One of the most important trends afoot right now is the move to privatize as many government services as possible. Billionaires like Bill Gates, along with hedge funds, are pushing an agenda of privatizing public schools, and funding a PR push in support of that cause with films like “Waiting for Superman” and the NBC “Education Nation” that included a panel with the title “Does Education Need a Katrina?”.
This trend is fueled by the desire of the richest Americans to seek new income streams. Instead of spending their cash hoard on innovating new products or businesses that can create jobs and lasting economic activity, they’re engaged in a process of rent seeking, which has no productive value. By taking tax dollars that currently provide public services and channeling them to the private sector, which contracts to provide the service at lower cost – and therefore at lower quality – these wealthy individuals can add new income streams while also blunting any effort to raise their taxes to provide these services.
It’s not just schools that are targeted for privatization, however. As the New York Times reports, Santa Clarita has privatized its library – even though it wasn’t forced to by financial considerations:
A $4 million deal to run the three libraries here is a chance for the company to demonstrate that a dose of private management can be good for communities, whatever their financial situation. But in an era when outsourcing is most often an act of budget desperation – with janitors, police forces and even entire city halls farmed out in one town or another – the contract in Santa Clarita has touched a deep nerve and begun a round of second-guessing.
Can a municipal service like a library hold so central a place that it should be entrusted to a profit-driven contractor only as a last resort – and maybe not even then?
“There’s this American flag, apple pie thing about libraries,” said Frank A. Pezzanite, the outsourcing company’s chief executive. He has pledged to save $1 million a year in Santa Clarita, mainly by cutting overhead and replacing unionized employees. “Somehow they have been put in the category of a sacred organization.”
In his rather blunt and offensive way, Pezzanite actually lays out the stakes pretty clearly. In a country that has turned pursuit of profit into a civic religion, and that since 1980 has argued that all government activity and policy should be oriented around producing corporate profits, it is indeed an open question whether there is any room left for the concept of the government providing services directly to the people, without having to give an investor a cut.
Public libraries have been operating quite effectively and efficiently for over 100 years. The notion that one would privatize the library just so some company can make money was virtually unheard of, at least in California, for the last century. But that was before the era of Reagan, Schwarzenegger, and Whitman.
The privatizers’ method is the same: fire all the employees, regardless of how good at their jobs they are, so the company can replace them with cheaper labor, increasing their profits at the expense of quality services and middle-class wages. It’s wealth extraction at its finest, the corporate raider having shifted his target from an ’80s manufacturing plant to a ’10s library.
Why would Santa Clarita go along with this? It’s likely that the council are merely outliers, the first ones to make a highly ideological move that will be quickly taken up by right-wing (and some not so right-wing) councils across the state, demanding privatization to suit their ideological agenda and justified by overblown and misleading concerns about pension costs.
It’s true that I have more than a passing interest in this topic, as the husband of someone working at a public library. But it’s the bigger principle that really matters here. Public services should be provided for the benefit of the public – and not for the benefit of some company’s bottom line.
When profit becomes the primary motive, all else is sacrificed to it. It’s not what most Californians want for their state and their future, but unless we fight back hard, they will privatize everything, and keep the profits while we get stuck with the risks – and the losses.
I grew up in Santa Clarita, before the city existed as a separate government. They were Los Angeles County libraries. I spent a good portion of my childhood there. And, I requested books from all over the county. I read every horse book in the entire county catalog.
I do not understand how it is possible or desirable to privatize a library. A library, by definition, is a money-losing enterprise. Exactly how paying a profit out to a corporation in this instance can legitimately save money makes no sense. Indeed, by withdrawing from the county system, you would expect service to go down or costs to go up.
And the idea that you can save money because your private companies won’t have to pay librarians so much…. well, I wonder if perhaps the city council and likely their staff members are overpaid, because I’m pretty sure they all make more than librarians.
As the story mentions, Redding’s libraries hired LSSI a few years back. This happened after building a major new central facility for Shasta County and devising a joint-powers agreement to guarantee reliable funding.
The bottom line at the time was that, for a given budget, LSSI could keep the library open 60 hours per week vs. 40 hours per week using city employees. The big difference was labor costs due to pensions and health care.
Good, bad or indifferent, that reflects the real trade-offs involved in generous public-sector benefits. By contracting to run the library, residents have much better services. In a relatively poor town, you try to make the argument that we should not have the library open evenings or Sundays because we have to pay 2.7 % at 55 CalPERS pensions and better health insurance than any patron has at his job.
Sorry, government exists to provide services, not as a job bank.
It’s going. Capitalistic societies always accumulate
at the top–it requires government action to ensure that
conditions exist to allow the middle class to thrive.
This nation was unique because it had free land (for
Europeans) throughout most of the 18th and 19th centuries,
which mitigated capitalistic accumulation. Then it
came in spades from 1890-1929, then the Depression
convinced most people government had a place. The
unfortunate part about the Great Recession occuring in
2008 rather than 2006-7 was that (as has been seen) it
allows the Republicans to gloss over historical facts.
Move along people, Santa Clarita is “lily” like much of Orange County, so its naturally Republican. Moves like this shouldn’t surprise anybody and when they voted to become a city with its own localized Government it was naturally going to become “Right Wing” with its mostly middle and upper middle class population. Then they set about to do massive shopping centers, business parks and housing projects that run WAY into the hills now, taking up all the free space almost.
I also remember Santa Clarita when it was apart of Los Angeles, now its just another Right Wing enclave that wants to protect itself from minorities and be “tough on crime”.