When GOP says "privatize," Dems should say "privatization is corruption"

[yurbud]

This should be a no brainer.

When something is privatized, the pol that approved it is likely getting a kickback or a job with the company as Cheney did.

The cost of the service will likely go up since the company wants to make a profit, and if the government agency they are performing the service for demand cost controls, service will suffer. More likely though since money is changing hands with the decision-makers, the contractor will not be held accountable for the quality or cost of their work.

Once the service is severed from government all together, if it is possible to monopolize it and it's something essential like water or electricity, the public will at the mercy of price gouging, shut offs, and blackmail, as happened here in California when energy was deregulated and privatized.

It is not enough to say the GOP is corrupt. It is not that individual members are hypocritical on business issues (though they are) but that their very IDEAS are corrupt at their core. They go into government to serve their friends business interests not the public interests. If the two coincide, it is at best a happy accident.

[Nozebro]

1. Disagree with one of your points - but only one.

You said "They go into government to serve their friends business interests not the public interests."

I think most people go into politics/Government because they want to "BE" a Congressperson, Senator, Governor etc., NOT because they want to "DO" anything in particular for anyone. They can't get elected without money and they can't get (enough) money from small donors, so they solicit money from business interests that naturally expect a return on their "investment".

[Hugin]

5. It would seem the word 'donation' doesn't have the word 'investment' in it

That would be the point to get across.

[Nozebro]

11. It would seem that donors of any amount of $ are also investors.

Whenever most people vote, they do so with the expectation of a return on their "investment". THINK.

[Hugin]

14. I don't consider donations an investment...

Lately, people have been voting *against* their own-self-interests.

They'd rather diminish the rights of others.

[Nozebro]

16. Your message has nothing to do with your subject. Was that intentional?

Ignorant people have always voted against their economic self interest. That's one of the main reasons why Government (at all levels) has become so right-wing.

[yurbud]

19. I used to think that was the case until I started dealing with pols at

local level.

Those who want to do good are in the minority. The majority in both parties are there to do business.

[louis-t]

31. The system corrupts otherwise honorable people.

I think most people get into politics to genuinely do something constructive.

[BuhByeChimp]

2. Thats not been my experience.

The cost of services when privatized is for competition to drive prices down. I've especially notice this in regards to utilities. Not only are they lower price but service is much better with privitization.

In my local region the paper recently showed the prices of utilities that where run by municipalities compared to private providers. The municipalities averaged 17% higher in cost.

There hasn't been a survey showing service, but in my experiences the service with private companies is much better. I'll use trash service since its the most extreme difference I've run across. The city trash service would constantly find a reason to not pick up peoples trash and often just missed trash all together. There were also limitations on size and other restrictions. Now the private providers outside of the city are quite different. They pick up anything and have even broken down tree limbs for me at no charge. They also pick up twice a week for a lower price than what the city charged for 1 pick up a week.

You may have had different experiences and undoubtedly live in a different region than me, but in my opinion municipalities should not have a monopoly on utilities.

[annabanana]

4. When it isn't regulated, heavily..

it leads to rolling blackouts, and Enron

[Nozebro]

7. How many people lost their jobs & are the privatized workers paid the

same (or better) with similar (or better) benefits as municipal employees?

[yurbud]

22. that's one of the reasons for privatizing--break public employee unions

and eventually get rid of any regulations on labor practices for government contractors.

[yurbud]

20. was this one of the municipalities where the power grid failed in NE?

If they reduce costs, they often cut corners, as they did with maintaining the grid in the NE.

And some MBA probably figured out that like the oil companies, any utility can use disruption as an excuse to raise prices.

If trash is handled by small local businesses, they probably could do a better job.

Probably the tipping point is when the business has more money or power than the pol making the decision.

[SharonAnn]

24. Studies in California showed that municipal utilities prices were lower.

During the Enron debacle it was especially noticeable.

My experience with privatized utilities is that, wherever I've lived, they've ALWAYS BEEN HIGHER in cost.

They have a monopoly and they have no regulation. The predictable result occurs.

[TahitiNut]

29. "Price" does NOT equal "cost."

The impacts of externalization and erosion of necessary reserves must be considered, as well as the siphoning off of capital. When fees for services are reinvested in the community, in the form of jobs and infrastructure, the "costs" are less than when capital is exported from that community all else being equal.

