Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Wait, There Actually Is a Bridge in Brooklyn You Can Sell Me?

By Jim Hightower, Hightower Lowdown. Posted July 23, 2007.


In these weird times of privatization fever, selling off bridges, toll roads and airports is no longer considered preposterous -- for the billionaires who can afford them it's good business.
Jim Hightower

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Jim Hightower

Checks for $600 Won't Fix Our Economy
America can't shop its way to greatness, and this one-time, government-funded shopping spree won't lead us to a sound economy.
Mar 28, 2008

Swim Against the Current: Ordinary Americans Can Make Change Happen
The fight for our country's future is still in our hands. Grass-roots movements are breaking free from corporate control.
Mar 7, 2008

Immigrants Come Here Because Globalization Took Their Jobs Back There
Seal-the-border hysteria is everywhere. Instead of blaming immigrants for America's problems, let's look at executives on both sides of the border.
Feb 7, 2008

More stories by Jim Hightower

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Will Rogers sometimes tucked little moral messages into his one-liners. For example: "I'd rather be the man who bought the Brooklyn Bridge than the one who sold it."

The gullibility of anyone who thinks it's possible to buy the Brooklyn Bridge is an old punch line, but today the joke is on us. In these weird times of privatization fever, buying bridges is no longer considered preposterous, and old Will would be appalled by the crass morals of both the sellers and the buyers in these increasingly common transactions.

The Brooklyn span has yet to be sold off, but similar public assets all across the country have been, and many more are up for grabs -- an estimated $100 billion worth of highways, bridges, airports, and other public properties could be transferred into corporate hands in just the next two years. Among those already gone or actively being considered for privatization are Chicago's Skyway commuter route, the city's entire downtown parking system, and Midway Airport; in Indiana, three major throughways (a 157-mile toll road across the state, a new Illiana Expressway, and a section of the I-69 NAFTA highway) and the state lottery; Virginia's Pocahontas Parkway and Dulles Greenway; the 537-mile Pennsylvania Turnpike and Philadelphia International Airport; New York's Tappan Zee Bridge; a vast 4,000-mile network of toll roads across Texas; Colorado's Northwest Parkway; Alabama's Foley Beach Expressway bridge; the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel; and, in New Jersey, the NJ Turnpike, Garden State Parkway, and Atlantic City Expressway.

What's at work here is a convergence of gutless politicians, right-wing ideological fantasizers, conniving investment bankers, and raw corporate greed. What has drawn them together is the incandescent, transformative, blinding, neon-green force that rules American society: money.

A deliberate defunding

Let's start with the lack of money. Since the 1980s, national, state, and local politicos of both parties have abjectly failed to meet their responsibility to maintain our country's essential transportation infrastructure. They've had the political backbone of slugs, unwilling to speak an obvious truth: It takes tax revenues to have a first class public system. But forget first-class -- our roads, bridges, airports, and other systems have been allowed to deteriorate even as traffic has steadily increased, so American transportation isn't even second class. In this same time span, our "leaders" have squandered trillions of dollars from our public treasury on special tax breaks for corporations and the rich, as well as on senseless wars and boondoggles, while letting the basics of government service slide. Now we're at a crisis point. The federal highway system (established by that wild-eyed, tax-and-spend liberal, Dwight Eisenhower, in 1956), is the chief national source of money for building and repairing roads, bridges, and mass transit systems. It is financed by an excise tax that has stood at 18.4 cents on a gallon of gasoline since 1993. Today, that's only about 6% of what it costs for a gallon of regular gasoline -- down from the 10% rate of taxation that Ike and Congress established when the fund was created.

In 2005, when Congress was about to replenish the dwindling trust fund with an increase of 4 cents per gallon, George W killed the hike with a veto threat. As a result, a fund with a $23 billion surplus when Bush came into office will be broke when he leaves, running a deficit of nearly $2 billion in 2009 and $8 billion the next year.

If you're an antigovernment, privatization zealot (like Bush and his top Transportation Department appointees), those are joyous numbers, for they mean that state and local officials are more vulnerable than ever to your pitch that public assets are better placed in corporate hands. For years, such corporate- funded, right-wing think tanks as the Reason Foundation have dreamed of the moment when they could impose their ideology on the public -- and here it is.

