Why Not Privatize the Police and Firefighters

post from My Left Wing - Front Page on 05 July 2007 06:36:38 PM. © My Left Wing - Front Page

It is the year 70 BCE. You have worked your entire life as a hotelier with a small establishment near the Circus Maximus, offering room and board to those who come from far and wide to see the chariot races. It's not a great living, but it keeps you in bread and circuses without the need for government handouts. One night, to your horror, a fire breaks out in your hotel--who started it or how you don't know, but that doesn't matter now: you do your best to extinguish the blaze with pails of water and dirt. Unfortunately, the blaze is too much: your feeble efforts are in vain.

Suddenly, out of nowhere comes your salvation: the Fire Brigade arrives. Except that this is no ordinary fire brigade financed by the Senate and People of Rome--for no such entity exists. The very concept is a novel one to you and your fellow citizens. No, this particular Fire Brigade is run by one Marcus Licinius Crassus, one of Rome's richest and most powerful men and eventual member of the Triumvirate with Julius Caesar and Pompey. Crassus' firefighters are his personal slaves; they're not only the best at what they do--they're the only ones who do it.
Crassus steps down from his chariot, looking his usual glorious self, and asks you if you wouldn't mind filling out a bit of papyrus-work while his men prepare to fight the fire. No problem, you say--except that then you see the terms: "I hereby sell my hotel to Marcus Licinius Crassus for 5,000 sesterces (less than 1/5th its market value)." At first you scoff--"these terms are outrageous!" you say. "It's extortion!" Crassus sighs and says, "ok, have it your way" and calls his slaves off to go back home. Suddenly turning back as yet another room bursts into flames, your spirit breaks--and you call for Crassus to return with his men. And in one fateful moment, you sign away your life's work to a man with no scruples.

This is not legend: the history is all there in Plutarch's Lives and elsewhere in the record of Roman historians. This scene played itself out time and time again in the waning years of the Roman Republic, as Crassus made of himself Rome's principal landlord through the use of this private fire department. It is even alleged that Crassus also had his own arson brigade, which he utilized judiciously when nature itself was too slow in starting the desired conflagrations.

It is a scene that played on a continuing feedback loop in my mind as I watched Michael Moore's brilliant film Sicko the other night. Throughout the film, the barbaric extortion practiced by the United States healthcare system on those in desperate straits seemed as foreign and as repulsive to the citizens of Canada, France and Great Briton as Crassus' "fire brigade" seems to us. Why, they feel, must one hand over one's life savings for a service that is properly in the public domain? Why should one be forced to pay when one is least able or prepared to do so? If we have public police and firefighters, why not a public healthcare system?

I am not the first to raise this point, of course. Moore himself raises it in the context of the boogeyman that is "socialized medicine": in the film, he points out that we already have a number of "socialized" services, ranging from the police to the firefighters to the armed forces to the post office. The poignancy of this issue as it relates to the military is even the subject of a panel for YearlyKos '07. And certainly, the applicability of the model of such needed social services to the common good that is public health has been stressed by many a Democratic politician.

It is too easy, however, for conservatives to dismiss such a comparison. They point out, in proper conservative fashion, that police and fire have always been taxpayer-funded services in America, and medicine always private. They say that, unlike police or fire, healthcare is a purchaseable commodity--and as such, best handled with the famed efficiency of the "free market." They claim especially that the costs of making public such a system would be significantly greater to the average citizen than that of keeping the system private. Of course, these latter two claims are utterly spurious: the "free market" is healthcare is anything but free, while guaranteed health coverage costs less in the long run. Nevertheless, conservatives are able to kick just enough sand in the face of the public and muddy the waters just enough with these and other arguments to keep Americans in the Crassus-era of extortionary health coverage. The fact that conservatives are always on the wrong side of history--they're still calling the New Deal Unamerican to this day--troubles them not a whit: back in Ancient Rome, they'd be defending Crassus' fire department if there was money in it for them.

There is a clever reverse argument, however, that can be extremely effective and is grossly underused by proponents of guaranteed health coverage: If the free market is so effective and cost-efficient in providing critical social services, why not privatize the police force and the fire department?

