Valuing the Vote – An Update!

October 7, 2013

A joint project of the League of Women Voters of Mississippi and the Mississippi Library Commission, Valuing the Vote was completed on September 15th, 2013! This effort was completed with funding from the from the Mississippi Humanities Council and supported with extensive volunteer support. Through this project educational kits were developed for the public. The goals of the project were to enhance the public’s knowledge of the history of voting rights–especially for women and minorities, to register new voters, and to increase voter participation through the project. Resources were chosen for inclusion based on input from scholars and community members. Interviews with voters provide a personal glimpse into people’s thinking and experiences of voting. The kits contain multiple copies of books, based on the theme, as well as other supportive materials, such as interviews with voters to provide a glimpse into people’s personal thoughts and experiences of voting.

The Voting—Our Precious Right kits are now available to any teacher or group in Mississippi. These kits can be used to help children, youth, and adults learn about the painful struggle for the right to vote.

  • The Voting—Our Precious Right: Focus on Women kit contains 10 copies of the book With Courage and Cloth by Ann Bausum, the film Iron-Jawed Angels, a CD of Voter Interviews, discussion questions and additional articles to explore. This resource could be used by students preparing to register to vote.
  • The Voting—Our Precious Right: Focus on African-Americans kit contains 10 copies of the book This Little Light of Mine: the Life of Fannie Lou Hamer by Kay Mills, the film Never Turn Back by Tracy Sugarman, 2 episodes of Eyes on the Prize from the PBS series, a CD of Voter Interviews, and additional articles for further study. This kit is designed for adults and college students.

The kits are housed at the Mississippi Library Commission. To reserve the kit, contact Tracy Carr at the Mississippi Library Commission by email: or by phone: 601-432-4450

Many thanks to the scholars and community members who served on our Project Committee:

  • Byron D. Orey , Ph.D., Jackson State University
  • Marvin King, Ph.D., University of Mississippi
  • Eric Clark, Ph.D., Mississippi Community College Board
  • Tracy Carr, M.A., Mississippi Library Commission
  • Martha Hudson, M.A., Mississippi College
  • Tom Kersen, Ph.D., Jackson State University
  • Noel Didla, M.A., Jackson State University
  • Fran Leber, LWVMS Board Member
  • Dierdre Payne, LWVMS Board Member
  • Natalie Maynor, Ph.D., Mississippi State University (retired)
  • Dick Johnson, M.A., Tougaloo College (retired)

Debate Watching 101

September 22, 2012

Candidate debates have a long history in American politics. At every level of government—from city council to state legislature, from Congress to President of the United States—candidates participate in debates to help voters understand who and what they stand for.

Watching debates is an important way for voters to learn more about the candidates and the issues before the election, so that they can cast an informed vote. At the same time, voters need to view debates with a careful eye to get the most information. Candidates rehearse thoroughly for debates, making it hard to get candid, spontaneous answers. Debates can emphasize form over substance, such as the candidates’ appearance instead of their stands on the issues. You may watch a debate and still not get answers to the questions you have about the candidates and issues.

You can get the most out of a debate by thinking about the issues and candidates in advance, by viewing the debate with care, and by continu-ing to research the issues and the candidates after the debate. Debate Watching 101 provides background information and tips to help you get the most out of watching a candidate debate.

What Is a Debate?

A debate is an event at which candidates who are running for an elected office meet face-to-face to answer questions that are asked of them. This gives the candidates a chance to state their views and to respond to their opponents’ statements. It gives viewers a chance to directly compare the candidates and their positions.

Debates usually take place in front of a live audience and may also be televised or broadcast on the radio or the Internet. A televised or broadcast debate allows many more people to watch and learn about the candidates and issues.

Debates can follow different formats, or a combination of formats. The most common formats are:

  • Single moderator: one moderator asks the questions;
  • Panel: a panel of journalists or experts questions the candidates;
  • Town hall: questions are submitted by members of the audience or randomly selected voters, in person or by phone or email. The Town Hall format allows for questions to be submitted in advance or during the debate.

The debate usually begins with an introduction of the candidates, who may also be given time to make opening statements. The heart of the debate takes place when the candidates are asked questions and they respond. There usually is a time limit for responses. The questioner may ask follow-up questions to get the candidates to explain or clarify their responses. Some debates give candidates an opportunity to “cross-examine” or ask questions directly of each other. At the end of the debate, the candidates are usually given time to make closing statements.