"Trust us," they're cooing into the ears of governors, mayors, and other officials who are looking at massive transportation needs, yet are too shackled to money interests even to mouth the words "tax increase." These sirens of corporatization sing softly, "We have the perfect, painless solution. All you have to do is to turn over that toll road (either by sale or long-term lease) to GlobalGigantica, Inc., which will pay a pretty penny for it. You'll get money for your public treasury, you'll lose your migraine headache, the magic of free enterprise will deliver greater efficiency and lower costs, and an adoring public will shower you with rose petals, hosannas, and votes."

Such rosy nonsense is now official U.S. policy. Last year, the Department of Transportation produced a plan known as the National Strategy to Reduce Congestion, which really should be called the Strategy to Induce Corporatization. Under this scheme, DOT officials are actively working as proselytizers of privatization, aggressively pushing states to pass laws that help corporations take over chunks of their public transportation infrastructure. To move this ideological surge along, DOT has drafted sample legislation for states to rubber-stamp, and more than 20 states have passed such laws.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: infrastructure, bridges, buildings, privatization, corporatization

From "The Hightower Lowdown," edited by Jim Hightower and Phillip Frazer, July 2007. Jim Hightower is a national radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of "Thieves In High Places: They've Stolen Our Country And It's Time to Take It Back."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
By the way...
Posted by: moontime on Jul 23, 2007 2:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm glad to see Alternet talking about this. By the way, that Spanish company Cintra is represented by Rudy Guiliani's law firm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

follow the money
Posted by: Suzon on Jul 23, 2007 3:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as it goes from corporation to media to politicians. Influence peddling? Of course it is.

Can the Dems do anything but assure themselves that they do more good than harm? After all, you need money to give to the media to get elected and corporations hand it out big time.

Two suggestions: Give the politicians equal--and limited--but free television and radio broadcasts. This is the one thing that the UK government does that is worth copying.

The second suggestion is that the broadcasts must not be misleading as judged by an independent panel.

Freedom of speech has always had restraints. Your doctor can't tell you that the test results are negative when they are positive, so why should politicians be able to trick the public?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: follow the money Posted by: Knowmad
The annual nutcase convention
Posted by: reval on Jul 23, 2007 5:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
convenes again! How lovely.

The fact that Holy Joe (I guess we're going to start referring to him as "Holy Moses" now), Blunt, McCain, et. al. were in attendance should be fodder for the press for at least the next month. But it won't be!

These jackasses are beyond insane. Their presence at this years annual insano conference (as last year's) fully explains why our country has fallen off the cliff. What else can it do but self destruct when insane assholes like these morons are behind the wheel of ship, with the country's chief insano sitting in the captain's chair no less?
~Rev El
WVCSR

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Same problem in the UK
Posted by: Cruella on Jul 23, 2007 5:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a new post in The Yank Abroad dealing with the same privatisation issues in the UK.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Same problem in the UK Posted by: fanny666
As a Hoosier
Posted by: vivachavez on Jul 23, 2007 6:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I must say thanks to Jim Hightower for mentioning the lease of the Indiana Toll Road to Cintra and MIG.

It shouldn't be any surprise that Mitch Daniels, the former head of the Office of Management and Budget that never found a domestic program he wouldn't slash funding for, is the Governor of Indiana that pushed through this privatization dubbed "Major Moves."

Mitch even went so far to propose a 75-mile partial outer beltway around Indianapolis dubbed the "Indiana Commerce Connector" that would have been built and operated by a private corporation to pay for the construction of the I-69 extension from Indianapolis to Evansville. Thankfully, that proposal was shot down.

I also want to make a couple of modifications to Hightower's assertions. Initially, the Illiana Expressway through Indiana would have ended at the Indiana Toll Road, but citizen opposition and a Democratic controlled House of Representatives led Mitch to shorten the expressway to end at I-65.

And as it stands now, the I-69 extension will not be tolled at all or sold to a private firm, although that was Mitch's initial plan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: As a Hoosier Posted by: jmoore
Urban vs. Rural
Posted by: jmndodge on Jul 23, 2007 7:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not enemies, but vitally inter-connected, yet they have vastly different needs and resources. Rural roads are suffering greatlin in many areas in our nation, not to significant when it is just neglected pothole repair, and rough surface, people adjust and get used to it, but bridges and major essiential infrastructure are being neglected. Its not only rural, indeed as NYC demonstrated urban neglect could be devestating, but it takes a united citizenry to build and maintain a nations infrastructure. Lets hope we learn how to work together. Limited use of toll roads are stop gap measures which might be useful for the near term.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How's this form of road management bad though?
Posted by: Vernacularry on Jul 23, 2007 7:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the 1980s, national, state, and local politicos of both parties have abjectly failed to meet their responsibility to maintain our country's essential transportation infrastructure. They've had the political backbone of slugs

Is this not another reason to take the road management function of their responcibilities away from Politicans?

