[quote=CDMA ENG][quote=CA renter][quote=The-Shoveler]It’s very simple really,
When the City files BK, it does so in Federal court.
If the Federal court over rules the State Law saying that “public employee pensions cannot be diminished or impaired”
Well I guess that’s where the real battle begins.
Interesting times.[/quote]
Employee compensation (including pensions), are priority claims. The only question is how they will determine the limits of the priority claims for a municipal BK, as opposed to limits for a business BK. Bondholders do not have priority claims.[/quote]
Priority claim is what is at stake in Detroit. I know in CA that Pensioner are a priority claim. That being said I hope your right.
Why?
Simply because when you stiff your bondholders no one will lend you money. When no one will lend you money… You have to learn to live within your means. That means work will be outsourced to companies that are far more effiencent in getting the task complete then a goverment backed union employee.
And… No more can kicking local goverments that are beholden to the political will of union backed voters.
So I look at this as an upside.
As the Human Torch would say “Flame On!”
CE[/quote]
Please show us evidence to prove your assertion that privatization saves money. That’s more of the same old propaganda from the privatization movement, yet there is no evidence to show that it’s true. As a matter of fact, the opposite seems to be true.
Employees might be paid less, but corporate profits, corruption, and executive compensation tend to offset any savings. This should set off alarm bells for anyone who actually has to work for a living. Understand who is fighting for or against you…you might be surprised if you take the time to investigate for yourself.
……
“The theory that the federal government should outsource its operations to private firms usually rests on a simple premise: It saves money. But why should we believe it saves money? Often the argument is made by pointing to salaries for public- and private-sector employees in comparable jobs and noting that the private-sector employees make less. So outsourcing the task to the private worker should be cheaper, right? That’s the theory, at least. But a new study from the Project on Government Oversight suggests that this theory is quite wrong. In many cases, privatizing government turns out to be far more costly.”
WHO is behind the anti-union
Submitted by CA renter on October 28, 2011 – 12:40am.
WHO is behind the anti-union message, and WHY?
It is NOT so that *you* can pay lower taxes. It’s more likely that you will end up paying MORE for services (that have been privatized, and that you will have absolutely no control over) and/or see lower wages for American workers.
……..
Privatization plan
Buried in Walker’s bill is a provision that says, “Department may sell any state owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount.” This is a push to sell off state assets, to give them to for-profit companies who can then charge the highest price while paying their workers the least. It is a part of the Koch and Bradley plan. Coincidently Koch is in the energy business.
Politics at the national level
On Jan. 5, 2011, new Republican legislators walked into the Capitol in Washington, D.C., and met with key people. David Koch was one of them. The Koch brothers are a political force on the national scene. They were the biggest contributors to the campaigns of members of that House Energy and Commerce Committee that regulates some of the main industries in which they are involved. Nine of the 12 new Republicans on that House Committee signed an Americans for Prosperity pledge to oppose regulation of greenhouse gases. The fact that the Koch Industries has been charged with many violations of environmental laws did not bother them at all.
But it is not only the Republicans who follow the Koch directions. The Clinton administration dropped all 97 counts of covering up evidence of a 91-metric-ton benzene spill in Texas. Prior to that, the Justice Department had pursued fines of $350 million for endangering the public and violating the law.
Making a killing off of misery
Koch Industries has a significant financial stake in derivatives as do other wealthy people. The top 10 hedge fund managers in the United States collectively made $18.7 billion in 2009. That is an average of over $1.8 billion for each of them for only one year’s “work.” The highest-paid person was David Tepper of Appalossa Management. He brought home $4 billion in 2009. How did he do it? When people were losing their homes and banks were going under, he bought bank stock on the cheap, and then later cashed in after taxpayers bailed out the banks. His company made $7 billion that year and he made $4 billion.
The Koch brothers and others are blaming the financial crisis on public employees—their wages, benefits and collective-bargaining rights. In fact, the crisis faced by the states and local governments is rooted in a system that puts bond ratings by banks and paying interest on loans above the needs of the community. It is a system that puts profits before people.
THIS is WHY you are being fed
Submitted by CA renter on October 28, 2011 – 2:09am.
THIS is WHY you are being fed the anti-union message. The public unions are their only formidable opponents, so they are trying to destroy them by preying upon Joe Sixpack’s ingnorance and envy of those who haven’t yet lost what he’s already lost via ignorance and apathy.
———————
……
“Risks of Privatization
Privatization and contracting out involve giving up control of public structures we all rely on to private companies. Once a public service or asset is privatized, we, the public, lose the ability to have a voice in decisions affecting that service or asset. We also lose the ability to request and view important information related to the privatized function. Without proper information and a forum in which to voice opinions, the public is effectively shut out of the decision-making process. These services and structures are no longer controlled by a government accountable to the public, but instead beholden to companies who may have entirely different goals and priorities.
