov't gets involved --

-- waste follows.

[Brickbat]

8. Yes, yes... we should DEFINITELY run our government based on definitions of aphorisms found on

sites full of user-generated content. BRILLIANT.

[alanquatermass]

11. Straw Man arguments again...

Who said anything about "running our government based on aphorisms"?

I was merely pointing to a familiar expression BECAUSE it is so familiar, and BECAUSE it seems to resonate with people. A lot of people. MOST people, in fact.

All of which begs the question of, WHY does it resonate with most people? For which there is only one answer...

Because it has the ring of Truth.

Ergo: The perception of most people is that Government work (on balance) is performed less efficiently than work performed "for profit."

Is everyone wrong in this perception?

[ironrooster]

18. I once worked for a county hospital, as an employee, the care

I received was far superior and less costly to that which I have received from the private sector healthcare since. One of the reasons that entities like
the state DMV offices sometimes fall short of expectations is that they are short money - yeah you heard right - many other departments including the US Patent Office are understaffed and overworked. Do you know why? Because we have no leadership with guts to say that these government resources are essential and should be well funded. It is mere assumption on your part to conclude that the Government does substandard work. Back it up with something
instead of a aphorism. Good try though ;-)

[alanquatermass]

23. Fine, but what ACCOUNTS for that aphorism, iron?

Seriously, why does everyone and their mother seem to UNDERSTAND what that expression means and nod their heads in knowing appreciation? How the hell do we explain this?

And if, as you say, "One of the reasons that entities like the state DMV offices sometimes fall short of expectations is that they are short money" how do we account for the poor showings of the U.S. Post Office, AmTrak and VA hospitals?

On the other hand, if the care you received at the County Hospital (were you a patient there, or were you referring to employee benefits?) was truly "far superior" to private sector healthcare, I am very happy for you and my mind is open to change on the matter. No kidding.

[veganlush]

12. first of all, we are the government.

secondly, what private enterprise do you see currently being considered for state and/or federal government control?

[bemildred]

14. It comes from the "Defense" bidness, and it means the product does not matter.

It can be shoddy, it can not work at all. The shelves of warehouses somewhere are filled with tapes full of software for which billions were paid and which does not work at all. There are endemic problems with defense contractors providing shoddy products for the troops to use with little or no accountability. That is what the phrase refers to. The government can produce better work than the private sector, and it has done so many times, but it is also subject to cronyism and corruption, and that has happened many times.

[northernlights]

15. I don't think there is one blanket yes/no answer to that

There are types of work that are best done collectively for general public welfare. There are other types of work that are best done privately.

For example, I am currently training in a health care field (medical laboratory technology). After having worked in the private sector for 35+ years, I feel pretty confident that health care and medicine is *best* done collectively, as a public health initiative. In fact, I will extend that to say that government is best for base science research. Private business will very efficiently garner the best erection-maintenance drug out there, along with whiz-bang treatments for wrinkles, the best face lifts, not to mention the biggest breast augmentations money can buy. That does not serve public health in any way, shape or form.

It takes government to do the base science research from which *all* practical applications grow. It took government to eradicate smallpox. It takes government to take on the diseases that impact *all* our lives, and not just pet projects to sell to the pampered elite for a tidy profit this quarter.

And in terms of private enterprise, it needs to be effectively regulated. No one corporation, or even group of corporations, should have control of our food supply, any more than one government entity should have that. We all live in serious danger now as a result of bought and paid for government officials and the greedy corporations that purchased them. Today they feed masses with hormone and pesticide filled "food-like products" that long term are known to cause debilitating diseases (but which information was hidden by statistical games used to perform end runs through the approval process). Tomorrow, we could face mass starvation -- beyond the billion or so starving to death for the misfortune of having been born in Africa -- serious, knock us back by 90% or so starvation, as we destroy plant's and animal's natural defenses, create superbugs that wipe out everything, and kill off the pollinators a species at a time.

[alanquatermass]

20. First of all, it is great that you're working in the Health Care field...

-- which of course is crucially important and God bless you -- and while I agree with much (perhaps most) of what you just said, I am not sure I agree with everything.

I believe Government oversight of private industry is essential, and I'd hate to live in a country with no FAA, no SEC, no FDA, etc. I love knowing that people with the power to, you know, INDICT SOMEONE, are always there looking over private industry's shoulder.

On the other hand -- Northern, is your observation that "it takes government to do the base science research from which ALL practical applications grow" really true?

