Search This Blog

Monday, February 7, 2011

The Illusion of "Privatized" Government (or - The Government is NOT a business!) (8/12/10)


The Government is NOT a Business!

            There seems to be an endless supply of simplistic complaints about government programs, spending, and accounting along the lines of “if I ran my business that way, I’d be out of business!”  Well, yes.  That’s the idea.  The government is not a business.  It is there to provide the services necessary to underpin society, not to provide profitable commodities.  It is not there to accumulate profits, it runs on tax revenues that fluctuate naturally and necessarily in response to the needs and the capacity of society.  The government “deficit” is an illusory and malleable number that essentially means very little in real terms. The deficit is an attempt to estimate a static number based on very dynamic factors – like a Farmer’s Almanac estimate of the temperature at 3 pm on August 23, 2014 based on this year’s record-high temperatures.  But somehow it’s become a Holy Grail to some parts of the wonkosphere.  Here’s the deal folks – when people aren’t working, they still need to eat and pay the bills.  Thus the need for government support goes up as tax revenue goes down. Voila! Deficit.  Then when those people get back to work, the reverse happens.  Voila! Surplus. 
            I’m not sure when the understanding of the mirror roles of government and private business diverged, but I suspect Sandra Day O’Connor is on to something.  Since retiring from the Supreme Court, she has taken up the cause of re-introducing civics education into the schools.  I truly hope she succeeds, because I hear a de-volution of understanding of how government works, what its goals are, and why the government and the free market occupy separate scales on the weigh-station of society. They (and we) HAVE to understand this, and have to let both operate in their own spheres – and nary the twain shall meet. 
            All unexpected changes in the innumerable economic influences will affect deficits and surpluses, and in both directions.  If the elderly suddenly stop seeking treatment for everything, then the demand on Medicare and Social Security will go down = less deficit.  If foreign nations embrace labor regulation and reduce global labor arbitrage so that manufacturing moves back to America = less deficit. War = more deficit. Drought = more deficit.  These are the natural fluctuations that are addressed by the tax system, not some newfangled boogeyman.  Taxes will go up, the deficit will come down, you put your left foot in and you shake it all about. 
            Our taxes right now are historically low, despite the apoplexy of the GOP and the Tea Partiers, which is contributing to the deficit.  As is the fact that our social need is nearly historically high.  So deficit numbers based on high need for services and low input of taxes are bound to be exaggerated.  Not untrue, just not quite the whole story.  Once our need drops or tax revenue rises, the deficit boogeyman will shrink.  Thus it is, thus it has always been, thus it shall always be.
            Also largely lost in this clamoring cacophony of complaint is the fact that the very “big government” the Tea Partiers claim to detest is up to 30% larger than they know about, largely because of something some call the “shadow government.”  This creepy-sounding phenomenon is a byproduct of elected officials caving to Tea Party-style paranoia and special interests in an unholy alliance of mutual misunderstanding that has given us the privatization of services that should never have even a scent of a profit motive.  The one that gets me is the prison industry.  States and the Feds have outsourced prisons to private companies, ostensibly to “smallen” government.  What has resulted is a profit-driven business that operates on the corporate profit model rather than on the government necessity model.  These companies literally hold people’s lives in their hands – their education, training, future, and present existence depends on being profitable. 
            And where does the constant flow of bodies come from that keeps this profit machine turning? Recidivism.  The “prison-industrial complex” thrives on turning people out with the assurance that they will come back.  And all evidence indicates that they are doing a bang-up job of it.  As for the cost savings, there are relatively few studies available, and the GAO has found the results largely inconclusive because of differences in evaluative factors and some studies using hypothetical public institutions.[1]  One in Colorado found the supposed equivalency of cost to be questionable because lower-level inmates were moved to high-security private facilities to increase the maintenance costs (and thus the profit to the company).[2] 
            In an excellent article for CNN Money, D.M. Levine highlights the minimal or negative savings in private-over-public prisons and many of the true costs of these savings. (http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/17/news/economy/private_prisons_economic_impact.fortune/index.htm).  Exempt from state oversight and largely free to shuffle prisoners to other states, private prisons are free to use low-paid and less-trained staff, cut corners wherever they can, and take their profit at the expense of those who desperately need the services that are most often cut.  They also operate with only the slightest flicker of transparency, whereas state agencies are bound to be transparent and accountable.
            And if the cost to the inmates doesn’t concern you, the cost to your neighborhood should.  When prisoners are returned to the streets without drug treatment, job training, or basic skills, what do you suppose happens? They re-offend, often simply because they lack the capacity to do anything else. Poof! Back to the slammer with you. What happens to the mentally ill? Returned to the street without care or diagnosis at even the abysmal level of state facilities because transfer to a hospital would cut out a bed-charge and good doctors are expensive.  All on the taxpayer’s dime, which finds its way directly into the pocket of the prison owner. Over and over again.
            Overall, the cost-savings seem largely illusory, the benefits questionable, and the profit motive disturbing.  But don’t talk to the Tea Party about that – they seem content with a “smaller government” at any cost, even though the government still has to pay for the private systems, and is often paying more.  Whatever, we like it! Why? We don’t really know – but we do, and we’re LOUD!