ITPI has documented numerous examples that demonstrate that the supposed benefits of privatization are merely myths. Privatization has often moved forward without adequate public deliberation or oversight. Poorly conceived and constructed contracts have resulted in cost increases, as well as diminished service quality, reduced access to vital services, and have failed to protect against corruption. More information on the risks of privatization can be found here.”
“Introduction to Prison Privatization
The movement towards the privatization of corrections in the United States is a result of the convergence of two factors: the unprecedented growth of the US prison population since 1970 and the emergence out of the Reagan era of a political environment favorable to free-market solutions. Since the first private prison facility was opened in 1984, the industry has grown rapidly; gross revenues exceeded $1 billion in 1997. This paper will examine the industry’s growth in the US in recent decades, and its current scope. The evidence for and against claims that private prisons can realize gains in efficiency will be weighed, and implications of privatization for other public values including safety, justice, and legitimacy will be examined.
The birth of the contemporary American private prison industry may be traced to 1984, when the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service became the first federal agency to contract for private correctional services, with the Corrections Corporation of America. This initial movement toward the federal privatization of corrections was quickly followed by contracts for outsourcing developed by the US Marshals Service and the US Bureau of Prisons in 1986. The first county-level private prison contact was signed in 1984, between Hamilton County, Tennessee and the Corrections Corporation of America. Shortly thereafter, in 1985, the first state-level contract was signed, between the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the United States Corrections Corporation (NCPA 1995).
In 1987, approximately 3,122 inmates out of 3.5 million inmates were confined in private corrections facilities in the United States. By 2001, the total United States inmate population had swelled to a staggering 6.5 million inmates—123,000 of whom were confined in private facilities. This 4,000% increase in the number of prison beds in private hands was fed by the concomitant 90% growth in total inmate populations in the United States as a whole. (BOJS, 2001). Currently, over 32 states and Puerto Rico have formed contacts with corrections corporations. Figure 1, below, illustrates the inmate capacity of private prisons by state as of 1999 (Thomas, 2002).
Critics of privatization claim that there are no true efficiency gains from privatization, arguing that comparative studies of efficiency often ignore a number of key factors, by looking only at the operational costs (per diem rates). In 1996 the US General Accounting Office brought into question a number of the key assumptions that the proponents of privatization claim. Ultimately, the GAO found that there was no evidence conclusively demonstrating efficiency gains from privatization (GAO Reports, GAO/GGD-96-158). The GAO pointed out flaws in many of the studies touting efficiency gains from prison privatization. They found virtually no reliable multi-year studies. Those that they did find suffered from flaws including: failinure to compare similar institutions, failure to account for both cost and quality, or lack of a nuanced account of hidden costs.”
“People in other cities may want to take note of the recent news about parking around here because the architects of Chicago’s parking meter privatization are taking their show on the road.
A few days ago Channel Two’s Pam Zekman confirmed that it’s costing the city—i.e., the taxpayers—lots of money to make even temporary changes in parking policy.
The funny thing is that critics of the parking meter privatization agreement—people who’ve actually read it—have been saying this for the better part of the year.The Daley administration has brushed aside their criticism, insisting that the city retains full control of the meter system. Which is true—except that with every change it makes in meter placement, hours, or rates, it has to return some of the cash it initially received from the consortium that now operates the system. Zekman acquired records to show it.”
Privatization of (access to and control of) water:
Much of the world lives without access to clean water. Privatization of water resources, promoted as a means to bring business efficiency into water service management, has instead led to reduced access for the poor around the world as prices for these essential services have risen. This article looks into this issue in further detail below.
“The impacts of World Bank and IMF structural adjustment programs on countries in the Global South have been well-documented in the areas of health and education, food security and jobs. However, less is known about the impacts of the World Bank’s latest obsession — the privatization of water services. In country after country in recent years, the World Bank has been quietly imposing a for-profit system of water delivery, leaving millions of people without access to water.
———————–
The Bank is taking advantage of the “Washington Consensus” model of development now adopted by its donor countries and promoting the interests of a handful of transnational water corporations. Instead of using its massive funds to promote expertise in the public sector, thereby acknowledging that water is a human right and an essential public service, the Bank is forcing many countries to commodify their water resources and put them on sale to the highest bidder.”
Read this book to gain a better understanding of the issues.
Outsourcing Sovereignty: Why Privatization of Government Functions Threatens Democracy and What We Can Do about It [Paperback]
Reliance on the private military industry and the privatization of public functions has left our government less able to govern effectively. When decisions that should have been taken by government officials are delegated (wholly or in part) to private contractors without appropriate oversight, the public interest is jeopardized. Books on private military have described the problem well, but they have not offered prescriptions or solutions this book does.