I am thinking now of an article from last year by (self-described libertarian) Megan McCardle in The Atlantic Monthly, which can be found here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/09/the-governments-role-in-r-d/24508/

In it she writes:

"Perhaps unlike my fellow libertarians, I do not view the government as worse than the private sector at all things. For example, I view it as better than the private sector at producing streetlamps and policemen and armies and the FDIC and unemployment insurance. I view it as worse than the private sector at producing many other things, like consumption goods and services.

I view NIH (National Institute of Health) research as invaluable--as with welfare, I see no particular reason to believe that the market will 'clear' at a socially optimal amount of scientific research, and my natural bias is towards more scientific research."


In other words, Northern, McCardle is saying that there is definitely a place for Government research. However, she continues by saying:


"But companies do a different thing that is also valuable: In every system that we know of, the government's ability to step in and do the part of research and development where you develop a robust supply of products that has a fairly fine-tuned tradeoff between the strength of demand for the product, the number of people who demand it, and the likelihood of producing a working drug -- is inferior.

The private sector is orchestrated towards this result by a complex interplay of prices and exit rights that government just doesn't have. Government doesn't worry about going out of business. Academic researchers are not oriented towards applied research on a P&L (Profit & Loss)

Now, you can say that profits aren't the best guide to socially optimal production. But...profits really do produce better results than fiat consistently and reliably.

There is no country in which government has outperformed the market at the production of basic needs (distribution is a different question that we can fight about later). The only industry that's even vaguely hopeful is defense, and I hope I don't need to persuade progressives that if our pharmaceutical industry starts looking like our defense industry, we're screwed.

Just as private charity does save some people, the government does produce some drugs. But this is not the rule.

Maybe you think this can change. Great! Build the institutions to do it--I'm totally serious about supporting Dean Baker's plan to try to make a government agency to develop drugs. If they can develop more drugs more cost effectively than private pharma, that's a worthy use of tax dollars. But here's the thing: you have to do it before you dismantle the old system. Not after.

I do think there are big holes in innovation left by the patent system that the government should spend more time covering, particularly clinical trials of off-label uses for generics, orphan drugs, and drugs for the third world. I think it's worth experimenting with direct funding and prizes to see if either can close the gap. But until I've got better proof of concept, I'm loathe to tamper with the old system."

Northern: Of course I cherry-picked certain passages to suit my purpose (I am human, after all) and edited certain other parts for posting here -- but you owe it to yourself to read the whole thing. Here's that link again:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/09/the-governments-role-in-r-d/24508/

[northernlights]

24. I stand by what I wrote

base research is the foundation of all practical applications. This is more true today than ever. Everything builds on that foundation, and you won't find private industries doing it any more because there is no immediate profit involved. It may be decades before fundamental, underlying science is translated into products.

ATT's baby Lucent Technologies used to do some basic research...until Carly went there and killed it. Same is true throughout. The days of corporations investing in anything that's not profitable within a few quarters are long gone.

It took more than a decade just to decode the human genome, never mind start finding practical applications for the knowledge. And treatments based on genetic research are slow in coming. No private corporation was going to invest that kind of money into the kind of research that might prove totally fruitless. Although they're more than willing to use it (for free) to develop products -- and to attempt to patent *our* individual genomes!

BTW, I'm not yet working in the medical field. I'm a return student in my penultimate semester. Next semester -- assuming I survive this one -- is 20 weeks of clinical training. That's also assuming the university is able to find clinical spots for us. But that's a subject for a different topic (although definitely economy-based).

[Kennah]

25. Offering an opposite interpretation of the phrase

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/close_enough_for_government_work

Etymology

Originated in World War II. When something was "good enough for Government work" it meant it could pass the most rigorous of standards. Over the years it took on an ironic meaning that is now the primary sense, referring to poorly executed work.

[alanquatermass]

26. Gotcha! But two quick points, Kennah --

1) As you stated, the phrase now means -- and is understood to mean -- something completely different from its WWII-era definition, and --

2) That phrase isn't the one I posted at the top, which of course was "CLOSE enough for Government work" which I would venture probably NEVER meant "could pass the most rigorous of standards."

[Kennah]

27. After 20 years as an IT geek ...

... I've worked public sector, private sector, higher education, FTE and contract.

