Zcom_simple

Paul_krugman

Lobbyists, Guns and Money



Source: NYTimes.com

Change Text Size a- | A+


Florida’s now-infamous Stand Your Ground law, which lets you shoot someone you consider threatening without facing arrest, let alone prosecution, sounds crazy — and it is. And it’s tempting to dismiss this law as the work of ignorant yahoos. But similar laws have been pushed across the nation, not by ignorant yahoos but by big corporations.

Specifically, language virtually identical to Florida’s law is featured in a template supplied to legislators in other states by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-backed organization that has managed to keep a low profile even as it exerts vast influence (only recently, thanks to yeoman work by the Center for Media and Democracy, has a clear picture of ALEC’s activities emerged). And if there is any silver lining to Trayvon Martin’s killing, it is that it might finally place a spotlight on what ALEC is doing to our society — and our democracy.

What is ALEC? Despite claims that it’s nonpartisan, it’s very much a movement-conservative organization, funded by the usual suspects: the Kochs, Exxon Mobil, and so on. Unlike other such groups, however, it doesn’t just influence laws, it literally writes them, supplying fully drafted bills to state legislators. In Virginia, for example, more than 50 ALEC-written bills have been introduced, many almost word for word. And these bills often become law.

Many ALEC-drafted bills pursue standard conservative goals: union-busting, undermining environmental protection, tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. ALEC seems, however, to have a special interest in privatization — that is, on turning the provision of public services, from schools to prisons, over to for-profit corporations. And some of the most prominent beneficiaries of privatization, such as the online education company K12 Inc. and the prison operator Corrections Corporation of America, are, not surprisingly, very much involved with the organization.

What this tells us, in turn, is that ALEC’s claim to stand for limited government and free markets is deeply misleading. To a large extent the organization seeks not limited government but privatized government, in which corporations get their profits from taxpayer dollars, dollars steered their way by friendly politicians. In short, ALEC isn’t so much about promoting free markets as it is about expanding crony capitalism.

And in case you were wondering, no, the kind of privatization ALEC promotes isn’t in the public interest; instead of success stories, what we’re getting is a series of scandals. Private charter schools, for example, appear to deliver a lot of profits but little in the way of educational achievement.

But where does the encouragement of vigilante (in)justice fit into this picture? In part it’s the same old story — the long-standing exploitation of public fears, especially those associated with racial tension, to promote a pro-corporate, pro-wealthy agenda. It’s neither an accident nor a surprise that the National Rifle Association and ALEC have been close allies all along.

And ALEC, even more than other movement-conservative organizations, is clearly playing a long game. Its legislative templates aren’t just about generating immediate benefits to the organization’s corporate sponsors; they’re about creating a political climate that will favor even more corporation-friendly legislation in the future.

Did I mention that ALEC has played a key role in promoting bills that make it hard for the poor and ethnic minorities to vote?

Yet that’s not all; you have to think about the interests of the penal-industrial complex — prison operators, bail-bond companies and more. (The American Bail Coalition has publicly described ALEC as its “life preserver.”) This complex has a financial stake in anything that sends more people into the courts and the prisons, whether it’s exaggerated fear of racial minorities or Arizona’s draconian immigration law, a law that followed an ALEC template almost verbatim.

Think about that: we seem to be turning into a country where crony capitalism doesn’t just waste taxpayer money but warps criminal justice, in which growing incarceration reflects not the need to protect law-abiding citizens but the profits corporations can reap from a larger prison population.

Now, ALEC isn’t single-handedly responsible for the corporatization of our political life; its influence is as much a symptom as a cause. But shining a light on ALEC and its supporters — a roster that includes many companies, from AT&T and Coca-Cola to UPS, that have so far managed to avoid being publicly associated with the hard-right agenda — is one good way to highlight what’s going on. And that kind of knowledge is what we need to start taking our country back.  

582867

Edward Herman reviews Privatization by Eliot Sclar

By Small, Brian at Mar 28, 2012 01:17 AM

   This article brings to mind Edward Herman's book review of Eliot D. Sclar's book
You Don't Always Get What You Pay For: The Economics of Privatization. "Sclar is a critic, but he is relatively unbiased, uses economic and organization theory with a sure hand, and his work is based on serious original research...Sclar does not condemn privatization, but shows that while it has a definite place in the arsenal of public management, it has real and sometimes overwhelming deficiencies. One of his most compelling themes is that the standard model used in support of privatization, which assumes contracting for a simple product in a competitive market, is very often inapplicable to the public sector. Many public services are complex, and the frequently detailed contracting agreement and need to monitor its implementation are a far cry from buying a good or simple service in a spot market. Furthermore, the markets for such complex products are usually not very competitive, and they become less so after contracts are let." The article touches on the outright corruption that's probably easier to associate with privatization now, twelve years after the book review.

  Like Albert and Hahnel's  Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics, Sclar seems to be able to use nuetral economics techniques to reveal "crony capitalism" tendencies in privatisation. "Another factor that makes the protective and disciplinary role of competition weak or non-existent is that under privatization a primary form of competition is buying, lobbying, and manipulating regulators and legislators. This perverse development is completely “natural” as this is an entirely logical and very effective route to getting contracts on favorable terms and preventing effective monitoring. This perversity is reinforced by the fact that the politicians favoring privatization are often supported by (and virtual agents of) businesspeople seeking public assets and contracts, and they are also sometimes privatization ideologues..."

   Sclar's (spelled with a "c" and not a "k" like the Holly Sklar) book makes another appearance in Herman's 2007 Z Magazine article Economics in the Nuthouse."A third flaw is that for public services that are contracted out the state has to monitor the privatized operations to see that the promised services are rendered as stipulated in contracts. This means an extra administrative operation added to the real costs of privatization, a built-in source of inefficiency that the privatized operation may be hard put to overcome (see Elliott D. Sklar, You Don’t Always Get What You Pay For: The Economics of Privatization, 2000)." 

   It seems strange that straighforward corruption through privatization somehow got mixed up in Wild West shoot-em-up laws. Is dueling going to make a comeback? I hope David Swanson's recent anti-war example isn't undercut by the kind of growing brutality Chris Hedges writes about.

Links used in this comment:

Edward Herman's detailed book review of Eliot D. Sclar's book on Privatization You Don't Always Get What You Pay For..

Edward Herman's Economics in the Nuthouse.

David Swanson on Dueling The Shifting Strategies of Empire
"When our great-great grandparents outgrew dueling as a means of settling individual disputes, they didn't ban aggressive dueling and keep defensive dueling around. When a movement to abolish war grew up at the turn of the last century, and then World War I convinced virtually everybody that the time to abolish war had come, a lawyer in Chicago named Samuel Oliver Levinson (Yale class of 1888) got his friends together and created an international movement for Outlawry, a movement to outlaw war. By 1928, the wealthy armed nations of the world, and some of the poorer nations too, had signed a treaty banning all war. Recognition of gains made through war ceased. Some wars were prevented. "
  
Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel's Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics.

Reply this comment

Loading_border