Before the Debate

Thinking about and preparing for the debate before it takes place will enable you to get the most from watching it. It will familiarize you with the candidates and issues. The preparation will help you focus on what to look for in the debate so that you will get the information you need in deciding who to vote for.
It will help if you take some time before the debate to:

  • Follow the campaign to learn about the candidates and their backgrounds;
  • Find out what the important campaign issues are;
  • Decide what issues are most important to you;
  • Think about the questions you may have and the information you want to get from the debate to help you in your decision making;
  • Open your mind to new opinions/impressions of the candidate regardless of party affiliation.

You may want to make plans to get together with friends or family to watch the debate. Watching the debate in a group and discussing it afterwards helps to clarify your thoughts about what was said in the debate and how the candidates performed.

A debate might not include all of the candidates for the office. Before the debate, note which candidates are included and which are not. If all candidates are not participating, try to find out why. Some debates include only candidates who have significant support, on the theory that the voters should be able to compare the candidates with a realistic chance of winning. Others invite all candidates who have qualified for the ballot. Sometimes candidates who are invited choose not to participate. Candidates with a strong lead might refuse to participate because they think there is no advantage to be gained by debating a lesser known opponent.

During the Debate

When watching the debate, ask yourself questions like these to help you judge the fairness of the debate and the performance of the candidates.

The debate format and questions:

  • Does the format give each candidate an equal opportunity to speak and respond to questions?
  • Are the questions clear, fair and equally tough on all candidates?
  • Do the questions cover the issues that are important to you?
  • Is the moderator in control of the debate? Does the moderator need to say less and let the candidates say more?

The candidates:

  • Do they answer questions directly, or do they evade them or fail to answer the specific question?
  • Do they give specifics about their stands on the issues, or do they speak in generalities? Do they support their positions and arguments with facts and figures?
  • Do they talk about their own policies and positions, or do they mostly attack their opponents?
  • Are their proposals realistic? Can they actually carry out the promises they are making?
  • Do they appear sincere, confident and relaxed?
  • Do they show how their backgrounds and experience qualify them to hold the office?
  • Are their answers consistent with their previous positions, and if not, do they explain why?
  • What image are they trying to create?
  • Do their responses appear overly rehearsed or “canned”?

Media coverage:

  • If you are watching the debate on television, are reaction shots or other techniques used to create a sense of drama or conflict?
  • Are you being influenced by comments made by reporters and commentators immediately before and after the debate?

After the Debate

It will help clarify your thoughts about the candidates and the issues if you take some time after the debate to reflect on what you have just seen and heard. You can do this by:

  • Comparing your impressions with others who watched the debate;
  • Asking yourself, based on the information you got from watching the debate, which candidate appears most qualified for the office;
  • Identifying the issues on which you agree with a candidate and those on which you disagree, and deciding whether that makes you more or less likely to vote for a particular candidate;
  • Asking yourself if you learned something new about the issues or the candidate;
  • Thinking about whether you have more questions about the issues or the candidates that you want to follow up;
  • Getting more information about the candidates’ positions from news reports, candidate Web sites and nonpartisan voter information Web sites such as
  • Watch later debates for more information or to confirm your current impressions of the candidates


Candidate debates give voters a chance to hear the candidates speak and respond to their opponents. They give candidates a chance to present their message directly to a wide audience. As a voter, asking yourself the right questions before, during and after the debate can help you make the most of this opportunity to learn about the candidates and the issues.

© League of Women Voters Education Fund 2008

Valuing the Vote

August 19, 2012

A joint project of the League of Women Voters of Mississippi and the Mississippi Library Commission, Valuing the Vote, received a mini-grant from the Mississippi Humanities Council on August 15th.  The project’s goals are to enhance the public’s knowledge of the history of voting rights, especially for women and minorities, to register new voters, and to increase voter participation through the project.

Using the funds from the mini-grant, our project team has begun developing voter education kits containing a wealth of resources to enable libraries in Mississippi to use for voter education programs in the community. These kits will contain books, films, and promotional materials about the history and importance of voting. In addition, interviews are being conducted to collect personal stories of Mississippians gaining the right to vote. Videos of these interviews will be posted online on YouTube, Facebook, and the LWVMS Website. Also, lists of recommended speakers for leading public programs will be provided. At this time, two kits are currently being developed, Voting—Our Precious Right: Focus on Women and Voting—Our Precious Right: Focus on African Americans; additional kits may be developed in the future.

