In an otherwise thoughtful column on the role of government in society, the WaPo's Steven Pearlstein throws out a pair of claims that chap my hide. In commenting on the successful renovation of Central Park in NYC by a consortium of plutocrats, Pearlstein asserts that there's "something to both arguments" about the validation of conservatives' and liberals' claims on the effectiveness of government. Why there's "something to both arguments" is beyond me. That a private enterprise could refurbish a park with hundreds of millions of dollars should not shock the conscience. Pearlstein's statement that "it took a private organization, relying primarily on private donations, to turn things around" for Central Park is vexing. It's vexing because, he contradicts himself (and rightly so) later when he writes, "there is no guarantee that private investment will always be wiser than public." Right. Given enough resources, public entities can be models of effectiveness (Federal Reserve, anyone? Provision of Medicare and Social Security benefits). Conservatives will moan and wail about how inept the government is, yet will have a kitten if someone suggests that the government should raise more revenue in order to have the resources necessary to accomplish accomplish its goals. The second bone I have to pick with Pearlstein is over this: Because of the power of special-interest groups and public employees, government spending priorities are too often misplaced and too many government agencies fail to use the money they have to deliver quality, efficient service. That's why outsourcing has become so prevalent, why charter schools have become so popular, and why so many state and local officials are turning to public-private partnerships and social entrepreneurs to tackle some of their toughest challenges. Another way to write that passage is something like: "Outsourcing government is popular among elected officials because they've found a away to assuage their constituents' misguided mistrust of government -- a mistrust engendered by years of conservative yelping about welfare queens and lazy bureaucrats -- by enriching their friends through lucrative government contracts." Nevertheless, the rest of Pearlstein's column is worth a read, because he draws out some critical points about the private provision of public goods and services.