            Whatever the actual outcome of privatized services, the bottom line remains that some functions of society must be performed out of necessity, not out of profitability.  The truth is, where capitalism operates properly, the private sector performs its duties quite well.  But we cannot allow an overriding and unsophisticated “anti-government” furor to obscure the fact that a corporation is, by law, obligated to pursue the highest possible profits for shareholders. Other motives can and do subject corporate boards to lawsuits.  The government, on the other hand, operates with a social welfare goal, and properly so.  
            Somehow we decided that the government should be run like a corporation – dragging in profit at all costs and only providing services that can be paid for with retained earnings.  NO! Bad American! Don’t make me get the rolled-up newspaper. The government’s services are those that must be provided to members of a civilized society for the benefit of society.  Health care, prisons, trash removal, roads, postal services, and education may have a role for the private sector as an option, but absolutely can NOT be provided solely to those who can afford it.  We fought a whole war  (remember – the Revolutionary one?) to cast off a social structure that accumulated wealth and access to only those who could afford it, leaving the rest to sink deeper and deeper into poverty, dragging the entire Empire down with it (despite what the nobility thought). 
            So I beg you, whenever someone decries “big government” or “out of control spending” ask them – how much are you willing to pay out of pocket to a private company to remove your trash? To treat your drinking water? To inspect your food? To guide your airplane through the skies? Yes, there are private options (gated communities opt to stay off the grid and pay private companies for roads and trash, but they are certainly not the majority, and they act as a whole community – not as individuals) but consider the social fabric;  YOU may be willing to pay $1,000 per year for trash disposal, but what if your neighbors are not willing or able to do the same? Your block becomes clogged with trash, disease, and vermin.  Yay for you – the government went away. And back we go to Colonial times (you know – like the Tea Party costumes) when you had to buy memberships into fire and police guilds.  Anyone who didn’t buy in had to negotiate with the reps who stood outside and watched their houses burn.  Good idea? How about if your neighbor failed to buy in.  Ever seen a block of rowhomes go up in flames? All it takes is one person behind on his dues to bring an entire block of homes to ash. 
            What about police and 911 services? Should these be profit-driven? Do you want to be the person whose crime is too expensive to investigate? Where is the profit in solving murders? More importantly, where is the profit in solving them correctly. Is there a profit to ensuring your civil rights when you’re on trial? It’s far more expedient and far cheaper to simply dispense with some of the rituals designed to ensure the right person is convicted – is that what’s best for everyone? Sure it would reduce taxes, but do you want to be the one wrongly convicted because of a cost-cutting measure? You knew the victim, you have no alibi, you have no money for a defense lawyer, so away you go. Public defenders are so expensive, right? So you do it – go to court and stand in front of a judge, next to a prosecutor and detective who are instructed by the corporation to get this case closed and get you into a private-prison bed as soon as possible.  You can check out a book on local procedures at the library, I’m sure you’ll do fine.
            Ambulances? I envision a hierarchy of plans. You can buy in at the Gold rate down to the Wood rate.  Since vehicles are expensive and personnel more so, there are probably only 2  or 3 trucks in the company, right? So imagine a bad, bad night when 8 calls come in from private subscribers.  They have to allocate resources, right? Like any good corporation. So the Gold member in the gated community on the hill gets his truck, and the Silver member in the historic lakefront home gets her truck. Then the Bronze member who lives on the other side of town but is closer to the garage than you gets his truck, since gas is expensive and you’re also only a Bronze member. So your child who drank the stuff under the sink will just have to wait until a truck is available. Profit motive still looking good?
            There are also things the government needs to do a better job of – like inspecting the food supply and enforcing immigration laws. Why are they failing? LACK OF FUNDING!  Because we are so afraid of funding things that look like “big government” that we leave some of the most important functions anemic and hobbled.  What do we fund instead? Wars.  Endless, unplanned, unjustifiable wars against nations that (in recent memory) pose only the most tangential and theoretical threat to our own.  Despite the soaring rhetoric of terror, the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan posed no immediate or even conceivable threat to our security.  And yet we send trillions of tax dollars down the rabbit hole and complain about border security.  We spend trillions on arms accumulations and the largest standing army in the world, just in case we decide to pop in on another war at a moment’s notice.
            Here’s the facts kids: the government has multiple jobs to do for all of our benefit.  All of those jobs cost money.  We pay a relatively infinitesimal amount of tax compared to the value of the services we receive: police, fire departments, air traffic control, roads, water treatment and sewers, wildlife management, food and drug safety, the health care and retirement benefits that some people receive, food for the poor, housing safety for renters, labor protection for workers, harbor and shipping inspection, daily mail delivery, safe trucks on the highways with us on the morning commute, safe trains carrying millions of gallons of toxic chemicals and tons of cargo, and on and on and on.  Complain about taxes and government all you want, but the fact is that the benefits FAR outweigh the costs.  And while waste, ineffectiveness, and silliness certainly exist, and some functions absolutely need improvement,  the solution requires a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. That’s all I’m sayin’.


