Does part of this not fly in the face of private entrapenureship? The part that requires profits be put back into the infrastructure. I thought true private enterpries, as defined by the Republican right, was that invstors have the right to do what they wish with the profits from their endeavors. Requiring profits be turned back into the organization is the idea of non-profits. And while a lot of people earn huge salaries and benefits from non profits, investsors don’t.
Privatization sounds like the responsible thing to do in order to cut out government waste. However, if a program under consideration is so wasteful that it has no viable economic market, how can it be privatized?
I suspect that proposals for privatization will result in a kind of symbolic privatization that will be used as a tool to offset criticism that the government operation is wasteful. In that scenario, a private operator will be inserted and the government will subsidized the private operator and the operation to make up for the fact that the program is not economically viable in the first place.
So the government will still be in the driver’s seat as a sort of silent partner, and the overall program will have been expanded and made more wasteful than before due to the additional layer required for the private operator.
FTL: "…Republican Mark Kirk today will unveil a plan designed to make it easier for governments to lease public transportation assets or enter into partnerships with private companies to build them.
Kirk will unveil his bill–which runs counter to proposed legislation from Sen. Dick Durbin–at the Union League Club in downtown Chicago at 8:30 a.m… He says the plan could produce $100 billion for public-private partnerships on highway, mass transit, aviation and rail projects…"
In another thread referencing privatization of the NE Corridor (AMTRAK). REP Mica ( R-Fl) had announced he was going to introduce a bill to (essentially) sell to private/commercial interests the AMTRAK owned NE Corridor. Later Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) announced he was going to intro legislation ( in House?) to kill the major aspects of Rep Mica’s Bill. Now Sen KIRK (R-Il) is apparently landing somewhere in the middle(?) with HIS legislation.
This whole AMTRAK situation seems to be victimized by partisanship on Both sides of the Legislative Branch.&
Sam,
Congress had the option of paying the rail carriers a subsidy to operate the trains the govt wanted operated before they created ATK. They did not choose that route, probably too simple, so they created ATK which cut about half the train miles the private carriers had been operating immediately before ATK took over.
ATK was, is, and will always be a creature of congress and subject to congressional whim. Thats the way they made it.
Mac
There is a report {Trains magazine, March 2009, Trains’ formula for fixing Amtrak, article by Rush Loving, Jr.] that the Nixon Administration and Washington and railroad insiders created Amtrak with the goal of intentional failure within two or three years, thus eliminating a financial drain through the backdoor. When Fortune magazine published an article exposing the deliberate mismanagement in 1974, Louis Menk (Chairman of BN) expressed concern that the plan might not work.
I have worked with quite a few organizations which are controlled by individuals or boards of directors who have no concept of business or the business at hand. Too often these groups fail to grasp the need for product maintenance, advertising/marketing, and innovation for instance. Thus either the wrong thing is done or nothing is done or money is saved by not spending it. Thus when the whole organization is on the rocks or becomes an abject failure, they don’t know what happened. Amtrak is a great idea being run by such a board of directors (yes, Amtrak has a Board of Directors but they are part of Amtrak and not of the Congress of the US which is the real owner-operator-board of directors).
I think the profits being referred to are those realized by government for sale or lease of now public entities. Any money received must go to infrastructure instead of general fund usage.
Jeff
Just a caution about using labels Henry.
Mac: You are exactly right!
IMHO Congress created a monster of unintended consequences when they threw AMTRAK together.
The sad part seems to be, that they have the tools and abilities to conjure up a better system, but seem to lack the political fortitude to make it really functional financially.
Consequently, AMTRAK is the tennis ball that the Congressional Cat plays with, until it is tired and then bats it down to the basement. [2c]
Yes, we of the “Republican right” still cling to the idea that when someone earns a dollar it belongs to him/her and he/she has great discretion as to what to do with his/her own earnings. Of course, the enslaved market types think they know best what everyone should do with the money he/she earns. In fact, such enslaved market types believe the money really doesn’t belong to the folks who earn it. It all belongs to the government. They just let us keep some of it. Out of the goodness of their government heart.
Trains is about to publish an article written by a man, Steve Ditmeyer, who told me just that. Many years ago. Their willingness to do such things is one reason I cancelled my subscription after 48 years. (I cancelled before I knew of Ditmeyer’s article. It was their slant that drove me off.) They can publish what they want, I’m just not going to pay to read it.
Anyway Henry, you need to read the article again. You don’t understand. The restriction will be on how the government entity selling the asset uses the money, not on the private investors.
A bit over the top, doncha just think? Get off it.
No, it’s not over the top and no, I won’t get off of it based on your say so. There are moderators who can control what I post on this site. Unless and until you become one of them don’t you ever propose to control what I can say.
You continually deride folks like me as being “free market types.” You don’t seem to think much of free markets. (allthough they have consistently proven themselves) Well, the oposite of freedom is slavery. But “Slave Market” has a whole different meaning. So if you insist on derisively labeling me, and people who think as I do, as “free market types” then I’m going to refer to you and Henry6 as “enslaved market types.”
An that is exactly what future Trains author Steve Ditmeyer said to me. Our work and earning is to support the government. All the money we earn belongs to the government. “They” decide on how much they let us keep. Kind of stands the whole thing on its head, doesn’t it. He’ll fit right in with the Trains editorial staff.
That is what he said. Would have been about 1975. We were both reserve officers in the Army Transportation Corps doing our two weeks of annual active duty at Ft. Eustis, VA. He did outrank me.
-
I respect your thoughtful postings and voice of reason, even if I don’t always agree. I actually agree with a lot of your points. I am surprised at your reaction, since free market is not a derogatory term to most people, including myself. It is a simple, descriptive, non-evaluative term.
-
You started using a very derogatory term, enslaved market. it is not a generally recognized or neutral term. In fact a Google search turns up a preserved Enslavement Market near Natchez, a legacy of the South’s slavery days. Ron Paul referred to enslaving with reference to the Federal reserve. I don’t think your term really fits regardless of the new Trains writer’s views, which if your memory of some years is correct, sound ridiculous. Perhaps “regulated market types” is a better description of my views.
-
I certainly was not telling you what to say. I was tongue-in-cheek warning you, given the moderators’ recent edicts on political and even ideological terminology. I guess it didn’t come off that way. For that I am sorry.