Elected officials are wary of hiking tolls because of the political backlash they can suffer, and the better pols actually give a damn about keeping costs affordable for regular people. But corporations are not subject to the electorate and thus have no qualms about stiffing the public

Look to Texas' Camino-Colombia Toll Road. In Laredo Texas, a new 22-mile highway was privately constructed and tolled for less than a year. The ownership inaccurately projected significant toll revenue from optimistic estimates of increased truck traffic. When the truckers that the Camino-Colombia Road had counted on, refused to pay the tolls, the road foreclosed and was sold to the State of Texas.

Vivachavez
Initially, the Illiana Expressway through Indiana would have ended at the Indiana Toll Road, but citizen opposition and a Democratic controlled House of Representatives led Mitch to shorten the expressway to end at I-65.

The Illiana Expressway is a project that would have never came about had it not been for Gov. "Quick Fix" Mitch Daniels' Major Moves program. Money from the ITR deal has gone towards the construction of this long awaited road.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is not privatization.
Posted by: BJT on Jul 23, 2007 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This thing they're calling privatization is not. It is corporate favoritism. It is corporatism. It is fascism. This selling of infrastructure to foreign interests is what happens in third world countries, and it is a product of corruption in GOVERNMENT.

Private ownership of anything is not a crime. I think government ownership invites more corruption because government is the only institution with a monopoly on coercive force. It will get to monopolize whatever stuff we give it.

I would rather decentralize power and let true privatization of EVERYTHING occur.

If you believe corporations are evil, please keep in mind they are legal entities created by GOVERNMENTS. If we didn't have governments helping people create these fictitious persons, and giving them so many special privileges, a free market would be exactly that, with a low bar of entry and lots of competition, doing everyone a lot of good. Corporations are so ready to engage in fraud and force because the individuals controlling them are often indemnified by the corporate umbrella from the consequences of their actions.

Take out the governmental favoritism, and individuals will be responsible for their own actions again. End of problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not a "failure of leadership"
Posted by: spencerh on Jul 23, 2007 7:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a natural consequence of implementing a set of broken ideologies:

'If property is held by the state, Rothbard advocates its confiscation and return to the private sector: "any property in the hands of the State is in the hands of thieves, and should be liberated as quickly as possible."'

This is simply a part of America's dominant socio-economic ideology: Market Fundamentalism (Anarcho-capitalism/Libertarianism/Minarchism/Objectivism, specifically)

Destroying the idea of the public good and the commons are not accidental, they are a fundamental part of these ideologies. Remember:

"If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it! - Ayn Rand"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Market Fundamentalism? Posted by: Mop Cheese
» Free Market Mania Posted by: marid
Privatization is just the rape of taxpayers.
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jul 23, 2007 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We payed to build it... they buy it and make money off of it.
Same thing gets done with our natural resources. Our politicians don't hate collectivism of any kind because its evil or doesn't work.. .they hate it because it puts resources and tools in the hands of the people, not government. We don't get anything from our natural resources being sold out from under us for pennies (see the timber of the NorthWest)... but government and the corporations who support our politicians sure do benefit from it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Privatization = Corruption?
Posted by: Mop Cheese on Jul 23, 2007 8:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If privatization equals corruption, as this article more or less claims, why is it that, of the former Soviet satellites to liberalize their economics, Estonia, which has done it the most thoroughly, has experienced the least levels of government corruption?