[1] http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/gg96158.pdf
[2] http://www.afscme.org/docs/colorado.pdf

The Schizophrenic American Voter (8/13/10)


We cherish bi-partisanship among our elected officials.  When most of us decry the political machine, and “the Washington way” we mean partisan politics.  By which we usually mean voting along party lines regardless of whether it’s best for your constituents, the country, or your own conscience.  We want our officials to be adult, educated, able to lead

But we don’t want them too smart.  We say they should be real folks, not over-educated elitists, they should understand “the people.”  But these Real People have to be pristine and perfect, with nary a blemish in their entire lives.  No traffic tickets, no faux pas, no family skeletons.  No relations that might have them either.  An unbroken halo of a life unchallenged.  But still someone you want to have a beer with. Huh? The ideal person that the American voter wants (unmarked, unbesmirchable) is most definitely not someone I would want to have a beer with – they have no experiences to draw on. We learn by making mistakes, but we demand elected officials  who have never made them. But who understand that we make them. But who are just like us, only smarter. But not too smart. Hmmm.  Wait...

We develop and change as we grow (well, most of us), but we want our politicians to be static.  They can’t change their views, or alter their position based on altered facts or circumstances that warrant it without being accused of “flip-flopping.”  If you said something 15 years ago that your partly likes, you damn well better still be willing to say it.  Unless it’s something the party doesn’t like anymore – then you better repudiate (that’s “refudiate” to the Palinites) it post haste.

We don’t want growth experiences, evolving viewpoints, or connection to the complex dynamics of society to influence those Real People we elected – they have to maintain their perspectives from election to election in perpetuity so we “know who we’re voting for.”  But we don’t like the entrenched career politicians who do things the same old way.  We carry on about the Washington bubble where politicians go and lose touch with the real world. So you better be responsive to changing economies and changing social values. But don’t “flip-flop.”  As Sarah Palin put it – you better “dance with the one who brung you.” Meaning you follow the party line and you stick with whatever your opinion was 40 years ago when you got there. Even if people’s views change, you will be lambasted during the Silly Season for changing your position, often simply as a res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself). Your change of position will be portrayed as an obvious sign of (insert bad thing here: weakness, influence of special interest groups, pandering, lying. etc.), even if what you’ve done is develop a more sophisticated understanding of the problem you’re trying to address. 