The constant claim of private capitalists that they can do better due to some "magic of the competitive market" is more than offset by their matching age-old lament that governments pay too much in wages/salaries for those occupational specialties wanted by the privateers. While these private capitalists never saw a subsidy they didn't like, they steadfastly refuse to compete on the same playing field as government services. Take education. Public education shoulders obligations and duties that're eschewed by private education businesses, whether it's "special needs" or Title IX. Take postal service. Private services don't shoulder franked mail from office-holders or servicemen, as well as other coverage issues, yet public mail is expected to subsidize such services through other services which are cannibalized by private business ... a built-in cost increment that's converted to private profit. There's NOTHING honest about privateering! Nothing!

[annabanana]

3. privatization isn't corruption...

privatization is THEFT

[Hugin]

9. Yeah, what other business can you get into which guarantees a 20%...

profit even if you don't produce anything.

Nothing!

Let's save ourselves the 20% and keep the government in the business of governing.

That's my rant.

[WA98296]

6. Agree, excellent post. Thanks.

[unblock]

8. i like the term "piratization"

:rofl:

[Hugin]

10. .

:thumbsup:

[unpossibles]

18. actually, I think both work

a "Privateer" was essentially a freelance pirate. coincidence? I think not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer

[yurbud]

23. THAT'S GREAT--Dems should do that the way the GOP does Democrat Party

instead of Democratic Party. The difference is, "piratization" would actually mean something to the public.

Send that one to Howard Dean. The first couple of times he uses it, he could even clear his throat, excuse himself and say he was confusing the reality with the euphemism.

You should post that as a separate thread.

That's also a good description of the true agenda in Iraq.

[WA98296]

12. Agree, excellent post. Thanks.

[Armstead]

13. I agree -- But the Triangulating Democrats are also on that train

The Democrats should have been fighgting privitizationb for years.

But instead, the certrist Democrats echoed the GOP on this issue for too long.

[Nozebro]

15. Unfortunately, MOST Democrats are "centrists". That makes it easier

for elected Democrats to go along with Republicans. In fact, truth is, they're hard to tell apart, aren't they?

[Jed Dilligan]

17. Instead of privatization, try "deregulation"

I think the public is closer to catching up with the fact that that one's a lousy idea wherever applied.

[yurbud]

21. Yep--I would say it about both

[Cogito ergo doleo]

25. Deregulated privatization is turning the U.S. into a third world

nation. The distinction is important in order to understand the devastation that privatization without regulation will cause. Our water, air, food and medicines are unsafe as it is, and getting worse by the day, and job safety regulations have already gone by the boards. The recent move of the IRS in turning over its collections to private collection agencies is nothing short of a hostile act on the citizens of the United States by their own government-- and so is the selling off of our public parks and forests.

The argument is made that privatization is economic, but the price will be exacted on our quality of life and environment, which incidentally we have all found worth it and paid for. And how can it be economic when on the other hand you hear Rummy and others talk about how in the "new," privatized CIA, the "old" government workers are miffed because the contract workers are making six-figure incomes? It doesn't add up.

Privatization has been tried in other countries and many of them have gone back to the government's taking the services over again because politicians didn't like their power being usurped by corporations. As you say, it's a lousy idea.

[yurbud]

26. I think the goal is to make us a Third World country with a weak middle

class.

[Cogito ergo doleo]

30. I think so too. And where's the future in killing the goose

that lays the golden egg? If it's true that U.S. born and bred consumers (middle class) are the nation's #1 commodity, and that they drive the world's economy, it's foolish in the long term to cut their power. Unless, of course, it's more profitable to inundate us with "services" while corporations sell to each other to make their services more costly. That's a tight spiral.

[yurbud]

37. yeah, there doing a pyramid scheme of cheap labor and eventually

they'll succeed to the point that no one can afford to buy anything except just enough ramen to stay alive.

[TahitiNut]

27. Privateering = state-sanctioned piracy

"Legal" doesn't mean "right" - and "right-wing" doesn't either. :shrug:

[NewJeffCT]

28. Privatizing is not always corruption, and

having the government run something does not always equal purity. Governments throughout history have had plenty of corruption.

