When the concept of privatizing first surfaced on the political landscape it seemed like a good idea whose time had come. Clearly, to save extensive taxpayers funds in the performance of a governmental function seemed like a good idea. Where was the down side ?
Unfortunately the down side is now screamingly apparent and is in the process of taking huge, destructive bites out of good government. It has become a solution in search of a problem, where in pursuit of profit, inattentive or lazy politicians are persuaded to sell a portion of their sovereign responsibility to the smiling face of some generous campaign contributor. The benefits to the politician are several. Firstly, the constituents are persuaded that privatizing will save tax dollars and that their elected officials who favor such moves are looking out for the public. By contracting out the politicians are relieved of further responsibility in the privatizing function, now the responsibility of the contractor whose obligations are supposedly set forth with great specificity in the terms of the contract. Although this is the rubric, it is seldom the actual case. Contracts, framed in vague, rosy, descriptive language setting out ill-defined objectives give the contractor vast cover, maneuvering room to weasel and craw fish, to advance varying interpretations as changes in circumstances or expectations may require. Rarely, if ever, is there any consideration for providing a valid mechanism to determine if real savings have been achieved nor any continuing examination or oversight to determine whether the public interest is being better served since this would require a continuing question as to whether the original decision to privatize was a correct one. What, a continuing responsibility for a political decision ? What a frightening, radical idea that is. Hold politicians responsible for their decisions ?
What is actually happening is that at all levels of government America is for sale, discreet pieces of government on the block, for sale to the highest t bidder. Counties have sold the responsibility to operate its jails to large corporations, Correction Corporation of America, and Wackenhut among others. The contention that this will save tax dollars is pure smoke and mirrors. We now have large executive salaries, as well as profit for the stockholders added to the actual cost of running a jail. Hiring less qualified personnel at lower salaries, creating some risks is part of the formula. Putting the conduct of management beyond the reach of the elected officials and the public is part of the price. Another part of the price is that in the event something goes wrong, County is not off the hook, not relieved of legal responsibility for the operation of the facility despite all of the laudatory language, all the reassurances inserted into the contract documents by the high powered attorneys representing the contractors. Indeed since their clients have secured the management of a large number of jails, they have developed a level of expertise far greater than the legal representative of government, especially when the elected politicians are pushing their staffs to make the deal rather than carefully examine the proposals for the pitfalls, the downside less they call their bosses judgment into question. The State of Florida’s budget in 2003 appropriated 132 million for privatizing contracts.
A careful look at privatizing leads to the conclusion that what we are seeing in the out sourcing of critical governmental functions. On occasion, the actual transfer of governmental function is presented as a mere contract for services, rather than an outright transfer of responsibility.
The recent problems which have surfaced with respect to the acquisition of “new generation” voting machines is a good example where the process of recording and compiling the voting records is claimed to be a “proprietary secret” a black box concept depriving the voters of the ability to audit and verify the correctness of reported results and without any paper trail in effect lets the contractor control the outcome of an election. What greater danger for potential abuse can be imagined yet “lazy” election officials, content to contract out their basic responsibility to the charms of technology have put our very election process in jeopardy.
Privatization has become an aggressive industry. No longer content to be a dormant availability to assist government, Dick Army, a former Republican workhorse in the House, presents it as part of a conservative battle between “Free Market” vs. the corrupt, ever expanding big government. Using seductive terms such as “streamlining ”well funded foundations such as the Reason Foundation have sprung up to promote the new enlightenment, let corporations, not elected government run the country.
Not to be outdone the publishers of legal books have hit the market with a number of “How to” books, targeting both attorneys who work for governments as well as clients who are potential contractors. An interesting document created at taxpayer expense is a GAO report to the “House Republican Task Force on Privatization. “ This tome is essentially a “how to “ outline, to assist the Republican task force in finding lucrative opportunities for their corporate campaign contributors. In the field of education privatizing is achieved, by vouchering, a backdoor way to dismantle public education and funnel money to religious institutions at the same time.