This line of argument is particularly effective because it forces conservatives to explain when and why privatization is a bad thing, rather than arguing the drawbacks of making such systems public. I have used this argument many times against conservatives, and the results have never failed to be absolutely devastating. Responses to this argument tend to run along the following six lines:

1) "Because it's always been that way!" This is not a terribly clever argument, of course, nor would any major political figure use it. Nevertheless, Crassus' fire brigade is an effective couter-attack.

2) "Because health care is so much more expensive than police and fire departments!" Also a not-too-intelligent argument, the easy counter is that public healthcare saves more long run, just as public police and fire departments do.

3) "Because doctors don't make enough money under public healthcare!" This argument is simply a bold-faced lie. What actually happens is that disparities between the incomes of various types of doctors decrease--those earning the most do end up earning less.

4) "Because I don't want to pay more taxes!" To which one simply asks if they would be willing to accept a tax cut that got rid of the fire department. If no, why not? Rinse and repeat...

5) "Because I want to be able to choose private insurance!" Of course, this choice is never removed from them under a guaranteed system, just as one can always supplement the police with a private security force.

--------------------------------

The truth of the matter, of course, is that none of the above arguments are the real reason a conservative doesn't support to the privatization of the police or firefighters. The real reason is that if such large systems so essential to the public good were privatized, the private companies would find that it was only worth their while to secure the lives and property of the very rich--or to extort everyone else. Just as the salaries of private contractors in Iraq dwarf those of publicly funded soldiers at great cost to the American Public, the only people who benefit from such privatization are the privateers themselves and those bought off by them. In other words, in the absence of a State Fire Department, the only private fire departments tend to act like Crassus' noble enterprise.

Every American understands this principle on a fundamental level, whether they can articulate it or not--but rarely are Americans allowed to tap into this commonsense understanding when it comes to healthcare.

In my experience, the best way to get even conservative Americans to understand the necessity of a public healthcare system is to make them confront their own distaste for a private fire and police system--and to force them to attempt to articulate their reasons for that distaste. It's a simple process from there to applying the same reasoning to public health.

Because in the end, only the most hardened sociopath can defend the Crassus way of running a healthcare system.

Read The Full Article:
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=17664

Digg this

NBC, LA Times quoted Bush claiming Al
Qaeda is our "major enemy in Iraq," ignored experts' rebuttal

post from Media Matters for America on 05 July 2007 06:30:19 PM. © Media Matters for America

On the July 5 edition of NBC's Today, NBC News White House correspondentKelly O'Donnell said that President Bush's response to calls forU.S. withdrawal from Iraq is "Remember Al Qaeda," and then showed a video clip ofBush's statement during a July 4 speech that "a major enemy in Iraqis the same enemy that dared attack the United States" on September 11,2001. O'Donnell did not report that, according to a June 28 McClatchyNewspapers article, "U.S. military andintelligence[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://mediamatters.org/items/rss/200707050008

Digg this

Prosecutors To Siegelman: Pay Fine Or More Time

post from TPMmuckraker on 05 July 2007 06:19:13 PM. © TPMmuckraker

Prosecutors want more prison time for former Gov. Don Siegelman (D-AL) if the judge lifts a fine that was imposed on an acquitted charge. A judge ordered Siegelman to pay $181, 325 in restitution for...

Read The Full Article:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003609.php

Digg this

Putins Children

post from Crooks and Liars on 05 July 2007 06:16:50 PM. © Crooks and Liars

Okay, this is really creeping me out…anyone else see some disturbing parallels?It’s official. To be patriotic in Russia is to be a fan of Putin, specifically a Putin Youth. During the celebration on June 12th of Independence Day (Russia from the Soviet Union in 1990), “the only groups allowed onto Red Square were the youth [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/05/putins-children/

Digg this

Bush Compares Iraq To American Revolution, Bush
is an Idiot

post from My Left Wing - Front Page on 05 July 2007 06:11:12 PM. © My Left Wing - Front Page

