Sandy, Romney, and the pragmatics of privatization

[ydoaPs]

Last year, Romney said FEMA was "immoral". You should let that sink in when you watch the news and remember it next week.

 

He wants FEMA to be completely disbanded and all functions given to private companies. Question: If everything someone owns and their only source of income are under water, how exactly are they going to pay the privatized responders?

[iNow]

I think Romney's position is ludicrous on its face and completely untenable, but I also think you're misrepresenting it slightly. He said adding debt that future generations must pay for is immoral, not FEMA. He did indicate that disaster relief should be handled within the states, but not specifically that FEMA should disband.

 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-disaster-relief-immoral-2012-10

 

Yes, Romney's "immoral" comment was clearly referring to the debt we're piling up. But he was equally clear that borrowing to fund disaster relief is something that should be cut.

 

Now, maybe you think that what what Romney meant was, "Oh, of course I would keep federal disaster relief—I would just cut something else out of the budget to pay for it."

 

But if he meant that, why didn't he say that?

 

Again, that was last year, when Romney was speaking to a crowd that wanted to hear him say that he would cut disaster relief. Today, after a major disaster, Romney would probably correctly assume that a crowd would want him to say that he wants to keep disaster relief—and, therefore, he would probably say that he wanted to keep it. And, yes, just because Romney says something obviously doesn't mean he believes it.

 

But let's at least agree on what Romney said last year. Romney wanted to cut "disaster relief." Not FEMA. Not other government spending to pay for disaster relief. Just disaster relief.

 

(And, by the way, for those who think what Romney meant was that he wants states and local governments to handle disaster relief, Hurricane Sandy is a perfect example of why this approach is ludicrous and inefficient when dealing with disasters that cross state and local lines. Can you imagine if all the governors of all the states affected by Sandy had to agree with each other and coordinate before they did anything to help each other? The federal government has a place in our society. And disaster relief is part of that place.)

[ecoli]

Even I think this is ridiculous. Emergency disaster relief is something the federal gov't can and should be doing - though the scope and balance of responsibility between federal/state is certainly debatable.

 

To be fair though, when Romney made those remarks, the only people FEMA seemed like they were helping out was poor blacks in Louisiana (and therefore not worth the money). Now that the Financial District and Greenwich Village need a hand I'm sure he'll be back-pedaling on this [actually it looks like he's ignoring the issue completely].

[ydoaPs]

I think Romney's position is ludicrous on its face and completely untenable, but I also think you're misrepresenting it slightly. He said adding debt that future generations must pay for is immoral, not FEMA. He did indicate that disaster relief should be handled within the states, but not specifically that FEMA should disband.

 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/romney-disaster-relief-immoral-2012-10

 

In that same interview, he did explicitly say that ideally, he'd cut it entirely and leave it to private companies.

[Phi for All]

To address the privatization part of this thread, there are definitely times when private business models work best, but disaster relief is definitely not one of them. Like healthcare insurance, having to negotiate for rates and coverage when you're vulnerable is horribly inhumane and barbaric.

 

Why is it that so many people are unwilling to acknowledge that living in a large society that wants to keep pace with other societies needs to guarantee certain distinctions for its citizens? We can all acknowledge that having the state do everything for us is bad, so why is it some folks think leaving everything up to the free market would be good? There needs to be a smart balance, and I think if it were put that way to the entire populace, the vast majority of the populace would agree.

 

Unfortunately, half the populace is informed by FOX News, and FOX seems bent on isolating the US, making us fear foreigners, fear progress, fear science, and fear other news sources. It's stunningly insane to try and get legitimate information from such a vapid, mob-appeal, profit-hungry non-source like FOX News. At a time when we need meaningful discussion among engaged citizens, half of them are choosing to stick their heads in the dirt.

[iNow]

In that same interview, he did explicitly say that ideally, he'd cut it entirely and leave it to private companies.

