Trump administration wants to sell National and Dulles airports, other assets across U.S. - The Washington Post:
This kind of privatization amounts to selling off valuable public assets to rich investors. Trump and his cronies are strip-mining the public sector. Public lands and public infrastructure are set to be plundered by the 1%. Anything that can turn a profit will be lost to the public and converted to private ownership, put under a long-term lease, or subject to private extraction rights for mining, grazing, logging, etc.
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
Bundy-backing Vegas councilwoman threatens critics at meeting: ‘If I hear a boo I will have marshals remove you!’
Bundy-backing Vegas councilwoman threatens critics at meeting: ‘If I hear a boo I will have marshals remove you!’
This is right-wing, gun-toting, Cliven Bundy supporter Michele Fiore again. The article says that she became angry after a citizen asked her why she was checking her phone during the meeting. As this article notes, she received some attention a while back, when she was running an HOA meeting and did the same thing. It's interesting that she considers herself a great advocate for freedom from tyrannical government, but when she is the one wielding power, she threatens people with arrest for disagreeing with her too vigorously for her taste. At the HOA meeting, "Fiore quickly ordered city marshals to remove someone who asked her a question about the sale, and a disabled veteran who lives nearby decided to start recording video on his phone."
This is right-wing, gun-toting, Cliven Bundy supporter Michele Fiore again. The article says that she became angry after a citizen asked her why she was checking her phone during the meeting. As this article notes, she received some attention a while back, when she was running an HOA meeting and did the same thing. It's interesting that she considers herself a great advocate for freedom from tyrannical government, but when she is the one wielding power, she threatens people with arrest for disagreeing with her too vigorously for her taste. At the HOA meeting, "Fiore quickly ordered city marshals to remove someone who asked her a question about the sale, and a disabled veteran who lives nearby decided to start recording video on his phone."
Monday, February 12, 2018
Trump unveils infrastructure plan: Here's what's in it - Feb. 11, 2018
Trump unveils infrastructure plan: Here's what's in it - Feb. 11, 2018:
You can read the whole thing if you want to, but it doesn't amount to much. Let me boil it down for you.
1. It claims to be a $1.5 trillion dollar federal infrastructure plan.
2. It isn't.
3. It proposes that the federal government would spend only $200 billion dollars, spread over ten years.
4. The rest of the money would magically appear from state, local and (of course) private sources, because...incentives!
5. The American Society of Civil Engineers says we need to spend $4.59 trillion in order to address our aging, inadequate, underperforming, and in some cases dangerous infrastructure.
6. So this proposal is ridiculous. Even if the federal government were actually putting $1.5 trillion to this purpose, it would be less than one-third of what is needed. To chip in $200 billion over a decade is a joke. And to expect cash-strapped state and local governments to pony up these sums is absurd.
7. As for the magic of the private market, all I can see here is the usual Republican smoke and mirrors. They want to sell off public assets (privatization), and create "incentives" for banks to lend and for vendors to do what government should be doing. 70% of the criyeria for obtaining federal funding is getting private money. "The evaluation criteria would be—
8. There is a fundamentally flawed assumption under all this. They always claim that private businesses, that are all about making profits, are going to do things that government has been doing. But the reason government did most of these things is that they are necessary, but not profitable, tasks. So as a general rule, private businesses don't take on such tasks, unless they can make a quick profit and then bail, or unless they can do "cream-skimming" and service only the affluent customers.
8. So if you like expensive toll roads and bridges and tunnels and trains and airports, all of which go to and from places affluent people want to go, then you may get something out of this plan.
9. But for the most part, this "plan" is a bust.
You can read the whole thing if you want to, but it doesn't amount to much. Let me boil it down for you.
1. It claims to be a $1.5 trillion dollar federal infrastructure plan.
2. It isn't.
3. It proposes that the federal government would spend only $200 billion dollars, spread over ten years.
4. The rest of the money would magically appear from state, local and (of course) private sources, because...incentives!
5. The American Society of Civil Engineers says we need to spend $4.59 trillion in order to address our aging, inadequate, underperforming, and in some cases dangerous infrastructure.
6. So this proposal is ridiculous. Even if the federal government were actually putting $1.5 trillion to this purpose, it would be less than one-third of what is needed. To chip in $200 billion over a decade is a joke. And to expect cash-strapped state and local governments to pony up these sums is absurd.
7. As for the magic of the private market, all I can see here is the usual Republican smoke and mirrors. They want to sell off public assets (privatization), and create "incentives" for banks to lend and for vendors to do what government should be doing. 70% of the criyeria for obtaining federal funding is getting private money. "The evaluation criteria would be—
o the dollar value of the project or program of projects (weighted at 10
percent);
o evidence supporting how the applicant will secure and commit new, non-
Federal revenue to create sustainable, long-term funding for infrastructure
investments (weighted at 50 percent);
o evidence supporting how the applicant will secure and commit new, non-
Federal revenue for operations, maintenance and rehabilitation (weighted
at 20 percent);
o updates to procurement policies and project delivery approaches to improve
efficiency in project delivery and operations (weighted at 10 percent);
o plans to incorporate new and evolving technologies (weighted at 5 percent);
and
o evidence supporting how the project will spur economic and social returns
on investment (weighted at 5 percent)."
percent);
o evidence supporting how the applicant will secure and commit new, non-
Federal revenue to create sustainable, long-term funding for infrastructure
investments (weighted at 50 percent);
o evidence supporting how the applicant will secure and commit new, non-
Federal revenue for operations, maintenance and rehabilitation (weighted
at 20 percent);
o updates to procurement policies and project delivery approaches to improve
efficiency in project delivery and operations (weighted at 10 percent);
o plans to incorporate new and evolving technologies (weighted at 5 percent);
and
o evidence supporting how the project will spur economic and social returns
on investment (weighted at 5 percent)."
8. There is a fundamentally flawed assumption under all this. They always claim that private businesses, that are all about making profits, are going to do things that government has been doing. But the reason government did most of these things is that they are necessary, but not profitable, tasks. So as a general rule, private businesses don't take on such tasks, unless they can make a quick profit and then bail, or unless they can do "cream-skimming" and service only the affluent customers.
8. So if you like expensive toll roads and bridges and tunnels and trains and airports, all of which go to and from places affluent people want to go, then you may get something out of this plan.
9. But for the most part, this "plan" is a bust.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)