Probably one of the quietest, and most insidious examples of runaway privatization was the virtual gutting of the U. S. Army’s Quartermaster Corps. Although that entity still exists on paper, an examination of the incredible number of contractors in Iraq performing their function staggers the imagination, particularly as to have costs and questionable procurement methods. Not adverse to helping a political friend, the current administration has let multibillion dollar contracts to such entities as , Halliburton, without the benefit of obtaining competitive bids, nor with any great specificity as to mission. Here is a bucket of money, do good. Of course Halliburton, after slicing a huge cut for their own coffers, turns around and sub contracts most of the work out, some to subsidiary companies, totally owned and controlled by themselves but provide a “cut out” so they can take an additional slice for profit. They operate the food services, cafeteria style, transportation, logistics, communications, protection contractors, all receiving huge salaries for performing services formerly performed by the military. Taxpayer savings? It is to laugh.
Vice President Cheney was Secretary of Defense during Ronald Reagan’s administration, when privatizing became all the rage. After leaving DOD he joined Halliburton as CEO, thereby enabling him to catch his own pass. Whether his blind trust hidden behind a “Chinese wall” contains stock options and residual interest in Halliburton is not known. His going away package was 35 million.
One has only to recall the recent attempt to contract our port security concerns to a foreign corporation owned by a foreign Muslim government to demonstrate how deep this rot has gotten nor how dangerous to U.S. interests it has become.
The best, only answer is to elect officials who are willing to perform a difficult job and not “contract out” for a quick fix. Like the man says, “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Commander -in-Chiefism - an emerging philosophy of government
Recently, there has been a constant reassertion that the President is the Commander in Chief, as if this statement’s a complete answer to any comment or criticism of his behavior with respect to any aspect of his conduct or comment concerning the war in Iraq.
Firstly, it should be noted that the constitution declares that the President shall be the commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,...not of the entire country nor of the entire government of the United States. The constitution has carefully bifurcated responsibility with respect to war; providing that the Congress, not the President, has the power to declare war and further providing that the Congress has the power to raise and support Armies, but no appropriation for that purpose shall be longer than two years.
The clear intent of these provisions is that the authority delegated to the President with respect to waging war is neither unqualified nor irrevocable, and that the Congress should have a continuing role in this process. A reference to the Federalist Papers, which were written as an explanation of the proposed constitution makes this abundantly clear.
Of late the White House, in defending the prerogatives of Presidential power seems to view the power of the Executive as virtually unlimited, as if we now have a President whose authority is without limit, similar to the Latin American dictators of the last century.
Despite the failure of the original rationale advanced for making war against Iraq, the President seems to take the position that neither the Congress nor the American people have any right to question his conduct of the war nor the supposed objectives of our involvement which appear to be constantly changing, like an amorphous mirage shimmering and changing shape on some distant horizon. His vision is as distorted as Reagan’s “Shining city on a hill, “ as irrelevant and pointless a metaphor as ever advanced by spin masters as a governmental objective.
Our “commander - in - chief” needs to get a reality check, whether initiated by Congressional electric shock or the weight of public opinion which is fed up with this war and his dyslexic vision of where the United State’s interests lie.
Finally, in this game of power and one upmanship it should be remembered that Congress has the ultimate trump. It is the power of Impeachment.
Firstly, it should be noted that the constitution declares that the President shall be the commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,...not of the entire country nor of the entire government of the United States. The constitution has carefully bifurcated responsibility with respect to war; providing that the Congress, not the President, has the power to declare war and further providing that the Congress has the power to raise and support Armies, but no appropriation for that purpose shall be longer than two years.
The clear intent of these provisions is that the authority delegated to the President with respect to waging war is neither unqualified nor irrevocable, and that the Congress should have a continuing role in this process. A reference to the Federalist Papers, which were written as an explanation of the proposed constitution makes this abundantly clear.