It was a debate, not an interview, but that aside... I'm not sure it's fair to characterize it that way. YMMV, though. Here it is in context:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTSHxR_4rc8

 

I hear this as him make a vague and generalized point. It might apply to FEMA, sure. I don't challenge that at all... But I don't think that can be drawn as a conclusion given the information available here.

[John Cuthber]

It does certainly indicate that he has a dogmatic belief that things are done better by the private sector.

And, I can't see it as saying anything other than that disaster relief should be privatized which is essentially absurd.

What does "hurricane relief R us" do in between major storms?

Is it plausible to have a bunch of people and kit waiting?

I think the only plausible mechanism is to take a group of well trained , well equipped people who are good at working together as a team and use them.

Obviously, that's a problem if the armed forces are busy fighting a war, but the rest of the time they are already being paid for(The US military budget isn't exactly small) and they are just the sort of people you want.

 

How could a private company have that sort of manpower on standby?

 

So, if it's a bad idea (or an impossible one) to have a privatized disaster relief system and Romney is all in favour of it, then he's in favour of doing things badly.

Please vote for someone else.

[ydoaPs]

How could a private company have that sort of manpower on standby?

...especially when the more you need their service, the less able you are to pay for it.

[Moontanman]

The private sector does everything better, nationally look at Halliburton, someone in the private sector got rich off providing services of the military, hell they taught the military a lesson by refusing to provide for the troops unless they were paid more. Can you imagine how humbled Gen. Patton would have been by a private company refusing to feed his troops? Lots of opportunity for the rich to get richer off the private sector. Locally we used to have city garbage pickup, city water, City sewage, now it's all private and the rich private sector more than quadrupled the price for everyone else. I honestly can't think of a single thing that is done by government that someone in the private sector couldn't get rich over charging for...

 

Maybe we should have the military be run by the private sector, corporate nuclear weapons, kind of gives you a thrill doesn't it?

[Phi for All]

Lots of opportunity for the rich to get richer off the private sector. Locally we used to have city garbage pickup, city water, City sewage, now it's all private and the rich private sector more than quadrupled the price for everyone else. I honestly can't think of a single thing that is done by government that someone in the private sector couldn't get rich over charging for...

I've never seen public works turned over to private companies work out any other way. Whether it's roads or utilities or prisons, it either ends up costing more or there are conflicts of interest or both.

 

Good rule of thumb: if you want your opportunities to grow and make a profit for investors, a private business model is usually a good bet. Do we want our disaster relief opportunities to grow? Do we want investors to profit from disaster relief? This is so clearly better left to public funding.

[ecoli]

What does "hurricane relief R us" do in between major storms?

This is somewhat misinformed. There are, for example, private EMS firms. Here's one getting ready for Hurricane Sandy:

 

So your premise is somewhat flawed. Though from what I understand, this particular company is acting under contract from some gov't body.

[John Cuthber]

Are they big enough to make any real difference?

[swansont]

The private sector does everything better, nationally look at Halliburton, someone in the private sector got rich off providing services of the military, hell they taught the military a lesson by refusing to provide for the troops unless they were paid more. Can you imagine how humbled Gen. Patton would have been by a private company refusing to feed his troops? Lots of opportunity for the rich to get richer off the private sector. Locally we used to have city garbage pickup, city water, City sewage, now it's all private and the rich private sector more than quadrupled the price for everyone else. I honestly can't think of a single thing that is done by government that someone in the private sector couldn't get rich over charging for...

 

Maybe we should have the military be run by the private sector, corporate nuclear weapons, kind of gives you a thrill doesn't it?

I hope this was sarcasm. If it wasn't:

 

GPS

 

Europe tried to do their version (Galileo) charging for part of the service, and few were willing to participate, so the EU had to step up the common/government support to get it going. So apparently it's too expensive to run as a private enterprise but people use the service and it can run of you have a captive audience of customers in the form of taxation.

 

If the private sector can get rich overcharging for it, that doesn't mean they are doing it better. It might mean they have a monopoly and can overcharge for it.

