Over in the Chronicle, 4 economic reactionaries tell a story. It's a nice parable, but how government needs to let private industry help it out every so often. Too bad I hated that story the first time around when it was called Texas. Those 4 Economic Reactionaries? Well, none other than our past three governors (Davis, Wilson, and Deukmejian) and the president of a business council that, shockingly enough, favors privatizing much of our public infrastructure. That Gray Davis is involved doesn't so much reassure me that this is all benevelont, which I'm pretty sure was the point of including him as an author, as it shows me that Davis seems to play the rube for bad conservative ideas (yet again). So, what's my tizzy about:
Other countries and regions have already figured the solution out and are building the foundation for their futures – partnership between the public and private sectors often called “Public Private Partnerships” or “P3.” Most of these transportation, bridge, rail, water conveyance, public health and other facilities are paid for out of a combination of taxpayer supported bonds, private equity and debt, and users fees charged to those who benefit from the infrastructure and services. (SF Chron 10/28/07)
So, let's start out with the flawed logic in this brilliant piece, and my chief point of opposition. There are reasons that we have an income tax. It is progressive. It is (somewhat) fair. Yet the last time I crossed the Bay Bridge, I didn't have to answer a single question about my income. Nobody is excused from paying these fees (well, some people are for other reasons…carpool, etc.) and we all pay the same fees. No matter if you have an '87 Oldsmobile or an '07 Hummer H2 pimped out with all the bling (like the Governator). You still pay the same $4. Same with BART, same with the LA train system…See the flip
Yes, this is a regressive system of paying for our insfrastructure needs. I grew up in Texas, where this fad hit about twenty years earlier with the state building a bunch of toll roads, and now,
selling giving existing roads away to private organizations in exchange for road maintenance. And guess what, the private company gets to take a bite out of your wallet and make a nice tidy profit by paying the workers like sh*t. Don't believe me? Well, with a little help from Greenie Peter Camejo, I present the tax rate (right) data of the State of California. Why is this graph in the wrong direction? Because sales taxes and other regressive taxes are taking the place of the more fair income taxes.
No, this was not how Pat Brown envisioned our California, and they even point this out in the article:
Why haven't we started? Because California's historic plan for infrastructure didn't envision a role for public private partnership projects. As a result, state law is full of obstacles and roadblocks to such enterprises. Therefore, state law needs to be changed to authorize and support public private partnerships. (SF Chron 10/28/07)
And why, Mssrs. Governors, do you think that is the case? Do you think that Pat Brown realized that there is no such thing as a free lunch? That corporations are not benevolent Gumpdrop Fairies who rain down gifts upon the populace? No, the first Gov. Brown knew all too well that it is up to the state to provide for a long-term infrastructure that will keep the middle class thriving. Anybody who has driven the toll-clogged freeways of Orange County will tell you that all those tolls, and all that commuting aren't cheap. So people move to where there is infrastructure that is provided (sans tolls). We sprawl, we make decisions which are short-sighted, just like these three governors.
And what, pray tell, is the motivating factor in why we MUST sell our soul to Halliburton or some other similarly situated company? Well, it's because we don't like taxes, of course:
The fact is, we can't expect public tax funds to do the job; the public feels overtaxed and California's state treasurer is warning that our fiscal imbalance could continue for the next 20 years. The word out of the federal government is much the same: too many needs, not enough money. (SF Chron 10/28/07)
No explanation: it's just fact. The conservative movement has preached, through the mouths of Norquist & Co., that taxes are evil, that taxes are too freaking high. That taxes will destroy our economy or other such nonsense. So, where did this tax-hating structure come from? Well, partially from the conservative movement which gave life to three of these authors.
So, I guess it's okay to distribute propaganda, and then cite it as fact when it comes back at you? Well, terrific, at least we know how the game is played now.
We are struggling under deficits because we choose to. We choose to go through this painful process every year. Which unfortunate soul loses acces to necessary services this budget season? Well, let's take it from the blind folks, or the deaf folks, or maybe the deaf-mute folks, they'll never say anything. Or students, they don't even vote. Let's screw 'em good, because that's great for our future.
No, we don't need these assinine PPP's, what we need is a leader who is truly ready to lead like Pat Brown. We need a leader that will sit down and present a plan to the state that might take some sacrifice, but will plan a state that will lead for 30, 40, 50 years into the future, like Pat Brown. But Pat Brown is gone now, and it's not clear that he would even be Pat Brown today. Visionary leaders who can cut through the temporary political games of today to really and truly plan for the future are rare, but, boy, do we need one.