Preaching to the choir yesterday in Martinsburg, W Va, Bush recited the same sermon he and his handlers reserve for these carefully controlled and completely choreographed appearances before the faithful.
"We give thanks for all the brave citizen-soldiers of our Continental Army who dropped pitchforks and took up muskets to fight for our freedom and liberty and independence," Bush said. He added: "You're the successors of those brave men. . . . Like those early patriots, you're fighting a new and unprecedented war."
I wonder if anyone else noticed that our Revolution against the tyrannical rule of that earlier George, the occupation of our cities and provinces by British troops, his interference in what we regarded as our affairs, and the general mistreatment of our citizenry was, in fact, the polar opposite of our invasion and occupation of Iraq and the mistreatment, maiming and murder of their citizenry.

We have been at war in Iraq for over four years, in Afghanistan for nearly six, at the same time we have conducted and continue to conduct covert operations in other countries throughout the Middle East including Iran and Pakistan, as well as in several African countries.
The result of what we have wrought has been the death, destruction or displacement of hundreds of thousands of innocents, along with the sacrifice of our military forces and our economic future. There has been no net gain for the people of this country or any other.
Along the way great benefits have devolved upon many of our well connected corporations, both public and private, continuing the transfer of public wealth to private hands, (select private hands, that is) which is the core of neo conservative economics and was the central purpose of going to war in Iraq.
We might have more easily invaded Mexico, a country which was equally complicit in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the number of Mexican terrorists aboard the ill fated suicide planes having been exactly equal to the number of Iraqi terrorists.
A war against terror in Mexico, so much closer than Iraq, would have greatly eased the logistical problems we have in the Middle East, avoided stirring up the international radical Muslim community and may have gone a long way to solving our much ballyhooed "immigration problems."
Here at home, a young man was killed about two weeks ago, Marine Cpl. Derek C. Dixon was killed while serving at a checkpoint in al Anbar province on Tuesday, June 26. Cpl Dixon was from Riverside, Ohio which is about a traffic light from where I sit typing as I watch the rabbits at early morning play outside my office window.
He will be buried today north of Dayton with full military honors, he was twenty years old and looked younger. Cpl Dixon attended high school at the same school I attended over four decades ago. He probably joked and laughed in the same classrooms, walked the same halls and ate in the same cafeteria as I did those long years ago.
Forty one years ago I walked those halls, laughing and joking with Ronnie Fields, one of my childhood friends and a lovable clown of a kid. Incorrigible and disruptive to good order and discipline was the the verdict of the adults who patrolled the halls in those days.
Ronnie was killed in Vietnam early in 1968 long before our young Corporal was born, his name is etched in a marble slab in the sidewalk of the Vietnam Memorial Park, located near the banks of the Great Miami River, within sight of our sadly aspiring little "downtown." Ronnie's name is there in a great circle of sidewalk joining the names of other local boys who paid the ultimate price of our folly in Vietnam.
I go there sometimes and walk by the river. I stand under the trees near Ronnie's name etched there in the marble and listen to the breeze as it crosses the river and blows through the trees, pushing the blazing city air off to the east and I see his face at 15 and 16, the mischief in his eyes above a grin that made you forget every thing else in the vicinity except whatever he might be up to now.
I stand in that silence and think of him and all the others lost and gone, some I knew, most I did not, except in spirit.
I spent several years on a Veteran's honor guard and have served at more than three hundred funerals and memorial services. In every one I heard the same phrases, the same words, honor and duty and sacrifice, died for his country, service to America, and then, then they play Taps, fire three volleys and go to their homes or to the VFW for sandwiches and beer.
Nothing left at graveside, just another name etched in marble, or concrete, etched in bronze, another memory of a fresh faced young kid laughing with his friends in some high school hallway, just a memory and the wind.
They buried Ronnie almost half a lifetime ago and since that day, so many more, so many more.
They will bury Cpl Dixon today, a squad of Marines in attendance, a Chaplain probably, an Officer in Charge and a rifle squad. The bugle will sound taps, and the riflemen will fire three volleys.
The dreadful finality of the crack of the rifles will startle the senses, bring tears to the eyes, and sobs to the throats of most of those in attendance.
The grief will seem unbearable but it will be borne, once again.
And when final notes of the bugle fade, they will leave
and leave behind another soon faded flag, another memory in the wind.