Could it be that removing power over a specific area reduces the chances for corruption in that area?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Privatization = Corruption? Posted by: nherkowitz
» America Was Never Estonia Posted by: sofla100
» RE: Privatization = Corruption? Posted by: uncleeddie
They say...
Posted by: mommy64 on Jul 23, 2007 8:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They're selling off America,
they say, to the highest bidder,
but politicians shape the deals
that guarantee them ownership.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: They say... Posted by: EJ
» RE: They say... Posted by: mommy64
Bush antigovernment?
Posted by: Mop Cheese on Jul 23, 2007 9:11 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, I must question hightower's assertion that Bush is some kind of antigovernment radical. If this is the case, why has he:

Instituted price controls on products in Iraq
Borrowed and spent money at an enormous rate
Signed legislation vastly expanding the government's power
Directed billions in contracts to his and Cheney's business connections--for instance, massive reconstruction deals to KBR et al after hurricane Katrina
Instituted massive tariffs
Signed legislation banning businesses from hiring so-called illegal immigrants
Endorsed constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage

Nope, nepotism, corporatism, and protectionism are not "antigovernment" behaviors. Just because you dislike what he's doing, Mr. Hightower, does not mean he is an anarcho-capitalist. Mr. Hightower seems to have fallen into the sloppy, albeit typical, mistake of equating the US with laissez-faire capitalism and Republicans (the other big government party) with libertarians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bush antigovernment? Posted by: spencerh
An Anecdote ... and a lesson
Posted by: heraclitus on Jul 23, 2007 9:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The other day I missed an exit on one of these privately operated tollways. Bad dog!

A toll booth blocked the entirety of the road before the next exit. The toll was $3.50 to continue. I explained to the attendant that I simply needed to turn around. There was no traffic.

Nope, can't turn around. $3.50 or sign a voucher.

Curious, I declined. She fetched her supervisor, who explained that I had entered a private road, was subject to private law (privi-lege in latin) and that he would call a trooper if I continued to decline.

I suggested he call the trooper. Thought it would be an interesting conversation.

Not a big priority on the trooper's part ... I waited for him half an hour while they shut down my lane, but he or she never came.

In the course of the waiting I chatted with the toll-keeper. She told me that many people every day found themselves in the same situation, and that the toll had risen from $1.50 from when the road was ceded to the current $3.50 and climbing.

Finally I paid her off and went on my way ... I had time, but not that much time.

When I got home I read about a public road in the next town over that was now banning photography and protest because it had been ceded to a corporation, although the road had been built with public funds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The solution! Posted by: heid
» RE: An Anecdote ... and a lesson Posted by: vivachavez
Selling off the commons
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Jul 23, 2007 9:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Never a good thing. I'm sure the elite would love to be able to charge us just to breathe.

Locally, the government toyed with a privately-owned highway. A Spanish company built it and now operates it.

They're hated for the blatant gouging of the public, but they have their contract and nothing can be done about it. A bad deal all around.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Selling off the commons Posted by: albrechtkrausse
just a side note
Posted by: pre-emptive impeachment on Jul 23, 2007 10:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The new operators receive hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks, and instead of staffing the system with full-time public employees getting decent wages and benefits, these private operators shift to low-wage, parttime workers with no benefits.

Some toll collectors around Boston are making $50,000/year plus all of the crazy benefits they get for being a government employee. I don't remember how it worked out that way, but that is quite excessive pay. I heard the story on NPR when they were talking about eliminating tolls around Boston because they were no longer needed.

I would assume this is an isolated case but I am not sure. Isolated in the sense of Boston area, not a single employee there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Who gets the money Posted by: marid
Not a privitization booster, however....
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jul 23, 2007 10:20 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
let me tell you about my experiences with the postal service in my local area. I live in rural Nebraska and of course in the winters we do sometimes get snow. Afterwards the county snow plow comes buy and sometimes he pushes some snow up by my mailbox. Not a whole lot, like maybe a foot or two. However when this happens my rural mail carrier, a USPS employee, refuses to deliver my mail. Just drives on. When I complained that I am elderly and can't always get the snow moved right away he just says that he "isn't required by the USPS to deliver mail if he can't pull up directly to the mailbox". I went to the postmaster at my local office and just got the same blow off. They had a total "leave me alone" attitude as if they knew that they didn't have to put in anymore effort than what was absolutely required to do their jobs.

My town has 444 people and I heard that the postmaster gets 50K/year plus a ton of benefits. I also heard that this local rural carrier gets 36K/year, and with the depopulation of rural areas I am sure his workload has substantially decreased over the last few years. These people are earning these types of wages in an area where, according to last census, the median income is 18k/year.

Meanwhile, I also receive daily delivery of a local newspaper via their own carriers. They put it into a box that is directly under my mailbox. Monday-Saturday, 52 weeks a year and they have never failed to deliver or refused to deliver it--even bringing it to my front door if there was snow in front of the mailbox. And I am sure that they are working substantially cheaper than the over-paid USPS guys.

