[North-NV-Greens] Fwd: The Public Cost of Privatization

[Paul Etxeberri]

>
>
>The public cost of privatization
>
>By Susan Jhirad
>The Boston Globe |
>December 3, 2004
>
>http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/12/03/the_public_cost_of_privatization?mode=PF
>
>AS BIG DIG holes leak taxpayer dollars by the gallon,
>as Halliburton overbills the Pentagon by millions, as
>Enron CEOs go to jail for defrauding stockholders, and
>as HMOs provide less and less health care for higher
>and higher fees, it is time to reexamine that great
>myth spawned by the Reagan revolution: the myth of
>privatization.
>
>For too long, Republicans have been able to promote,
>unchallenged, the notion that the private sector can
>deliver goods and even public services more
>efficiently, more cheaply, and better.
>
>"Privatization" has meant a variety of things: from
>giving corporations taxpayer money with little
>government oversight, as in the Big Dig, to turning
>public schools into for-profit charters, to forcing
>community colleges like my own to rely less on state
>funding and more on private fund-raising, including
>raising student fees in order to survive. Whatever its
>form, privatization is based on the general concept
>that business is good, government is bad.
>
>In the presidential debates, George W. Bush was proud
>to claim (falsely) that Senator John Kerry wanted to
>impose "another big government healthcare program, like
>in France or Canada." Never mind that countries with
>national health plans like Canada, France, and England,
>wouldn't dream of trading their free universal
>coverage, with all its imperfections, for our system,
>where millions lack any healthcare at all.
>
>Never mind that Social Security is actually solvent and
>supporting millions of Americans. Since President Bush
>is now recommending that we privatize Social Security,
>we need to be clear on the realities. Although it faces
>challenges from the baby boomer generation, Social
>Security has always been self-sustaining and has
>actually been tapped as a source of revenue for other
>government programs.
>
>Never mind that my own community college, even with
>slashed funding, manages to provide a quality
>education, raise money, and stay within budget. Never
>mind a recent federal study showing that in Texas, 98
>percent of the public schools met state performance
>standards while only 66 percent of charter schools did.
>"Privatization" is ideology, not fact.
>
>Consider the Big Dig as a poster child for what happens
>when "big government" steps aside. Years ago, when it
>was reported that Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff both
>executed and monitored the preliminary design of the
>Big Dig, my alarm bells rang. With little interest in
>reining in costs, the price of the Big Dig escalated by
>billions, creating the greatest overruns in the history
>of US public works. Now we hear that the project itself
>may be seriously flawed.
>
>How did this occur? There may be blame enough to go
>around, but let us remember, a series of Republican
>governors -- Weld, Cellucci, and Swift, all firm
>believers in privatization -- allowed Bechtel to run
>its own show. When two members of the Massachusetts
>Turnpike Authority, Jordan Levy and Christy Mihos,
>protested, Governor Swift moved to fire them.
>
>In short, the Big Dig is a classic example of private
>corporations abusing public funds for private profit.
>This occurs all the time with military procurement. Yet
>now, when politicians choose to vote against overpriced
>military equipment or the faulty missile defense
>program, they are branded as antidefense or even
>unpatriotic.
>
>We are now facing the largest deficit in our nation's
>history, in part driven by tax cuts, in part by the
>open-ended war in Iraq. Large corporations like Bechtel
>are grabbing a "piece of the pie" in what will be a
>protracted, expensive task of reconstructing a country
>we are spending billions to bomb. Meanwhile, our
>president warns that Social Security is in trouble, and
>we need to "reform" it.
>
>But in all these matters, who will pay and who will
>profit? Does privatization really deliver better goods
>and services at lower cost, or does it just transfer
>public wealth into private pockets? Are we gradually
>eliminating all public services, replacing them with a
>system of pay-as-you-go benefits that serve only the
>wealthy?
>
>Although America is a capitalist country, we have
>accepted, since the New Deal and even before,
>government's role in reining in corporate excess and
>taking care of the needy. Most Americans believe that
>Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare, and
>child labor laws are beneficial, although all were
>instituted against the opposition of big business. Now
>the Bush administration, closely allied with major oil,
>defense, and drug companies and with control of
>Congress, appears bent on privatizing the entire
>country. We can only wonder, what will happen to us
>then?
>
>Susan Jhirad is chairwoman of the English Department at
>North Shore Community College.
>
>
>(c) Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
>
>
>_______________________________________________________
>
>portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news,
>discussion and debate service of the Committees of
>Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It aims to
>provide varied material of interest to people on the
>left.
>
>For answers to frequently asked questions:
><http://www.portside.org/faq>
>
>To subscribe, unsubscribe or change settings:
><http://lists.portside.org/mailman/listinfo/portside>
>
>To submit material, paste into an email and send to:
><moderator at portside.org> (postings are moderated)
>
>For assistance with your account:
><support at portside.org>
>
>To search the portside archive:
><http://people-link5.inch.com/pipermail/portside/>


-- 
Paul Etxeberri

"Forests precede civilizations and deserts follow"   ---Chateaubriand