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.
———————
Instead of focusing on the corporate-political corruption, and the financial industry — those who caused the “financial crisis” (and “pension crisis”) in the first place — they are trying to distract us with propaganda about public employees.
“Executive Summary
The benefits of opening public services to private competition—in terms of cost savings and quality—are potentially enormous, as George Pataki recognized when he first took office as Governor nearly a decade ago. Despite Governor Pataki’s early advocacy, however, competitive contracting has not taken root as the preferred approach to providing public services in New York. Given the dimensions of the state’s current fiscal crisis, there’s never been a better time for the Governor to pursue his original agenda by allowing private providers to challenge New York’s entrenched public-sector monopolies.”
“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.