If my experience with corporations is representative of corporations across the nation, I think I can honestly say the phrases "Close enough to prevent a lawsuit", or "Close enough to ensure WE don't lose money", or "Close enough to screw the consumer" would be appropriate for a lot of corporations.

Attention to detail, efforts to improve the process, and yes even fiscally responsible behavior are traits I've encountered more frequently in government work.

[alanquatermass]

28. Well, I admit I haven't got the breadth of experience that you have...

-- nor have I ever been employed in the public sector -- but you will forgive me for being just a wee bit surprised by your observation that: "Attention to detail, efforts to improve the process, and yes even fiscally responsible behavior are traits I've encountered more frequently in government work."

I don't doubt your experiences OR your convictions, but you'll admit that for many people (like me), they ARE a bit counter-intuitive.

I just found a WONDERFUL ARTICLE (via Google) called "5OO DOLLAR HAMMERS AND THE REVERSE ECONOMIES OF BUREAUCRATIC SCALES" by Thomas Del Beccaro that perfectly sums up what I've been talking about.

The whole article is right here: http://biggovernment.com/tdelbeccaro/2009/11/17/health-care-reform-500-hammers-and-the-reverse-economies-of-bureaucratic-scales but here are a few excerpts:

"At the center of the health care debate is the simple – but profound – question of whether government can deliver services better than private enterprise sensibly regulated, and when it comes to such matters, it was never so well explained as by the legendary Milton Friedman.

(NOTE: YOU ARE GOING TO LOVE THIS, KENNAH!)

Friedman: There are 4 ways in which you can spend money: 1) You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, you really watch what you’re doing and you try to get the most for your money. 2) You can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, when I buy a birthday present for someone, I’m very careful about the cost. 3) you can spend somebody else’s money on yourself. If I spend somebody else’s money on myself, I’m sure going to have a good lunch!

And finally, 4) you can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else.

If I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s Government.

(KENNAH: PERFECT, NO?)

If you extrapolate that logic, you come to understand why the US Defense Department paid $500 for hammers during the 1990’s – an occurrence which infuriated the rest of us because of the sheer waste. The reason for such waste was rather simple: A government bureaucrat was not spending his own money on himself – but other’s money on goods and services for others."

ISN'T THAT BEAUTIFUL?

Kennah: I am curious to know what you think of Friedman's reasoning. Of course it's very disturbing (like so much of Human Nature is) but doesn't it carry with it the ring of Truth?

[Kennah]

39. Milton Friedman? Really?

If Friedman were right, then 30 years of Reaganism would be producing the most stupendous economic outcomes imaginable.

[jtuck004]

31. Ironic, this question, on an Internet that we have because of taxpayer investment. n/t

[alanquatermass]

32. And don't forget the Gov't-sponsored Manhattan Project...

-- which helped bring about an end to WWII (and possibly saved my Father's LIFE)

And let's not forget all the great work produced by NASA over the years (the Mercury and Apollo Missions; the space shuttle; the Hubble, the list goes on)

All Government agencies...

All Wonderful.

And all of them taxpayer funded.

But that isn't the issue on the table here. The issue on the table is: Are most services performed better, or worse, when they are Federalized?

[jtuck004]

33. I think "most services" is too broad. When it comes to provisioning for

large projects that benefit an entire society I think the profit motive sometimes works as a detriment.

We have a lot of plumbers that replace water heaters, and I don't think a government plumber would be a great idea, across the board.

But for something the size of medical care, medicare seems to do a much better job at a lower cost than any private offering. It is hobbled by having to take on the sickest, and the aged, rather than being spread across the healthy population. If we got rid of the insurance cos, we would have to find jobs for a lot of secretaries, but it would certainly free up hundreds of billions of dollars for health care, instead of health insurance, with a far lower overhead than any private company offers.

[alanquatermass]

34. I fully agree with you about "large projects that benefit--"

"--an entire society" especially when you are talking about CONTAINED projects that employ a (relatively) limited number of people and have one specific, limited goal (building the A-Bomb in 3 years, reaching the moon in 10, etc.)...

I am however, far less certain about Government run health care. I keep going back and forth about it.

[jtuck004]

35. What I think - and this is imho, of course - is that when it involves

things for which there is no profi (well, shouldn't be, anyway), such as regulation, or where profit should not be the underlying goal, such as health care, we are all better served by government service.