That said, I think a better way to respond would be:

"Who would you rather see managing your retirement - Uncle Sam, or Enron?"

"Who would you rather have rebuild New Orleans - Uncle Sam, or Halliburton?"

"Who would you rather have managing your healthcare - Uncle Sam, or United Health Care?"

"Who would you rather have managing your prescription drug plans - Uncle Sam, or Pfizer?"

[OregonDem]

32. Couldn't someone make the argument that corruption usually comes

from corporations getting involved in politics and using public goods? And that the corruption would stop if privatization occurred since those companies could no longer use those goods through political influence. After all a lot of public goods are abused by corporations, like logging, mining and drilling for oil on public land. I mean would the drug companies, Halliburton and Enron be so corrupt if they weren't getting contracts from Uncle Sam, and meeting in secret to make our laws? I for one believe that the government benefits mostly the wealthy and powerful who have far more influence than everyone else and would like to see Halliburton and others like them go out and earn an honest dollar in the marketplace just like everyone else. So no I don't believe that all privatization equals corruption and in a lot of cases it can actually stop it. How privatization occurs can be done corruptly however that doesn't have to be the case.

[bvar22]

33. Some services should NEVER be "Privatized"!

One of the WORST effects of "privatization" is that operations are removed from public scrutiny, oversight, and accountability to the public.

The most grievous recent example is the privatization of "Security" in Iraq. Torture at Abu-Gharab was "privatized". The sadists who were most responsible were allowed to hide behind their Corporate Fronts and were NEVER prosecuted. At the hearings, Rumsfeld stated that he "did not know the Chain of Command" at Abu-Gharab... AND EVERY Senator on the committee ALLOWED him to escape with that excuse.

The 2nd NIGHTMARE of "Privatization" is our current system of "Counting the Votes". No public accountability, No oversight beyond the "Closed Doors" of the Executive Boardroom.


Things that should NEVER be privatized:

*The delivery of essential services (water, energy, public transportation, etc.)

*HealthCare

*Education

*Communication

*Justice & Corrections (Prisons)

*Public Housing

*The Military (INCLUDING "security" in Occupied Nations and Disaster Areas in the US)

*Elections

It is essential in our Democracy that the PEOPLE delivering the above services are ACCOUNTABLE to the PUBLIC, and that the BOOKS and RECORDS of operations remain open to PUBLIC inspection and accountability.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[nmliberal]

34. Great post

Privatizaion IS corruption....short & sweet and so to the point

[yurbud]

39. thanks!--now repeat it a thousand times until it sticks.

[Hidden Stillness]

35. "Privatizing" is Usually a Signal of Further Crime

There was a forum broadcast on C-SPAN a little while ago, of official State archivists, and what happens to archives when legislators are under indictment and records may be subpoenaed. I think the case described was of the former Connecticut Governor, although I am unfamiliar with the story, and that the first signs that the Governor was committing criminal acts, paying off cronies, stealing from taxes and other State funds, giving no-bid, unfulfilled contracts and kickbacks to cronies, etc., was that all these long-time State departments were being "privatized," or commercialized, and records were no longer public. This was the case with this Republican Duke Cunningham, and many other crooks, too: often the first suspicious sign that something was wrong, was that huge areas of the public government were suddenly being "privatized," and available only to corporate deals. This also happened with the temporary takeover of the Democratic Party by "D"LC, Inc.--suddenly, government was "bad," "too expensive," etc., although government programs are more efficient than commercially sold goods and services, and the sudden, chant-like slogan for everything was "privatize." It is always a signal that there is graft and theft going on.

[yurbud]

38. the more people get familiar with the DLC, the less popular they become

[Joe Chi Minh]

36. Privatization is not privatization at all in anything but name. It is

simply a more exclusive form of nationalization. The "lesser breeds without the law" can just whistle...

They are not part of the country or its people at all... unless there's a war to be fought, and bodies, cannon fooder, needed on the ground. It's been like that since early biblical times. Although, through Moses, Yahweh introduced the germs of a welfare state, in which the widow, the orphan and the stranger were to be looked after.

Privatization is a deceitful misnomer. The shareholders in big corporatins probably have less power over its CEO and directors than Joe Public has over the administrators of public companies.