Of late the White House, in defending the prerogatives of Presidential power seems to view the power of the Executive as virtually unlimited, as if we now have a President whose authority is without limit, similar to the Latin American dictators of the last century.
Despite the failure of the original rationale advanced for making war against Iraq, the President seems to take the position that neither the Congress nor the American people have any right to question his conduct of the war nor the supposed objectives of our involvement which appear to be constantly changing, like an amorphous mirage shimmering and changing shape on some distant horizon. His vision is as distorted as Reagan’s “Shining city on a hill, “ as irrelevant and pointless a metaphor as ever advanced by spin masters as a governmental objective.
Our “commander - in - chief” needs to get a reality check, whether initiated by Congressional electric shock or the weight of public opinion which is fed up with this war and his dyslexic vision of where the United State’s interests lie.
Finally, in this game of power and one upmanship it should be remembered that Congress has the ultimate trump. It is the power of Impeachment.
The subversion of Justice
One of the more surprising revelations of the inquiry into the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys was the disclosure of the hiring of 150 graduates of Regent University’s law graduates by the U.S. Department of Justice during the Bush administration. Regent University (formerly CBN University) is a bible school with delusions of grandeur, a right wing evangelical “Madrassa “, created and chancellored by Pat Robertson. It’s law school, headed by a law school graduate who could not pass the bar exam, is regarded a fourth tier law school, rated as one of the lowest in the United States. Its agenda and curriculum is devoted toward producing lawyers who will advance Robertson’s particular brand of religious dogma rather than developing legal expertise. Pat Robertson’s very own Taliban.
Monica Goodling, who recently resigned from the Department of Justice is a fairly recent Regent law graduate who served as a top aide to the Attorney General and as the department’s liaison to the White House. Just how she rocketed to such prominence is not clear. Certainly not due to her qualifications or her lackluster record in the law. When her possible involvement in the firing of the eight U.S. Attorneys became public she promptly resigned and announced she would invoke the protection of the 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution with respect to her activities at the Justice Department.
Certainly Miss Goodling’s efforts on their behalf played a significant role in the hiring of 150 Regent law graduates in preference to graduates of more highly regarded law schools. Perhaps an assist from Kay Cole James, the former dean of Regent’s school of government, who served as Bush’s director of the Federal Office of Personnel Management and Bush’s principal advisor in matters of personnel hiring and administration for the Federal Civil Service.
While Miss Goodling has a perfect right to seek the protection of the 5th amendment, it is equally clear that she has some guilty knowledge with respect to her activities while at Justice and is apprehensive as to her vulnerability to criminal prosecution.
If the Congress sees fit to grant her testimonial immunity it will be interesting to see how much influence Pat Robertson has acquired in the administration of Justice.
Monica Goodling, who recently resigned from the Department of Justice is a fairly recent Regent law graduate who served as a top aide to the Attorney General and as the department’s liaison to the White House. Just how she rocketed to such prominence is not clear. Certainly not due to her qualifications or her lackluster record in the law. When her possible involvement in the firing of the eight U.S. Attorneys became public she promptly resigned and announced she would invoke the protection of the 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution with respect to her activities at the Justice Department.
Certainly Miss Goodling’s efforts on their behalf played a significant role in the hiring of 150 Regent law graduates in preference to graduates of more highly regarded law schools. Perhaps an assist from Kay Cole James, the former dean of Regent’s school of government, who served as Bush’s director of the Federal Office of Personnel Management and Bush’s principal advisor in matters of personnel hiring and administration for the Federal Civil Service.
While Miss Goodling has a perfect right to seek the protection of the 5th amendment, it is equally clear that she has some guilty knowledge with respect to her activities while at Justice and is apprehensive as to her vulnerability to criminal prosecution.
If the Congress sees fit to grant her testimonial immunity it will be interesting to see how much influence Pat Robertson has acquired in the administration of Justice.
Upward Mobility, Work and Retirement
The dream of immigrants of the 19th and 20th century was that America offered an opportunity to secure a good life and upward mobility with hard work and education. This too, was the belief of children of the 1st generation, fostered by our educational system and Horiatio Alger dreams of advancement.