Many thanks to the scholars and community members who have volunteered for this important project:

  • Byron D. Orey , Ph.D., Jackson State University
  • Marvin King, Ph.D., University of Mississippi
  • Eric Clark, Ph.D., Mississippi Community College Board
  • Tracy C. Seabold, M.A., Mississippi Library Commission
  • Martha Hudson, M.A., Mississippi College
  • Tom Kersen, Ph.D., Jackson State University
  • Noel Didla, M.A., Jackson State University
  • Fran Leber, LWVMS Board Member
  • Dierdre Payne, LWVMS Board Member
  • Natalie Maynor, Ph.D., Mississippi State University (retired)
  • Dick Johnson, M.A., Tougaloo College (retired)

To volunteer, contact co-presidents of LWVMS Gene Everitt and Kay Brodbeck at

Federal Privatization: The Ryan Plan

January 27, 2012

By Ann Henkener


Over the years, many services at the federal level have been partially privatized, including the military, tax collection, transportation and the postal service. In 2011, two areas were singled out in new proposals for privatization: Medicare and Social Security. Medicare and Social Security are large areas of expenditures by the federal government, topped only by defense spending. Both Medicare and Social Security are considered non-discretionary spending, i.e., the benefits provided by the programs determine their costs, rather than the legislature appropriating a fixed amount. Medicare has been partially privatized since its inception, with services being provided, for the most part, by private providers and payment processing being performed by private companies. Both have been the subject of proposals to privatize either portions or all of the programs.

One of many proposed federal plans for privatizing is the current federal budget plan proposed by the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives and sponsored by Rep. Paul Ryan. This plan includes a proposal to privatize Medicare. It would require future Medicare recipients to use a premium support provided by the federal government to buy a private insurance policy instead of receiving current benefits directly funded by the federal government. The proposal, introduced by Rep. Ryan on April 5, 2011 is called “The Path to Prosperity”1 (hereafter, Path) and is based on a plan Rep. Ryan released in April 2010, “A Roadmap to American’s Future”2 (hereafter, Roadmap). “The Path to Prosperity” includes the proposal to privatize Medicare.

“The Path to Prosperity” doesn’t contain a specific proposal to privatize Social Security. However, Rep. Ryan set out some specifics in “A Roadmap for America’s Future,” proposing to privatize a portion of Social Security by creating individual accounts for beneficiaries and permitting the beneficiaries to invest a part of the money.


Medicare currently provides a defined benefit program of health care services, financed by tax dollars. In essence, the federal government determines the benefits and self-insures the Medicare program. Recipients select the provider of services. If the recipient needs one of the benefits under the program, the federal government pays the provider of the services for the amount covered by Medicare and the recipient pays a deductible or a co-pay for some services.

The plan to privatize Medicare set out in “The Path to Prosperity” would apply only to individuals under age 55. Those 55 and older would continue to be eligible for, and receive, current benefits when they reach age 65. For those covered by the proposed plan at age 65 when the individual is eligible for Medicare, the plan would provide a health care benefit similar to the current Medicare prescription drug program. A covered individual would choose an insurance plan from a number of available options offered by private insurance companies. Medicare would pay a premium support payment to the insurance company chosen by the beneficiary, thus subsidizing its costs. The premium support payment would not necessarily cover the entire cost of the insurance. The amount would be based initially on total current Medicare spending and would be indexed to grow each year. However, it would not be indexed to the rate of growth of health care. Insurance would be available from governmentally regulated insurance “exchanges” and could be purchased from insurance providers in any state. Low-income individuals would be eligible for additional premium support. [Path at 44-47; Congressional Budget Office (hereafter, CBO) at 7-9.]