Bob Higgins
Worldwide Sawdust

Read The Full Article:
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=17663

Digg this

CNN's Romans called George H.W. Bush "judicious
with pardons," omitted Iran-Contra controversy

post from Media Matters for America on 05 July 2007 06:11:01 PM. © Media Matters for America

On the July 3 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, discussing PresidentGeorge W. Bush's decision to commute former vice presidential chief ofstaff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's 30-month prison term, CNNcorrespondent Christine Romans asserted that President George H.W. Bush"was judicious with pardons" because he granted "only74." Romans compared the elder Bush to President Clinton, who"pardoned 396 criminals, most famously fugitive financier Marc Rich andhis own brother." Romans[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://mediamatters.org/items/rss/200707050007

Digg this

Today's White House Press Briefing

post from Daily Kos on 05 July 2007 06:07:04 PM. © Daily Kos

From today's White House press briefing, truer words were never spoken:

Q Scott, is Scooter Libby getting more than equal justice under the law? Is he getting special treatment?

MR. STANZEL: Well, I guess I don't know what you mean by "equal justice under the law."

Perhaps not stopping right here is a waste of time, but I'd like to point something out to the White House press corps. Consider these exchanges:

MR. STANZEL: Well, to be clear, the President did not do this for political reasons. As we've indicated before, if he was doing it for political reasons, there would have been no action. As you all here have cited, polls indicating -- that the American people may not have agreed with lessening a sentence or commuting a sentence or a pardon, for that matter. [...]

Q Scott, what do you say to Democratic critics who say that the commutation of Libby's sentence was intended to mollify conservatives, his own Republicans included, who were beginning to break with him on issues ranging from immigration to Iraq?

MR. STANZEL: Well, if that was what we were responding to, then a full pardon would have been the answer of the day, because that's what many people -- many conservatives were asking for. And that is what the President did not do. He respected the jury verdict.

After those responses, and on any number of variations of the same answer, not one reporter thought to point out the obvious. That it is not a matter of it being a political decision in the sense of satisfying Bush's base or mollifying the DC cocktail circuit. It was self-protection. Period. Has it ever occurred to the brain trust that makes up the Washington branch of the Fourth Estate to point out the obvious? Scooter Libby lied and obstructed justice to protect the Office of the Vice President, and possibly, the President himself. Why is this basic point being lost in the shuffle?

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/130887753/09868

Digg this

RATS DESERTING A SINKING SHIP: LUGAR, WARNER,
VOINOVICH, DOMENICI... WHO'S NEXT DOOLITTLE

post from DownWithTyranny! on 05 July 2007 06:02:00 PM. © DownWithTyranny!

As a matter of fact... Doolittle suddenly decided he's with Sneaky Pete. I don't know if it's because he likes Domenici's nickname or because, like Domenici, he has supported every single Bush Cheney Iraq initiative. The House voted on Iraq-related legislation 49 times since the original 4 resolutions giving Bush the authority to use force. Doolittle was out swindling the public during two votes but of the 47 he voted on, he voted with Bush and Cheney 47 times-- a perfect rubber stamp record.

If a coward and bootlick like Doolittle is abandoning Bush, believe me, it is all over. Doolittle, who knows he will have to depend on a president to pardon him when he gets sentenced to a long prison term next year probably feels he has a better shot with Hillary than with the current occupant of the White House. And if someone as far to the right as Doolittle is moving away from Bush-- after his unblemished record of complete and total support for the occupation-- it can only mean the damn is about to break.

At a town hall meeting in Rocklin and then in a meeting with the editorial board of the Sacramento Bee he questioned whether the conflict was worth the loss of more American lives. He said U.S. troops should be pulled back from the front lines "as soon as possible" and the fighting turned over to Iraqi forces.

A longtime supporter of the war, Doolittle called the situation in Iraq a "quagmire" on Thursday. "We've got to get off the front lines as soon as possible," Doolittle said at Rocklin City Hall, the Bee reported. "And in my mind that means something like the end of the year. We just can't continue to tolerate these kinds of losses."

