Should Wisconsin be allowed to sell off state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants?

[FrankRep]

Wisconsin - SB 11 (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/JR1SB-11.pdf)

AN ACT relating to: state finances, collective bargaining for public employees, compensation and fringe benefits of public employees, the state civil service system, the Medical Assistance program, sale of certain facilities, granting bonding authority, and making an appropriation.



___________________
16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling,
and power plants.

(1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the
department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may
contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without
solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best
interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or
certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to
purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is
considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification
of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).
________


Seriously, what's the big fuss about?? The state can sell the plants at any price they want based on the best interest of the state.

What's the problem?


_______________
Update; My Revised Opinion:



The Wisconsin Bill needs to be revised to demand competitive bidding for selling off utility plants. Allowing to state to accept any bid it wants can open the door for corruption.
________________

[specsaregood]

Yes, but I would argue that NO, not without a requirement accepting bids and reviewed by the elected representatives.

[angelatc]

I'm not nuts about the no-bid aspect of it.

[South Park Fan]

Straw-man. The issues is whether they should have to be open to competitive bidding, not whether they should be sold at all.

[FrankRep]

I'm not nuts about the no-bid aspect of it.

The department will determine if the bid is in the best interest of the state. That's the no bid deal breaker.

[specsaregood]

The department will determine if the bid is in the best interest of the state. That's the no bid deal breaker.

Frank, do you really need examples of no bid contracts gone wrong?

[tangent4ronpaul]

umm, like the highways that states give to private companies that have been paid for in billions of citizens tax dollars in exchange for maintaining them and letting them ito toll roads.

WHAT A SCAM!

"See ya at the country club!" <wink> <wink>

or what about private prisons, where the state pays companies to lock people up and the companies have no incentive to not ad time to ppls sentences for the slave labor? Then they make these prisoners make items that they sell to the government. Can you say mega cash cow? Can you say old boy network?

But hay, it puts us on a level playing field with third world wages - Keep jobs here in the USA W00T!

:rolleyes:

and you didn't add a poll? - why duplicate the thread if you were not going to do that?

-t

[amy31416]

The department will determine if the bid is in the best interest of the state. That's the no bid deal breaker.

Best interest of the state...or best interest of (fill in the blank)?

[FrankRep]

Frank, do you really need examples of no bid contracts gone wrong?

There's a slight different between selling off a utility plant and a no bid contract.

[specsaregood]

There's a slight different between selling off a utility plant and a no bid contract.

Does the bill being discussed allow the state to sell utility plants without a bidding process? yes or no?

[tangent4ronpaul]

Think about what you are saying! The "best interest of the state" is all about tax dollars. It's where we get Eminent Domain. If the state gets more money to spend that's good. If the people they represent get screwed - well, that's too bad.

The state always knows how best to spend your money and use your property.

Bad!

This should never be about the "best interest of the state", it should be about the best interest of those represented. The best interest of the state is about robbing people via taxation and selling the citizens property so they can be robbed by utility taxes and massively jacked up taxes.

FUCK CORPORATISM!

-t

[FrankRep]

I'm surprised to see so many Libertarians get mad that a state wants to sell off some public utility plants.


Privatization = Corporatism???

[specsaregood]

I'm surprised to see so many Libertarians get mad that a state wants to sell off some public utility plants.
Privatization = Corporatism???

I'm surprised you want to give that power to unelected bureaucrats. what, you got a relative working there?

[tangent4ronpaul]

I'm surprised to see so many Libertarians get mad that a state wants to sell off some public utility plants.


Privatization = Corporatism???

Lets use an imaginary example. The state decides to build a network of convenience stores Called Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and spends 50 Billion building and stocking them on the public's dime. The public paid for um, so they should own them - right? The state further decides to give itself a monopoly on selling these products in the state. One year, the state comes up short on tax revenue so decides to sell some of "it's" property to a private company who's owner happens to play golf with the mayor every weekend for say 500 Million. Result, the public just got ripped off for 49.5 Billion and between new taxes, but mostly corporate greed all ammo, booze, tobacco and firearms available in the state jumps in price 10 fold.

What part of that doesn't piss the hell out of you?

-t

[Kludge]

"GOP Gov. Nominee John Doe, I would like to give your campaign $200,000 in soft money donations."

"What are you looking for in return?"

"Well, as COO of Generic Industries, I've been looking to grow our position in the Generic Industry sector, which is well because your state currently is in the inefficient business of public ownership. I'd like to buy those buildings currently hamstringing the consumers and your voting residents."

"Ah, that does sound good. I'm glad to see your dedication to justice and equality in the marketplace. Of course, we can't just hand the infrastructure over to you..."