Doing taxes, I hear a lot of people's dissatisfaction with the government, including "good enough for government work". This past week relatives from Oklahoma (from whence I moved in 2004) whom we had not seen in 7 years or so, mentioned (with the requisite sneer), the "socialist" health care model in Canada and how all the Canadians are coming here for health care. Somehow, as I tried to point out that there may well be more American going to Mexico, India, elsewhere because they can get the same care cheaper (which translates to actually getting the care) the conversation moved to Medicare and, since they are retiring, they are afraid the "the government" is going to screw that up and deny them their benefit.

No, seriously.

They really don't see the contradiction - I asked.

As far as the phrase "good enough for government work", I saw a cartoon on "Non-Sequitur" today, http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/. It shows a couple of caveman watching a younger one beating a message out on a log, while one of them complains that in "his" day "we'd just walk over and talk to each other". I was captioned "Along with technology came the ascension of "Curmudgeon Man".

Maybe that has a bit to do with it. Some people just want to gripe. "The government" becomes an abstraction, something they can gripe about without fear of being found wrong, since there is nothing specific about their complaint. But when it comes to specifics, especially something THEY are supposed to get, then it's more or less ok. Not enough, mind you, for all those taxes they paid, but something. (They forget the roads, the police, the fire protection, etc.).

[alanquatermass]

36. Yeah, I've said this before: I wouldn't want to live in my city (LA)...

-- for even 17 minutes without a fully functioning police force. Those folks really are the Thin Blue Line and without them (believe me) things would start to get very ugly, very fast. Ditto for Fire Department personnel, paramedics, etc.

But I definitely need to read more about health care.

I understand why the Canadian model's so attractive. I do. It is health care for everyone. On the other hand, for certain specific (non life-threatening) conditions, you are going to be waiting a long time to see a doctor. Sometimes a YEAR. And many Canadians -- let's face it -- do decide to come Stateside for certain kinds of procedures.

On the other hand, I do see the contradiction alluded to in your post, how Americans have got socialized medicine already -- in the form of Medicare -- and we are perfectly happy with THAT.

On the OTHER hand...

Jesus, a guy could get whiplash doing this... and then I'll have to go out and see our healthcare system first-hand, and my coverage SUCKS.

Anyway, I do have to educate myself more, and your posts were certainly helpful.

Talk soon!

Alan

[jtuck004]

38. Whiplash - hehehe. Actually Canada did a study, because the

free market folks see profit they are losing from that system, and are trying to yank it back from where it is at
into private hands, so they are making the claim that services are slow, that there are hordes of Canadians running
across the border, yada, yada, yada.

So they did a study. They surveyed patients, but also American clinics. They found that the numbers of Canadians coming across for care were actually quite small, and included a number who were traveling anyway but happened to need care while they were here, or worked here and naturally went to the doctors and hospitals here.

The evidence simply didn't support the claims of any real significant number. The Canadians who live around here (many more than I used to know in Oklahoma) tell me the situtation is pretty much like that today.

That was then compared with a study of Americans who go abroad for operations they cannot afford here. The numbers were almost 5x as large, well over a million people a year. Mexico has even looked at the problem, because there is some concern that if enough Americans figure out they can go across the border for free health care their system will be swamped. People actually move there for those services. The accomodations are not as nice, and relatives may need to hang around to do things that non-existent aides might do here (or used to, in the olden days). But overall people seem to be quite pleased with the level of care.

I ran into this information when I was researching our Health Insurance Reform. Found it interesting.

Hope it helps.

[Warpy]

37. It's actually a stupid phrase

but it has more to do with private contractors doing government work. Since it's for the government, they are likelier to cut corners and do generally slipshod work, since they were generally (at least in the past) the low bidder.

It's a silly comment because these days all the work is contracted out, often to cronies with no bid contracts. Of course, since they're doing it thanks to cronies, their work is still cut rate and slipshod because no one will call them on it.

It's a slam toward private contractors instead of the government and your example was in error.

You have completely misunderstood the phrase.

(If you've actually done work for the government, especially to military specs, you know "close enough" means measuring everything with a micrometer, even nuts, bolts, and loo seats)

[Jim__]

40. The government never could have managed to land and return from the moon.

Yeah, let's just believe and repeat all the reaganite horseshit.

[alanquatermass]

41. Never...? They DID it! (Just as JFK promised!)

Sorry, Jim, but I'm a bit confused here.

[eridani]

42. That's exactly the opposite of what it meant in the '30s

It used to be a tribute to high standards of workmanship.