Metro Pulse/Commentary/Governing for Dollars

Comment
on this story

Privatization can be pushed too far

by Scott McNutt

Both Democratic and Republican parties advocate privatization of government services. But, whereas the 2000 Democratic platform blandly promised a "new e-government [that] will break down barriers to service, reduce costs, and make government accessible for all," the GOP's platform breathlessly boasted of fostering a new age of "creative federalism," in which "e-powered" citizens would merrily procure services from a "results-oriented," "market-based" government. No wonder the Democrats lost in 2000; their government sounded so boring. They should have e-visioned something pithier.

But, we, the people, should be hesitant to hand over government functions to bottom-line-feeders. Take, for example, the Postal Service, on which much privatization discussion has centered. Sure, the cost of mailing a measly first-class letter keeps going up, delivery's slow, and sometimes the letter you send to Aunt Tish over in the next county unaccountably ends up being routed through Outer Uglolia and smells of yak when finally delivered. Meanwhile, on the Internet, you can email unlimited letters to virtually anywhere in the world for one low monthly fee. But if we try to mold the post office into an e-commerce moneymaker, we'll probably end up with the U.S. Spam Service.

Competing in an open marketplace to earn profits is a wonderful thing, but a government built on that basis isn't necessarily going to be looking out for the best interests of its citizenry. Because what government is intended to do—you know, "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity"—generally conflicts with a money-making orientation.

Consider the Department of the Interior. In light of that "promote the general welfare" and secure blessings to our posterity stuff, its goal should be conservation and appreciation of our land's wondrous natural resources. But if Interior were driven by dollars, nobody would ever have heard of Disney World, because Yellowstone National Park would long ago have been transformed into Jellystone, and Yogi Bear's advertising budget would have sent Mickey and Minnie Mouse to the poor house. Instead of preventing forest fires, Smokey Bear would be selling cigarettes. If the Department of the Interior had to make money, its secretary would tell our posterity to kiss her posterior.

And, to use a hopelessly mixed metaphor, that's only the tip of the government-for-profit iceberg. Earnings-directed cabinet-level departments would make the obstacle course through which the ship of state steers a collision course between service and profit.

If our government were run for profit, Hilton heiresses Nicky and Paris would be partying forth at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Wal-Mart would be exploiting Labor (wait, it already does that). The Department of Transportation might roll like a rock with Chevy, but Mitsubishi could buy out the State Department. You'd have Philip Morris and Merck fighting a bidding war to take charge of your Health and Human Services and the Daughters of the American Revolution staging a hostile takeover of the Department of Veteran's Affairs. Justice might be dispensed by the Baptist Convention (assuming, of course, President Bush succeeds in his push to allow faith-based organizations to receive government funding), and some cheap, low-balling foreign mercenaries would handle Homeland Security. Chris Whittle's Edison Schools would be experimenting on the Department of Education, and Enron would be powering Energy Department policy (of course, critics say Enron already was running it, until it ran out of juice, so to speak). There'd be Michael Milken selling junk bonds at the Department of Commerce and Parker Brothers printing monopoly money at the Treasury Department.

Absurd and farfetched, you say? Sure, but look what happens when, by all appearances, a private company (e.g., Halliburton) exerts undue influence with the government (through its former chairman, VP Dick Cheney): Halliburton gets invited to an $87 billion "rebuilding Iraq" party, and we, the taxpayers, get stuck with the bill and the hangover. If you're gung-ho for government privatization, read up on the (admittedly) tangled origins of World War I, and then think about whether you'd applaud, say, a munitions firm cozying up to the Department of Defense.

But hey, if we want government of profit, by profit, and for profit, why not go for the big bucks? Why not cancel these Bush Inc.: The Next Generation reruns currently playing in the Oval Office and hire Ah-nold as the "Terrorist Terminator" president? That'd do boffo box office. Or even bring in the cast of The West Wing. At least their VP looks good on TV.