Wow! What's next? Mean Jean Schmidt? Marilyn Musgrave? And by the way, if you want to show Doolittle what you think of a phony and a rat, may I suggest a contribution to the campaign of his congressional replacement, Charlie Brown?

Read The Full Article:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/07/rats-deserting-sinking-ship-lugar.htm
l

Digg this

Giuliani Shifts Position On Executive Clemency;
Contradicts Past Statements

On Tuesday, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani said President Bush’s decision to commute former Cheney aide “Scooter” Libby’s 2 1/2 year sentence for perjury and obstruction of justice was “reasonable” and “correct,” despite the fact that the president “quickly made the decision” without consulting the Justice Department or the pardon attorney.

Giuliani hasn’t always believed that such a hasty process was “reasonable” for executive clemency. In 1982, when he was an assistant attorney general in the Reagan DoJ, Giuliani said clemency entailed “a complex, yearlong procedure“:

According to Associate Attorney General Rudolph W. Giuliani, executive clemency involves a great number of people and a complex, yearlong procedure. Every request is subject to a detailed inquiry by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which conducts as many as 50 interviews to flesh out each application. That background investigation is as comprehensive as any the bureau conducts on a prospective United States Attorney, Mr. Giuliani said.
The case is next studied by the pardon attorney, who makes a judgment that Mr. Giuliani reviews. His judgment, in turn, goes to Fred Fielding, the White House counsel who re-examines the files and makes his own judgment. Then, according to Mr. Fielding, every request is presented to the President for his concurrence.

In 1982, Giuliani also said that remorse was important for bestowing clemancy. “We also look at the reason for the request and a recognition that the person knows he’s done something wrong,” said Giuliani. In fact, Giuliani even “recommended that the President deny the request of an embezzler who insisted he had committed no crime.”

In 2001, while castigating former President Bill Clinton for pardoning financier Marc Rich, Giuliani said it was important to confer with prosecutors before offering executive clemency:

The op-ed piece in The New York Times raises more questions than it answers. He’s left out the trading with Iraq. Somehow he thinks that a pardon is now intended to determine whether indictments are wrongful enough. But he doesn’t talk to the prosecutor, just the defense lawyers. [Marketplace Morning Report, 2/19/01]

Libby never admitted any guilt nor did Bush consult special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald prior to issuing his commutation. But that didn’t stop Giuliani from ignoring his previous standards and concluding that President Bush acted properly.

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/05/giuliani-clemency-standard/

Digg this

Giuliani Sacrifices Principles On Executive
Clemency; Contradicts Past Statements

According to Associate Attorney General Rudolph W. Giuliani, executive clemency involves a great number of people and a complex, yearlong procedure. Every request is subject to a detailed inquiry by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which conducts as many as 50 interviews to flesh out each application. That background investigation is as comprehensive as any the bureau conducts on a prospective United States Attorney, Mr. Giuliani said.
The case is next studied by the pardon attorney, who makes a judgment that Mr. Giuliani reviews. His judgment, in turn, goes to Fred Fielding, the White House counsel who re-examines the files and makes his own judgment. Then, according to Mr. Fielding, every request is presented to the President for his concurrence.

In 2001, while castigating former President Bill Clinton for pardoning financier Marc Rich, Giuliani said it was important to confer with prosecutors before offering executive clemency:

The op-ed piece in The New York Times raises more questions than it answers. He’s left out the trading with Iraq. Somehow he thinks that a pardon is now intended to determine whether indictments are wrongful enough. But he doesn’t talk to the prosecutor, just the defense lawyers. [Marketplace Morning Report, 2/19/01]

UPDATE: Giuliani on Larry King Live in 2001:

I think the questions the former president has created here put in doubt the pardon process, and it’s not just — you’re focusing on the Marc Rich part. He did about 50 that he didn’t run through the Justice Department.

Bush didn’t run the Libby commutation through the Justice Department either.

Digg It!

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/05/giuliani-clemency-standard/

Digg this