To secure a good job with a reputable company was the objective of many. A lifetime of loyalty and dedication was the path to security and a good pension. For many others, higher education, even if one had to work his way through school, led to professional status with its attendant rewards. Part time jobs and occasional loans were sufficient to get one through university, tuition's were low and work-study plans were frequently available. The G.I. Bill was a path for others. Veterans who had already paid their dues.
All of these dreams have become just that, dreams, now largely unobtainable due to the rampant unregulated greed that has swallowed our society. The corporate world, with the aid of its co-opted legislators have reshaped the bankruptcy courts into an engine to destroy labor contracts, reduce wages and renege on pension plans so long as the stockholders profit and the market rises.
After a lifetime of loyal work, employees are told to look to 401K’s or their own savings as a source of retirement income. Some are forced to extend their working years well into their 70’s in order to survive. Pension plans are being scuttled by management in order to raise the value of stock for the benefit of the stockholders and increase the size of “golden parachute plans” for upper management.
Social Security is threatened, largely by years of underfunding and raiding it’s trust fund for other projects. Half-baked plans to “privatize” social security are advanced by opportunistic conservatives. Better jobs, once the key rungs on the ladder to advancement, are “out sourced”, relocated overseas in some depressed labor market to the greater profit of the company.
Universities with endowments in the billions have raised their costs and tuition to such an extent only the children of the well off can hope to attend. State legislatures, once the enthusiastic supporters of state university systems, have directed revenues elsewhere, necessitating large increases in tuition. Student loans have become big business, available largely if co-signed by parents. Congress cuts Pell grants and raises the interest rate on student loans. Now working parents are forced to remortgage their homes, paid off after years of hard work, in order that their children may attend a good college. Minimum wage standards, frozen for years, greatly reduces the ability of students to save and work their way through college.
Demographic studies demonstrate that the rich are becoming the very rich while the middle class shrinks and the ranks of the poor are growing. Congress approves more tax cuts for the wealthy as a solution to our social decline, points to the increase in the stock market as evidence of their success, while the standard of living for the average citizen declines.
One must ask is all of this really necessary ? Isn’t several million dollars enough of a fortune to satisfy even the most avaricious of our society or must the scramble to become richer become merely a way to keep score, to measure the quantum of success against the gains of our competitors ? Our elected representatives, seduced by huge campaign contributions, should be made to rethink the nature of their obligations, or be replaced !
To secure a good job with a reputable company was the objective of many. A lifetime of loyalty and dedication was the path to security and a good pension. For many others, higher education, even if one had to work his way through school, led to professional status with its attendant rewards. Part time jobs and occasional loans were sufficient to get one through university, tuition's were low and work-study plans were frequently available. The G.I. Bill was a path for others. Veterans who had already paid their dues.
All of these dreams have become just that, dreams, now largely unobtainable due to the rampant unregulated greed that has swallowed our society. The corporate world, with the aid of its co-opted legislators have reshaped the bankruptcy courts into an engine to destroy labor contracts, reduce wages and renege on pension plans so long as the stockholders profit and the market rises.
After a lifetime of loyal work, employees are told to look to 401K’s or their own savings as a source of retirement income. Some are forced to extend their working years well into their 70’s in order to survive. Pension plans are being scuttled by management in order to raise the value of stock for the benefit of the stockholders and increase the size of “golden parachute plans” for upper management.
Social Security is threatened, largely by years of underfunding and raiding it’s trust fund for other projects. Half-baked plans to “privatize” social security are advanced by opportunistic conservatives. Better jobs, once the key rungs on the ladder to advancement, are “out sourced”, relocated overseas in some depressed labor market to the greater profit of the company.