The CBO analyzed the impact of the Medicare proposal in “The Path to Prosperity” on spending for health care by Medicare beneficiaries. They found that currently, on average, Medicare Parts A, B and D paid for approximately 76 percent of the cost of services covered by Medicare, with the individual paying the balance in out-of-pocket expenditures such as premiums for Parts B and D and in co-pays and deductibles. Thus, the beneficiary would be paying approximately 24 percent of the cost of services. The CBO estimated that if the law were not changed, the beneficiary would be paying about 25 percent of the cost of services in 2030. However, under the plan proposed in “The Path to Prosperity”, the beneficiary would pay 68 percent of the cost of currently covered services and the premium support payment would pay 32 percent of the currently covered services. (CBO at 21)  In part, this would be because both administrative costs and profits would be higher in a private plan, and payment rates to providers are higher for private plans than for Medicare. They estimated that utilization would be less because private health insurers would probably impose greater utilization management than occurs in Medicare and increased cost sharing with beneficiaries would encourage lower utilization. In addition, premium support payments would increase with increases in the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U). Historically, increases in health insurance have outpaced increases in the CPI-U. (CBO at 23-24)

The privatization plan in “The Path to Prosperity” provides a way for the federal government to contain the costs of the Medicare program by allowing the federal government to set the amount it will pay for premium support and allowing the insurance providers to determine the benefits provided, subject to certain minimum requirements.

Social Security

Social Security is funded through a payroll tax, and current payroll taxes are used to fund current benefits. Benefits are determined by the federal government and include retirement and disability benefits, and benefits to survivors if a worker dies. Because it is a blend of a retirement plan and a social insurance program, benefits may not be entirely proportionate to contributions. Social Security accounts are not the property of the beneficiary.

“A Roadmap for America’s Future” contains a plan to privatize Social Security. That plan would give workers under age 55 an option of investing about a third of their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts. It would guarantee that the account would never be less than the amount placed into the account plus inflation. The account would belong to the individual and could be inherited. Individuals would invest a portion of their contributions in a limited number of funds managed by the federal government. That portion would increase over time to a maximum of 5.2 percent of the current 12.4 percent Social Security payroll tax. Retirement age would very gradually rise to age 70, instead of age 67. In addition, a one-time payment of $2 billion would be required to assure continued benefits to those over age 55 and others not participating in the privatization plan.

Privatization would shift the risk of an increase or decline in the value of investments to the beneficiary. It would not necessarily fund the social insurance programs providing for disability insurance and survivors insurance. It would require a large “transition cost” to pay benefits to beneficiaries under the current plan. Those benefits are now paid for by current wage earners. Under privatization, money contributed by a current wage earner would go directly into that wage earner’s individual plan. Privatization would also permit individuals to make decisions about their retirement funds and benefit from increased value in their investments. It could open up new funds for investment in the economy because additional money would be going into the stock market.

Ann Henkener (LWVOH) is a member of the LWVEF Study Committee on Privatization of Government Services, Assets and Functions.

Produced by the Privatization of Government Services, Assets and Functions Study, 2012
© League of Women Voters


1. Ryan, P. (2011, April 5) The Path to Prosperity, FY2012 Budget Resolution, House Committee on the
Budget, (Path) Available at:

2. Ryan, P. (2010, January) A Roadmap for America’s Future, Version 2.0, (Roadmap)
Congressional Budget Office (2011, April) Letter to Hon. Paul Ryan. (CBO) Available at:

Strategies And Considerations For Best Practice: Checklists

January 22, 2012

Pre-Privatization Checklist

Making The Decision To Privatize

  1. Why is there a need for alternative service delivery? What is the problem to be solved? What goals are to be achieved? Have all efficiencies been achieved with the existing service model?
  2. Is the service one that fundamentally can be provided on a for-profit basis?
  3. Is this a one-time project or an ongoing operation?
  4. Is privatization the best alternative model or are there other options to consider such as contracting with another public agency?
  5. Is there a history of the private sector providing the service: is it successful? Does the private sector have the core competencies to provide the service successfully?
  6. Are there examples of “successes” and failures of privatization of this service? Why did a particular initiative to privatize this service succeed or fail? Have stakeholders where this service has been privatized been contacted for input?
  7. Are there multiple private providers in the market place; or would this be a sole source situation with no competition.
  8. If the service is privatized, how will the government agency monitor quality, cost and contractor performance?
  9. How will clients of the service be affected? (Political and social costs)
  10. If the service is privatized, what will happen to government employees and assets?
  11. How much will it cost to privatize the service?
  12. Who are the stakeholders in the service and how will they participate in the decision to outsource?
  13. What happens if privatization fails (contractor walks or other scenario); how will service be continued or reestablished?
  14. What are the existing requirements and practices for public records, notice, participation and transparency for this service?
  15. What is the size and complexity of this proposal? Possible measures include the number of parties involved, the dollar amount of the contract, the number of public and private staff involved, any equipment covered by the prospective contract, the geographical area in question, the time frame, the number of recipients or beneficiaries of the service, and the amount of fossil fuel used for project purposes.
  16. Does the governmental agency have prior experience with privatization?