 

I've never seen public works turned over to private companies work out any other way. Whether it's roads or utilities or prisons, it either ends up costing more or there are conflicts of interest or both.

 

Good rule of thumb: if you want your opportunities to grow and make a profit for investors, a private business model is usually a good bet. Do we want our disaster relief opportunities to grow? Do we want investors to profit from disaster relief? This is so clearly better left to public funding.

I think prisons are another excellent example. Private ones have gone out of business and there have been some shady dealings with ones that haven't.

 

———

In addition to my mention of GPS I would add my own job to that list. Precise time is something that screams out for a centralized authority and not something you could easily charge for. We tried a distributed model (local time) and it didn't work.

[CaptainPanic]

Last year, Romney said FEMA was "immoral". You should let that sink in when you watch the news and remember it next week.

 

He wants FEMA to be completely disbanded and all functions given to private companies. Question: If everything someone owns and their only source of income are under water, how exactly are they going to pay the privatized responders?

 

I do not understand the arguments why private business would be better at running an emergency service?

 

Comparing a privatized emergency service and a public one, I would say that:

 

1. Management and allocation of resources (money, people) is just as efficient in both cases. There is no inherent reason why public organisations should waste resources simply because the financial pressure from shareholders is absent.

2. Private organizations must pay shareholders.

 

I am quite aware that history has shown that large government organizations (Soviet Russia) can completely f*** it up, but using this example as proof that any government-run organization is inefficient with resources is a logical fallacy.

[Phi for All]

I am quite aware that history has shown that large government organizations (Soviet Russia) can completely f*** it up, but using this example as proof that any government-run organization is inefficient with resources is a logical fallacy.

Those with vested interests in privatizing as many publicly funded programs as possible in the US have saturated the media they control with campaigns aimed at making "government" synonymous with "inept" and "bloated" and "controlling", traits no American likes to put up with. It's been extremely effective, since confirmation bias helps support this fallacy to the point where actual data to the contrary only makes these convictions firmer in the minds of the sheep who listen to what the FOX tells them.

[ecoli]

Are they big enough to make any real difference?

 

Yes.. it's a huge company operating in 42 states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Response

[Phi for All]

Yes.. it's a huge company operating in 42 states. http://en.wikipedia....edical_Response

Still, when they work under contract for a federal authority, we're not paying for their management of the relief efforts, we're paying for their trained personnel and equipment, who work under coordinated FEMA authority. If the whole thing were privatized, paying for AMR's administrative costs and profits to shareholders would essentially cost us more and allow people to profit from disaster relief. AMR is headquartered near me and were quite happy with an additional contract earlier this year for the western and central FEMA zones, at a cost not to exceed almost a quarter of a billion dollars per zone.

 

I would further speculate that there would be certain things they wouldn't do because of either liability or loss of revenue. This is similar to the companies that provide private management of prisons in the US. They don't want the difficult prisoners, and have clauses in their contracts that allow them to transfer difficult (costly) prisoners back to federal or state custody with no penalties.

[John Cuthber]

According to this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Response

and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces

AMR are about a hundred times smaller than the US armed forces.

Unless you can claim that the military were overstaffed when Katrina came along it's fair to say that AMR are not big enough to make much difference.

Sure, they will help, but they are not adequate.

[iNow]

Here's a nice run down of the differences on approach to FEMA between Democrats and Republicans.

 

 

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/fema-case-study-difference-between-democrats-and-republicans

 

The lesson here is simple. At a deep ideological level, Republicans believe that federal bureaucracies are inherently inept, so when Republicans occupy the White House they have no interest in making the federal bureaucracy work. And it doesn't. Democrats, by contrast, take government services seriously and appoint people whose job is to make sure the federal bureaucracy does work. And it does.

[Phi for All]

Here's a nice run down of the differences on approach to FEMA between Democrats and Republicans.

 

 

http://www.motherjon...and-republicans

 

 

Great find. That pretty much sums it up for the Republicans for the last 32 years of my life, for everything from education to healthcare to welfare. They don't want it to work so it doesn't.