Privatizing Welfare

Or so Schwarzenegger proposes (I swear, this guy'll do anything to keep himself in the PiA headlines!):

A proposal that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been pushing in closed-door budget talks would tie the state, with little oversight or review, into a multibillion-dollar computer system likely to be run by the private sector to enroll low-income Californians in welfare, food stamp and healthcare programs.

The concern laid out in the bulk of the article is the Governator's attempt in times of crisis to ram through a pet project that has not been fully vetted.  The Administration makes the usual argument that cost savings lie ahead in a centralized system.  Critics point to the disastrous results from other states' attempts to privatize and centralize public assistance admin.  And as you might imagine, these enormously expensive investments in system-wide changes can be difficult to undo.

In principle, I am generally supportive of centralized systems, but they present their own set of problems as they tend not to acknowledge or be able to respond to the specifics of certain populations, regions, etc.  (A national federal poverty line that doesn't reflect regional costs of living is a good example.)  Of greater concern to me here is the privatization piece.  Privatization also has its place, but there's a few too many big stories of awarding funds to private contractors on the assumption that they can run programs and services more effectively than the government only to have them completely botch the job.  I find this is particularly likely when for-profit contractors enter the sensitive or "niche" space like working with people suffering from economic hardship. 

This strikes me as a pursuit on purely ideological grounds - or to benefit cronies.  Forgive me for not finding these answers before pontificating, but what exactly are Schwarzenegger's reasons for wanting to privatize public assistance?  Beyond the speculative cost savings?  What's the problem with the decentralized, county-based system?  Are so many recipients so frequently moving around the state that too much data is getting lost in the system?  What successes of the existing system would he seek to preserve?  How much disruption in service could recipients feasibly expect?

These are just a few of endless questions we should be asking about this dubious proposal.  With California, the drama just does not end.  And the poorest among us are paying the price.