Re: Contracts

With the contracting brouhaha that surfaced in yesterday's Post-Gazette, the consenting opinion from the de facto leader of the opposition, and the rebuttal from the incumbent, I got to thinking. My sense is that there are those in the local political establishment that are suffering from some sort of cognitive dissonance, not quite understanding that, whether they mean it or not, when contributors to their campaigns receive lucrative contracts it reflects badly on them and implies that there has been some sort of a quid pro quo. Some of the people you've elected just don't get it.

Of course, in a disturbingly small city like this, it's sometimes very difficult to differentiate between one's friends, one's contributors, and other qualified professionals. So, when your circle of "experts" is limited by the people you are in contact with (and often contribute to your campaign), it seems only logical to you that they should be awarded government contracts and that you should be the one to help them.

Then again, there are the other times when there's plain outright corruption.

The immediate, shoot-front-the-hip response has been to stop non-competitive contracts, which is more of a pain in the ass for those in the Bureaucracy who have to administer the contracts than an actual remedy to the problem. The problem can't be solved with limiting campaign contributions either, however; contractors will just find something else of value to do for the elected representatives (name a building after them, fund a charity, lobby other similar contractors, etc.). You can shake up the box, I think, but there are always going to be some old school people trying to game the system.

So, I'm generally pessimistic about this whole thing.