A current question is, "Why not privately fund the war in Iraq?" and more than one answer calls for:

Question

full privatization of all funding. Shouldn't this be a simple accounting question and not a social or political one? Both sides seem to think when the ink is dry they will be ahead.

If we were to add up the costs of all the corporate bail outs, subsidies, and give aways (savings and loan, mortgage, federal reserve), and all the pork (bridges to nowhere, military bases in MY state, etc) and government overpayments ("$640 toilet seats, $7,600 coffee makers, $436 hammers", etc), and label it government funds to individual "arrangement" or contract hands.

And on the other side add up all the government dollar costs of "social" programs, (welfare, social security, medicare, etc) the "set aside" programs (can't drill here, wild life there, EPA, etc), and all the "save the" programs (whales, snails, trees, etc) and label it "conditional" or program payments.

To be fair lets say since 1900, which total would be larger? What is it or why aren't we keeping track?

Answer 1

It's not a financial issue. It's historical, political, and social.

historically, as soon as a nation begins to farm out her military strength to private companies (ie, mercenaries), they have quickly fallen from power and been destroyed. It's a symptom of a much bigger issue, and is a catalyst to the destruction, as mercenaries are not as loyal as regular military.

politically, after the blackwater fiasco, no politician is going to invite that again by putting mercs in charge of the operation.

socially, it doesn't do anything. We still have troops in Iraq, the finer points won't matter, and now the government will have less ability to actually effect a pullout.