Universities with endowments in the billions have raised their costs and tuition to such an extent only the children of the well off can hope to attend. State legislatures, once the enthusiastic supporters of state university systems, have directed revenues elsewhere, necessitating large increases in tuition. Student loans have become big business, available largely if co-signed by parents. Congress cuts Pell grants and raises the interest rate on student loans. Now working parents are forced to remortgage their homes, paid off after years of hard work, in order that their children may attend a good college. Minimum wage standards, frozen for years, greatly reduces the ability of students to save and work their way through college.
Demographic studies demonstrate that the rich are becoming the very rich while the middle class shrinks and the ranks of the poor are growing. Congress approves more tax cuts for the wealthy as a solution to our social decline, points to the increase in the stock market as evidence of their success, while the standard of living for the average citizen declines.
One must ask is all of this really necessary ? Isn’t several million dollars enough of a fortune to satisfy even the most avaricious of our society or must the scramble to become richer become merely a way to keep score, to measure the quantum of success against the gains of our competitors ? Our elected representatives, seduced by huge campaign contributions, should be made to rethink the nature of their obligations, or be replaced !
The Color of your Tie
I was thinking about the effect of bias in thinking and decision making. It came up in the context of some people indicating they could not vote for Obama for president because he was black, no matter what. A predictable and unfortunate attitude with some in the American south. But it started me thinking about bias in general; where and how much weight it is given in all kinds of thinking, in the process of decision making. Firstly, I was concerned with whether it becomes a factor in evaluation; whether it is included, inappropriately, in a list of concerns which lead to a decision. That would be bad enough but what if it serves as a filter, to block the receipt of otherwise relevant information never let into the process of weighing facts and making choices on a rational basis.
I was watching a TV show, book reviewing, and I decided I didn’t like the necktie worn by the lecturer. It was a skimpy, pale, stripey bow tie, an utterly silly looking thing and as I looked at it the words of the lecturer seemed to fade. Was this merely an absurd fashion bias on my part or perhaps my questioning why anyone would wear such a tie, and further, whether the choice of wearing such a tie reflected on the quality of the judgment making ability of the wearer and shouldn’t I take that into consideration in weighing, or even accepting the quality of his opinion, downgrade his believability or even reject everything he has to say out of hand because of his flawed judgment in necktie selection.
I knew rather quickly that I had seized on something important, whether such subliminal considerations, trivial or not, have an important impact on decision making, even on issues of great importance. I found the realization rather frightening and totally valid. If I could diminish the importance of what was being said by such a trivial consideration, couldn’t I reject the communication completely for the same reason ?
Why do some politicians show up, uniformly wearing red neckties on some occasions, only to switch to light blue on others ? Certainly there was a signal, a communication intended. But to what end, for what purpose ? Could biases be triggered intentionally by such subtle signals ? And if so, what happens to receptivity of information or the potential for intelligent reception and evaluation of data.
I think in retrospect we are a long way from where we should be and perhaps sightlessness is not really blindness. Justice has a blindfold as well as scales.
I was watching a TV show, book reviewing, and I decided I didn’t like the necktie worn by the lecturer. It was a skimpy, pale, stripey bow tie, an utterly silly looking thing and as I looked at it the words of the lecturer seemed to fade. Was this merely an absurd fashion bias on my part or perhaps my questioning why anyone would wear such a tie, and further, whether the choice of wearing such a tie reflected on the quality of the judgment making ability of the wearer and shouldn’t I take that into consideration in weighing, or even accepting the quality of his opinion, downgrade his believability or even reject everything he has to say out of hand because of his flawed judgment in necktie selection.
I knew rather quickly that I had seized on something important, whether such subliminal considerations, trivial or not, have an important impact on decision making, even on issues of great importance. I found the realization rather frightening and totally valid. If I could diminish the importance of what was being said by such a trivial consideration, couldn’t I reject the communication completely for the same reason ?
Why do some politicians show up, uniformly wearing red neckties on some occasions, only to switch to light blue on others ? Certainly there was a signal, a communication intended. But to what end, for what purpose ? Could biases be triggered intentionally by such subtle signals ? And if so, what happens to receptivity of information or the potential for intelligent reception and evaluation of data.