I know privitization can cause harm, but I think my story illustrates how it can be beneficial sometimes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Watch out for Transurban
Posted by: ExAussie on Jul 23, 2007 10:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We lived overseas for a few years in Melbourne, Australia before returning home to the USA several years ago. During the time we were in Melbourne, we had a front-row seat watching the transition from government ownership to privatization of one of the major highways into and out of downtown Melbourne. Transurban was the buyer. After an enormous media campaign extolling the virtues of this transition ad nauseum, Transurban completed the deal and took over ownership of this road. Then, once the transition was complete, the public was in for several very rude (and unanticipated) surprises: Part of the deal, it turns out, was that Transurban was allowed to block off any and all alternate routes, thus forcing all traffic onto the tollway. Also, there was an existing tunnel which formed part of the roadway and above the tunnel entrance was an electronic speed limit sign (which could be modified at any time). Many drivers, who had obeyed the posted speed limit at the entrance to the tunnel, exited the tunnel only to discover that they were going above the posted speed limit and were given speeding tickets at the other end. Turns out, someone was deliberately modifying the posted limits at certain times to put lots of drivers out of compliance so that they could be ticketed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

poor argument.
Posted by: lamar on Jul 23, 2007 11:12 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This isn't a very well stated case. Why are private roads bad again? As long as the government maintains sufficient infrastructure to travel, there's no reason private roads should be looked down upon. This story was dead before it started when you called Bush "anti-government" when the truth is that he has raised the level of government spending (albeit wasted) and regulation to unprecedented levels. Get your facts straight, and your story would have credibility. As it stands, this is nothing more than a cheap shot at those darned capitalists who, you know, make money and stuff. You're so worried about the haves vs. the have nots that you advocate nobody can haves.

Show me a private road and I'll show you a road that is well maintained. The same is just not true of non-strategic gov't roads. It just isn't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: poor argument. Posted by: vivachavez
» RE: poor argument. Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: poor argument. Posted by: lamar
» RE: poor argument. Posted by: Coleman
» RE: poor argument. Posted by: lamar
» RE: poor argument. Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: poor argument. Posted by: lamar
» RE: poor argument. Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: poor argument. Posted by: lamar
» RE: poor argument. Posted by: EagleMB
Wise up America
Posted by: dajson on Jul 23, 2007 12:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope Americans are finally getting wise to these privatization scams. Most of us here in Montana experienced an exponential increase in power bills after Governor Roscoe sold our state run utilities to private out of state corporations to make things just better for everyone. It made Roscoe's life better when afterwards he was made head of the Republican National Committee by his good friend George Bush. Maybe with 9/11 and all it slips our collective memory how Dick Cheney defended Enron's fleecing of Californians back in Summer 2001. Wise up America and make these rich selfish greedy defenders of this lie finally unelectable. I've been against this privatization lie from it's beginning, but all I get for that is the right to say, "I told you so!".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wise up America Posted by: lamar
Privatization in America Only Creates Monopolies
Posted by: sofla100 on Jul 23, 2007 1:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those who advocate for "privatization," fail to realize that privatization in America is simply the creation of monopolies over specific roads or services (ie, the product privatized). The reason being that government, in America, essentially only has owned and controlled public services historically. America is not say Russia or Estonia, where the government owned all the services during the time of communism. In America, government ownership has only ever been over a minority of things, or things used by the majority of the public. The problem then with privatization, not really addressed in this article, is that by giving exclusive ownership to a company or corporation, that company or corporation than has a vested interest in maintaining its profitable commodity. And, it can do so with NO COMPETITION, only a few theoretical overseers who manage the contract. Is it any wonder then when corruption occurs? For the company, the bottom line is easily secured by corrupting or influencing the few overseers, lobbying relentlessly to keep the contract, and in the end, jacking up profits by gutting the product or insisting to the "overseers," that more and more money is constantly needed.

This then, is the basic description of privatization in America and why it does not and has not been working. It is also the reason why there has or was a "public sector," some things just cannot be well privatized. And, if you try to do so, you only end up destroying what you are trying to protect.