Which brings me to the new anti-government sentiment, which is all about getting the incumbents out.  But who are these incumbents? Guess what – they include all the freshman legislators you voted in just 2 short years ago to get the last incumbent out, who may well have been the new guy last time.  And now it’s about “we sent you there to clean up the joint and you didn’t.”  Well, the new kid on the block has a learning curve in Congress just like everywhere else – they can’t overhaul the entire political system in their first term. And for the most part, they shouldn’t.  New legislators - perhaps more than any other new kid on the block – are often in place based on populist slogans that aren’t forged in the fires of intellectual wrestling and deep research, but rather on things that average folks on the street think based on their emotional reactions to sound bites and 30 second news clips.  These are terrible foundations for legislation! But since we as a society have a sense that our government should do whatever we want rather than what’s best for the nation, we LOVE it when candidates tell us we’re right and smart and should be in control of everything.  So the new kid gets to Washington with little more than a fire in the belly and a few cue cards.  Then they start talking to the folks who’ve been there-done that and (hopefully) start to realize that they aren’t the saviors of mankind they thought they were – they’re more like teenagers stomping their feet and demanding to be in control of their own lives and not have to do dishes or take out trash. So anti-incumbent sentiment is not only inherently flawed as a platform (as soon as you elect a new savior, she becomes an ‘incumbent’ and is now the enemy), but also counterproductive - denying that legislators get better with experience just like anyone else.

We think we want the best and the brightest, but we demand unreasonable things from them, both in order to get elected and once they’re there. Is it any wonder that the best and brightest don’t want to run? Who wants that? Who wants their high school prom date in the tabloids discussing their juvenile pranks? Your vindictive ex on Fox News saying whatever horrible thing they want and getting the rapt attention of the non-fact-checking media? Or, heaven forbid, a college rally against a Wal*Mart showing up during a Republican campaign? Who wants to have their education used against them and face the demands of the screamingly uninformed that you kowtow to their every whim? And who are They anyway? One thing is for sure – if you’ve got 20 people in a room and one issue on the table, you’ll have 45 different opinions and probably another 32 issues being argued about.

Politics represents, in many ways, the deep divide in American thinking, and we continue to be shocked that “they” aren’t doing what “we” want when we don’t even really know what that is.  It’s a Madonna-whore complex of national significance.  And until Americans are better educated about the government and its processes and duties (i.e. NOT ‘do as I say, not as the other 60,000 people in this district say’) and more willing to recognize that every individual person can’t get their way all the time any more than one new representative can drive national policy, we will continue with this spiral of inferior candidates, inferior platforms, and inferior government processes.  And for heaven’s sake STOP denigrating education and STOP thinking that candidates should be just like you – they SHOULD be smarter than you! They should be smarter than me! They should actually be the best and the brightest, and if you want real people, you HAVE to accept that you can’t just checklist them off every time the opposition says “he made mistake X and changed his opinion about Y” – those aren’t bad things.  I guarantee you’ve done worse. So have I. Grow up America! Most people stop thinking in black and white at about second grade, but somehow our political thinking has regressed to toddlerhood where we think we know everything and we can do a better job and good candidates have to be perfect according to some standard that we don’t quite understand.

Join Sandra Day-O’Connor’s quest to re-introduce civics education into classrooms.  And coffee-shops and diners and anywhere else there are people.  http://www.icivics.org/.

Prop 8 ruling (8/9/10)

Can’t ... not ... comment ... on Prop 8 ...

Realizing that much ink and much wringing of hands has already been expended on the Prop 8 ruling of this month, I loathe to add more to the already-muddled throng, but alas, I must.  However, I will restrain myself to a single point here. 