I think in retrospect we are a long way from where we should be and perhaps sightlessness is not really blindness. Justice has a blindfold as well as scales.
The Price of War and Who Pays It?
What a filthy, disgusting business is war ; always in the final analysis, the product of competing ideologies, its result is the slaughter of the innocents, the butchery of its young men, very young men, who rarely fully grasp an understanding of the dogmas for whom their lives are forfeit. The war lovers are rarely men who have experienced war first hand. They thank you for your service and say they support the troops but they really mean they support the war. They support the prolongation of the war as if this somehow demonstrates their patriotism and justifies your sacrifice.
On days devoted to memorial people speak of the purpose, the nobility of sacrifice. Yet young soldiers are not in the business of sacrifice. They strive for survival as they are subjected to the sweat of fear, the stink of the blood, cordite and excrement of their slaughtered comrades, those cut to pieces by shrapnel and bullets, blown to bits by explosives. Their sacrifice comes from protecting one another, taking risks for their comrades, not in the service of a noble cause. Their young lives are taken from them without their consent to being sacrificed, their dreams and promise being snuffed out by newer and more deadly technologies as mankind supposedly achieves progress.
On these occasions sanctimonious politicians applaud their service ...mouth platitudes and decorate the graves with flowers and flags,never having witnessed the mindless ugliness of their passing, never having shared their sense of loss and the blind hopelessness of the business of slaughter. The most soaring rhetoric comes from those who have not seen lines of body bags being loaded into helicopters or blood flowing from comrades newly created stumps, their severed limbs lying in the mud. They have never witnessed a wounded man dying in mid sentence as he bled out.
The survivors with shattered bodies are persuaded as to the necessity and nobility of their crippling and are expected to feel grateful for their prosthetics and penurious pensions and grudgingly granted education benefits and under staffed VA clinics.
And somehow, after the killing and crippling of our children there is ultimately a reconciliation, a forgiveness, as if our competing ideologies were not irreconcilable, that after all in the spirit of compromise and humanity we can sort out the differences and agree to get along at least until the next righteous crusade or jihad takes shape. Until then business as usual.
In the meanwhile, we glorify the dead for their noble sacrifice and marginalize the survivors with their shattered bodies, nightmares and damaged futures.
Such is the nobility of war !
On days devoted to memorial people speak of the purpose, the nobility of sacrifice. Yet young soldiers are not in the business of sacrifice. They strive for survival as they are subjected to the sweat of fear, the stink of the blood, cordite and excrement of their slaughtered comrades, those cut to pieces by shrapnel and bullets, blown to bits by explosives. Their sacrifice comes from protecting one another, taking risks for their comrades, not in the service of a noble cause. Their young lives are taken from them without their consent to being sacrificed, their dreams and promise being snuffed out by newer and more deadly technologies as mankind supposedly achieves progress.
On these occasions sanctimonious politicians applaud their service ...mouth platitudes and decorate the graves with flowers and flags,never having witnessed the mindless ugliness of their passing, never having shared their sense of loss and the blind hopelessness of the business of slaughter. The most soaring rhetoric comes from those who have not seen lines of body bags being loaded into helicopters or blood flowing from comrades newly created stumps, their severed limbs lying in the mud. They have never witnessed a wounded man dying in mid sentence as he bled out.
The survivors with shattered bodies are persuaded as to the necessity and nobility of their crippling and are expected to feel grateful for their prosthetics and penurious pensions and grudgingly granted education benefits and under staffed VA clinics.
And somehow, after the killing and crippling of our children there is ultimately a reconciliation, a forgiveness, as if our competing ideologies were not irreconcilable, that after all in the spirit of compromise and humanity we can sort out the differences and agree to get along at least until the next righteous crusade or jihad takes shape. Until then business as usual.
In the meanwhile, we glorify the dead for their noble sacrifice and marginalize the survivors with their shattered bodies, nightmares and damaged futures.
Such is the nobility of war !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)