Past examples include when California tried to privatize its electrical supply and electrical energy prices soared over 100%. The same thing with our military contractors in Iraq, as they squeeze the "little piggey" of government dry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

JayHaden
Posted by: JayHaden on Jul 23, 2007 2:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If someone with a Geographic Information System (GIS) and some time can come up with a map of the US showing where the major privatized highway facilities are, I would be happy to boycott those cities, counties and/or states that wish to make me pay more for my right to travel. The threat of diminished tourism may not be enough to tip the benefit/cost equation, but the publicity could be locally powerful enough to put some additional pressure on officials contemplating blind privatization.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Mapquest Posted by: pzzp
» RE: Mapquest Posted by: lamar
does imminent domain come into this?
Posted by: po cracka on Jul 23, 2007 3:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How are private toll roads being built on these long stretches with everyones consent? Are these private companies using imminent domain to get all this land to make money off the public?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why does it matter? Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Why does it matter? Posted by: lamar
There's also the privatization of the nation's public universities
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jul 23, 2007 4:59 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Which is resulting in low-quality teachers and fraudulent research all across the board. Universities now contract out to private business interests for all manner of basic services, from campus security to food services - you name it. Even the research departments are being used as private research parks by various corporate interests - they get to keep the patents, even though much of the research is funded with taxpayer dollars.

All this creates an atmosphere of secrecy in which corporate trade secrets become far more important than educating students or exchanging information with other researchers. More and more college administrators are hired right out of corporate management. This is resulting in low quality education, as such administrators see no value in a broad education for students. The only value they see is in generating patents for their corporate pals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

YouTube Debate
Posted by: gellero on Jul 23, 2007 7:54 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So why wasn't this question posed to the Democratic Pres Wannabees on the CNN-YouTube 'Debate' ????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Privatization stems from 25 years of tax cuts. The Rich profit from infrastructure and the poor pay!
Posted by: yellow on Jul 23, 2007 8:25 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The poor and the middle classes paid for the currently existing public infrastucture with regressive taxes that fall heavier on their incomes that on those of the rich. Federal taxes, which once were progressive, are being gradually replaced by regressive state, property and sales taxes. Federal revenues are no longer significantly distributed to states and localities in order to even out the regional distribution of wealth. Localities must now fend for themselves. The rich buy infrastructure that should be paid for out of progressive federal taxes and take it over so they can further assess the poor and middle class user fees to maintain and support it so as to get rich by soaking the lower classes.

This is going to be the story more and more. The recent proliferation of casinos all over the US are also part of this logic as they to provide a tax on the poor to help pay state and local government bills. This is part of the great tax shift and the bigger ongoing story of the even greater wealth shift from the poor and middle classes to the rich. Privatization of War is only part of the story. It will be something that increasingly invades our lives as the society polarizes more and more. In just a few more years the middle class will truely be history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THANK GOD
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Jul 23, 2007 9:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for Jim Hightower. This is the Texan that should have been president. (still should)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a Great Idea!
Posted by: peritonlogon on Jul 24, 2007 12:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Privatizing the transportation and public use infrastructure worked so well in the developing world, why not try it here? After all look at how great it worked for Argentina! What this country really needs to do is to emulate all of the practices we suckered the developing world into, I mean, pursuaded the developing world to adopt for their own economic prosperity.

While we're at it, we should probably reconsider monarchy, illiteracy, fundamentalism and imperialism, maybe this go around we'll have better luck! It couldn't hurt to try right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Walter Reed is a perfect example
Posted by: fanny666 on Jul 24, 2007 3:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason Walter Reed got (is) so bad is that it was (is) mid-transition between being run by the military and being run by private contractors.

Walter Reed Privatization

A couple good sources, but whuddup with the second result?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's the Corporations, Stupid!
Posted by: tbyg on Jul 24, 2007 5:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm trying to get somebody to pick up that slogan......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fake Capitalism
Posted by: uncleeddie on Jul 25, 2007 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any of you pro-privatization genius's want a working example of selling your highways just look north to Ontario Canada where the right wing government of Mike Harris sold a taxpayer funded and built toll highway to some friends who then flipped it to a Spanish consortium. Now this 407 highway is referred to as the rich mans highway. Desperately needed congestion relief was not accomplished because most people cannot bear to spend 50 cents a mile and few truckers will leave the old highways because of the cost. Now foreign owners stick their tongues out at us stupid Canadians who have no say over this highway but must still police, service and maintain it. Calculations have shown the road was sold at on third it's value but who gives a shit if you’re rich. The vast majority of people who paid for it can't afford to use it but isn't that what the capitalist dream is all about?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fake Capitalism Posted by: lamar