Contractor Selection Checklist

After The Decision To Privatize: Managing The Contractor Selection Process

  1. Has the consultant selection process been thought through?
  2. How will prospective bidders present their qualifications; have the most important experience, technical and other qualifications been articulated?
  3. Does the Request for Proposal (RFP) clearly define:
    1. Expected service levels and performance criteria?
    2. Allowable contract costs and how profit will be defined?
    3. Contractor performance and evaluation criteria?
    4. How rate increases will be approved? What information must be provided by the contractor in rate increase applications?
    5. Annual financial and performance review audits.
    6. What will happen for non-performance?
    7. Whether or not the contractor will be required to pay prevailing wage and comply with other employment criteria?
    8. Required insurance, performance bond, and/or hold harmless provisions and how the government agency expects to be protected from liability arising from the contractor’s actions or negligence?
  4. Have the criteria by which the contractor will be selected been well articulated and included in the RFP? Will the decision be based solely on cost or by quality?
  5. Who will review the proposals, rank the proposals, and interview the bidders? Will the process include neutral third party, peer reviewers in the process?
  6. How will stakeholders be involved in the selection process?
  7. Who will make the final selection and how will they be held accountable for the decision?

Contract Negotiation Checklist

After The Decision To Privatize: Negotiating The Contract

  1. Who will be negotiating the contract and do they have the requisite experience? Are specialized negotiators needed?
  2. Who will be drafting the contract and do they have the requisite experience? Is specialized legal expertise needed?
  3. Does the contract incorporate the performance and other criteria set forth in the selection process?
  4. How will the contract and its provisions be reviewed by stakeholders before final approval?
  5. What will be the contract term? Does it provide for automatic renewals or are there specific criteria that must be met for an extension?
  6. Who will approve the final contract?
  7. Does the contract clearly specify a process to resolve contractual disputes that may arise during its term? What recourse, penalties, or other leverage does the contract specify in case of noncompliance?

Contract Management and Oversight Checklist

After The Decision To Privatize: Managing The Contract And Overseeing Performance

  1. What will be the frequency of performance reviews?
  2. Who will be responsible for monitoring the contract and contractor performance? Do they have direct technical experience with the service provided? Does the team include finance and legal audit experience? Will neutral third party or peer reviewers participate in the process? Will clients/customers and staff be included in the annual performance review?
  3. Who will assure the performance deficiencies will be corrected by the contractor within appropriate timeframes?
  4. Are there checks and balances in place to assure that personnel overseeing the contractor do not become to close or “chummy”? Are there written protections for whistleblowers?
  5. Will program/contractor audits be open for public review?

Strategies for Best Practice – Potential Disadvantages of Privatization

January 22, 2012

Opponents of Privatization Often Cite the Following as Reasons to Oppose Privatization:

Reduced Service Quality

  • A decrease in service quality may occur because government loses control over service delivery.
  • For profit businesses will be tempted to cut corners (e.g., hire inexperienced staff, ignore contract requirements, use cheap equipment and materials) to increase profitability.

Higher Cost and Illusory Cost Savings

  • Reasons why private enterprises can be more costly than government include:
  • Corruption;
  • Lack of competition in the private sector;
  • Certain types of contracts (e.g., cost plus fixed fee)provide no incentive for savings; and
  • Unemployment benefits are a cost to the taxpayer when employees are laid off.
  • Financial benefits of privatization are often exaggerated due to hidden costs associated with contract preparation, contract administration, privatization transition cost, and increased oversight cost.

Increased Service Interruptions

  • Unlike government, private vendors are subjected to influences (e.g., low profitability, bankruptcy, labor strikes) that can lead to service interruptions.

Loss of Flexibility

  • Government contracts for services must be written in very specific terms. This could result in less flexibility for public officials who are restricted by contract requirements when responding to unforeseen circumstances.

Loss of Capital

  • Capital investments in equipment and training are often lost when they are subject to privatization.