In 136 pages (yes – I read it all), Judge Walker makes a very (excruciatingly) careful record of the trial and of his decision.  He addresses each element of the arguments for and against, and discusses each witness and their testimony.  My last hope was dashed on the shores  of  I-was-right-after-all-ville.  I have spent many years trying diligently to find an actual explaination for exactly how gay marriage would undermine, devalue, or in any way really affect hetero marriage.  This decision was my one remaining hope, but still – nothing.  Perhaps the Supreme Court will say something, but it’s not lookin’ good – they’re bound to the record.

I generally try to at least hear the other side of an argument, but after several years, I am left empty.  The sum total of the best-thought-out arguments against gay marriage all seem to boil down to “it just will.”  But WHY???? I beg of you – why? Tell me what the precise mechanism is that will create the endless parade of horribles that the antis claim must certainly result from legalizing gay marriage.

The very fact that gays are willing to fight so hard for so long to be permitted to marry seems to only support the ongoing vitality of marriage as a social institution. And yet the fight for the right to marry has somehow been labeled the doom of the very prize. Odd. 

So on to a point that follows (for me anyway) on the heels of this – the Other Side.  In my view, it isn’t the right of gay couples to marry that threatens marriage as an institution of social value, but rather the opposition to it.  That’s right Righties – it’s all your own doing!  Here’s how it works.  You (the antis) are making marriage into a club – a heteros-only club. And in the process, you are pushing marriage into a particular social cubical – an ultra-religious, intolerant, out-of-touch, isolationist, old-fashioned cubicle.  Not surprisingly, there are many, many people who don’t want to play in your clubhouse, and choose to reject being associated with those labels.  Consequently, the young will flock away from the very thing you are trying so hard to make Yours and Only Yours.  No one who disagrees or wants to do things differently need apply.  So congratulations, you’re turning marriage into a Whites Only golf club, a Men Only bar, and losing the war to win the battle. 

The appeal of Walker’s decision has hung itself on the state’s interest in funneling procreative relationships into the stable institution of marriage. So, let me get this straight.  If we let gays marry, all of their accidental procreating will happen outside marriage? And if we let gays marry, all the heteros who accidentally procreate outside marriage, won’t.  Huh? I will stop now, and hopefully the silliness of this last, desperate attempt to keep up the No Blacks, Girls, Jews, Protestants, (fill in your favorite group here) Allowed signs up. 

And P.S. – a friend of mine once said that his objection to gay marriage is simply that the states shouldn’t be involved with marriage in the first place, it’s a religious institution.  Agreed, but they did get involved, so now they are involved and the actuality of marriage is as a civil and legal structure.  The religious element is now little more than ceremonial.  So it has to be addressed as a civil institution with the attendant civil benefits.  No one has ever said that any church would have to perform gay weddings any more than they have to perform interracial or interfaith weddings.  That’s still entirely up to the church.  And now that I’ve been to my first church-performed gay wedding, I can say with authority that it was every bit as beautiful, moving, romantic, and meaningful as any hetero religious wedding performed at the point of a shotgun.  

OK I lied – there’s one more thing.  I’ve heard a lot of outcry about an “activist judge” overturning the “will of the people” and I feel the need to express the outrage and face-palmistry of this.  Holy cow people – didn’t any of you ever have 6th grade Civics!! The judicial branch of government is designed to be isolated from populist influences.  The whole idea of an independent judiciary is for the judges to protect the minority from oppression by the majority. THAT’S THEIR JOB!!! The legislature is for populism, the judiciary is expressly NOT a populist institution.  Judges are supposed to protect the rights of the people least able to do so through the legislature.  So the complaints that the judge was out of line for overturning the will of the people, and claims that this is evidence that something has to change, are just embarrassing to me. Well, I’m embarrassed for the people making these claims. Especially since they seem to buttress their outrage with references to the Founders and democratic government.  Really? Try again – you clearly don’t understand the tripartite government you’re so busy defending.  Grab a 6th grade textbook and do a little looking-into and get back to us.

OK then, carry on. I’m just saying.