More… Privatizing military
Submitted by CA renter on October 28, 2011 – 2:26am.
More…
Privatizing military functions:
“Many worry that the lack of control due to outsourcing could weigh even heavier and even put an entire military operation at risk. Consider what happened during the 2004 Sadr uprising, where a spike in attacks on convoys caused many companies to either withdraw or suspend operations, causing fuel and ammunition stocks to dwindle.
It is important to remember that private contractors are not bound by the same codes, structures and obligations as those in public service. As Tom Crum, then the chief operating officer for KBR’s logistics operations, wrote in an internal memo, “We cannot allow the Army to push us to put our people in harm’s way. … If we in management believe the Army is asking us to put our KBR employees in danger that we are not willing to accept, then we will refuse to go.”
The Pentagon also has to do a much better job of being a smart client. Far too few contracts get any true competition to drive down prices. Instead, they tend to be bundled together into massive structures, where a few prime contractors (just three in the new version of LOGCAP) are the ones that dole out sub-contracts. Add in the largely cost-plus contract structure, and savings tend not to accrue.”
“During the past five years, the Working Group has been studying emerging issues, manifestations and trends regarding private military and security companies. In our reports we have informed the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly about these issues. Of particular importance are the reports of the Working Group to the last session of the Human Rights Council, held in September 2010, on the Mission to the United States of America (20 July to 3 August 2009), Document A/HRC/15/25/Add.3; on the Mission to Afghanistan (4-9 April 2009), Document A/HRC/15/25/Add.2, and the general report of the Working Group containing the Draft of a possible Convention on Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs) for consideration and action by the Human Rights Council, Document A/HRC/15/25.
In the course of our research, since 2006, we have collected ample information which indicate the negative impact of the activities of “private contractors”, “private soldiers” or “guns for hire”, whatever denomination we may choose to name the individuals employed by private military and security companies as civilians but in general heavily armed. In the cluster of human rights violations allegedly perpetrated by employees of these companies, which the Working Group has examined one can find: summary executions, acts of torture, cases of arbitrary detention; of trafficking of persons; serious health damages caused by their activities; as well as attempts against the right of self-determination. It also appears that PMSCs, in their search for profit, neglect security and do not provide their employees with their basic rights, and often put their staff in situations of danger and vulnerability.
The single largest issue introduced by the evolution of military services by the private sector is the degree to which corporations are now transcending the power of governments, rising as an influential variable within international and regional diplomacy, and redefining sovereignty in the 21st century. Advocates of the industry claim they are economically efficient and point towards the failure of the UN and the system of world governments to cease violence, genocide and civil war around the world. Those who are cautious of the emerging industry see this market as an encroachment into inherent government functions and question the real economic efficiency heralded as a true result of privatization. And there are, of course, many in between, who see benefits and drawbacks to the variety of services out there now on the world market.
Privatization of Social
Submitted by CA renter on October 28, 2011 – 2:40am.
Privatization of Social Security:
I thought this quote was particularly hillarious:
“Although opponents to privatization conjure up the spectacle of private accounts being subject to the vagaries of the stock market, this is surely a red herring thrown into the debate since any privatization reform could require that all funds placed into private accounts be invested in U.S. securities backed by the good faith and credit of the U.S. government. The only difference between privatization and what we have now is that under privatization retiree benefits would be guaranteed and not subject to the ravages of confiscation or reduction by a future Congress, whereas under the present system, government is free to revoke or reduce benefits at its whim.”
[Apparently, they want all the risk to remain on the taxpayers’ balance sheet. They just want the fees, thank you very much!]
“Privatization of Social Security, a longtime GOP priority, was the first focus of former President Bush and the Republican cogressional majorities the last time they won an election cycle—in 2004. And, with they scheme to lock in Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, the only way Republicans will avoid creating the largest deficits in American history is by ending the nation’s commitment to its seniors and to its most vulnerable citizens—by gutting Social Security and functional Medicare and Medicaid programs.
“They clearly support privatizing Social Security. They clearly support turning Medicare into a voucher program,” says Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz. noting that two key players in the House Republican Caucus—Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan and Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor—have are busy championing such proposals. “Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor wrote a book about it and are in the middle of a book tour promoting that.”
“Ryan attended Joseph A. Craig High School in Janesville and was sixteen years old when he found his father in bed, dead of a heart attack at age 55. Ryan’s grandfather had also died of a heart attack at age 57, as had his great-grandfather also similarly died of a heart attack at age 59.[10] Ryan began collecting his Social Security survivor’s benefits until age eighteen, which he saved for college tuition and expenses.[11]”