Less Control and Accountability

  • Government officials are able to respond to citizens when government is in total control of a service.
  • In contrast, the response by government officials is subject to contractual limitations when a service is outsourced to a private contractor.

Dual System

  • Privatization creates government inefficiency by creating a dual system government; one in which public workers are subject to strict procedural regulations, pay and benefit schedules and another system where outsourced labor is working on behalf of the government but are subject primarily to rules established by their private employers.

Increased Potential for Corruption

  • When large sums of money are involved, there is a temptation for government workers to accept or demand offers of kickbacks for awarding a contract to a private business.
  • When large sums of money are involved, there is a temptation for private entities to offer patronage if awarded a government contract.

Increased Potential for Discrimination

  • Private enterprises often do not have a policy for hiring minority and disadvantaged populations.
  • Private businesses may avoid serving clients who are minority or disadvantaged or perceived to be less profitable clients.

Displaces Public Employees

  • If displaced, government employees may lose their jobs and/or benefits and/or collective bargaining rights.
  • There may be a decline in morale among the remaining government employees.
  • Civil service policies and merit principles are weakened.

Lack of Competition in the Private Sector

  • The advantages of privatization will be lost if there is little or no competition in the private sector for outsourced services.

Weakened Policies and Values

  • Important values such as worker safety, quality, and integrity will be diminished or lost when government services are entrusted to corporations that are obligated to maximize profitability for stock holders or private owners of the company.

Mark J. Rosen, Researcher, “Privatization in Hawaii,” p27-30 (Honolulu: Legislative Reference Bureau, December 2007).

Strategies for Best Practice – Potential Advantages of Privatization

January 22, 2012

Proponents of Privatization Often Cite the Following as Reasons to Privatize:

Cost Saving Measure

  • Private enterprises are more efficient than government.
  • Competition among private enterprises provides an incentive to offer the best services at the lowest price.
  • Taxpayers will save money because the private sector may not require as many employees to provide a service and will pay less in employee benefits.

Greater Flexibility

  • Privatization offers options unavailable to government for financing expensive construction projects.
  • Privatization can help meet demands that exceed existing government capacity.
  • Private enterprises can respond to market conditions more quickly than government.

Increase Choice Among Providers

  • Clients usually have fewer options for services when the services are provided only by the government.
  • Alternative approaches for service delivery such as vouchers and non-exclusive franchises give clients more service delivery options (provider, level of service, location).

Greater Efficiency

  • Outsourcing can provide a quicker response to changing demand for labor and services.
  • Private enterprises can implement cost cutting measures that may not be available to the government.
  • Greater efficiency often leads to faster completion times.

Greater Productivity

  • Private enterprises have a profit incentive to increase productivity.
  • Privatization allows public administrators to focus on planning instead of managing day-to-day operations.
  • Private enterprises often have more leeway than government managers to increase productivity.

Lower Startup Cost

  • Private enterprises having capital investments in equipment, facilities, and/or training can often implement new programs quickly and without significant capital outlays.

Lower Unit Cost

  • Large private firms can take advantage of greater economies of scale and centralize the purchase of supplies and equipment.
  • Private firms can procure and employ new state of the art equipment and management information systems better than public agencies.

Greater Risk Sharing

  • Risks to the taxpayer (e.g., cost overruns) can be shared with the contractor.

Increased Services

  • Private enterprises may offer services that are not provided by the government.

Specialized Skills

  • Private contractors may provide specialized skills that are not normally required by the government.
  • The expense of recruiting, hiring and retaining government personnel with specialized skills may be too costly compared to outsourcing.

More Jobs

  • Privatization can create jobs in the private sector.

Less Government Bureaucracy

  • Private enterprises are not required to adhere to as many restrictive procedures and policies.
  • Private enterprises can respond more quickly to the market because the private sector is less restrained than the government.

Increased Tax Revenues

  • Private businesses are taxed and generate revenue for municipal, state, and the federal governments.

Competitive Pressure

  • Outsourcing provides a competitive pressure on public employees that remain following privatization.
  • Competitive pressures tend to motivate competitors to lower their prices and improve service quality.


  • Privatization reduces the size of “big government”.

Mark J. Rosen, Researcher, “Privatization in Hawaii,” p27-30 (Honolulu: Legislative Reference Bureau, December 2007).