"No, no, no - of course not. We'd like to purchase the infrastructure, fairly. - But, I don't think it would be wise to allow bidding on the buildings as it would only slow down the process. I think your friends on the Generic Industry Oversight Board will have a proper idea of who to sell the buildings to, at a reasonable cost. I'm sure they value the... reliability Generic Industries provides and will take that into account.....?"

"Of course."

"We'll be faxing over a list of our offers to purchase the buildings at. I would like for you to personally deliver the proposal to The Board. Okay?"

"I can do that..."



... or....

"Ah-la-la-la-la, I'm the governor of WI and I love liberty. I'm going to bust up the Unions and privatize utilities infrastructure! Gee, I wonder if I should regulate the purchasing power of the committee which will handle sales to private corporations WHICH DON'T AFFECT ME IN ANY WAY AT ALL(!)?

No, probably not. If I allow corporations to bid so taxpayers receive the best deal, it would tie up my Board members and disallow them from making decisions in the state's best interest. After all, it is my position to get government OUT of citizens' lives, and that includes bureaucrats.

GO LIBERTY!"

[FrankRep]

Am I seriously the only one here that thinks Privatization is a good thing?

[tangent4ronpaul]

Well, first we got robbed to built something - but we got value back for our money in the form or reasonable utility rates.

Then we got robbed again when our property gets sold at a sweetheart price to some politicians buddy.

Then we get robbed at regular intervals through jacked up utility bills and additional util taxes.

What's not to like here? :rolleyes:

It's not like they don't have a monopoly on the market and can charge as much as they want. AND WILL!

-t

[FrankRep]

Well, first we got robbed to built something - but we got value back for our money in the form or reasonable utility rates.

Then we got robbed again when our property gets sold at a sweetheart price to some politicians buddy.

Then we get robbed at regular intervals through jacked up utility bills and additional util taxes.

What's not to like here? :rolleyes:

It's not like they don't have a monopoly on the market and can charge as much as they want. AND WILL!

-t

Yeah, Big Government screwed the people and now the Government is broke.

Hopefully the utility plants can be taken out of Government hands to put into Private hands.

[amy31416]

Am I seriously the only one here that thinks Privatization is a good thing?

You're the only one (so far), who doesn't seem to understand that this isn't a criticism of privatization.

[BamaAla]

Will Joe and Jane taxpayer get a big check once they sell? If not, seems like they are going to have to bend over and take it for the second time.

[FrankRep]

You're the only one (so far), who doesn't seem to understand that this isn't a criticism of privatization.

So far the responses have been pretty pathetic.



This is a better response:


The Wisconsin Bill needs to be revised to demand competitive bidding for selling off utility plants. Allowing to state to accept any bid it wants can open the door for corruption.



That answer would have been sufficient. Yes, I agree with the response above.

Nice civil answer.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Do you recall a guy named Dennis Kucinich who tried to stop the sale of a utility plant with the help of the citizens in your home town and what happened to utility rates when the corporatist s got their paws on that plant?

Privatization is ONLY a good idea if there is open competition. With utilities, there is none.

-t

[FrankRep]

Privatization is ONLY a good idea if there is open competition. With utilities, there is none.

I do see what you're getting at. Utilities are automatically monopolies and there's no room for competition.

Wouldn't privatizing roads fall into the same category as utilities .. automatic monopolies?

[CUnknown]

I'm surprised to see so many Libertarians get mad that a state wants to sell off some public utility plants.


Privatization = Corporatism???

It's not so much that people are against privatization, I don't think. I think the issue is the circumstances it's taking place under. The State is heavily in debt for too much spending and too much borrowing from banks right? So, their solution to that is to sell off assets, instead of cutting spending? That seems insane, and really counter-productive to me.

The decision to sell off the assets should be done (or not) solely on its own merits, and not simply because the State needs money to continue spending.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I do see what you're getting at. Utilities are automatically monopolies and there's no room for competition.

Wouldn't privatizing roads fall into the same category as utilities .. automatic monopolies?

They sure do! take for example a highway built with taxpayer funds for bucku bucks. The pre-text being that it would serve the community by removing through traffic in a largely residential and small sized road area. The city/county decides that they don't want to deal with filling potholes and towing broken down cars, as well as police patrols, to they GIVE the highway to a good campaign contributor who promptly turns it into a toll road in exchange for filling potholes. pennies on the dollar! Because the highway is there, it's attracted a lot more traffic, much of it exits right before the toll as they don't want to pay the $60-80 a month in additional fees, so make the problem the highway was built to fix worse. That's exactly what happened to some VA highways and ones in many other places.

-t

[silverhandorder]

Um why do some in this thread think that utilities are monopolies? Do you consider a single store on a block a monopoly? Let's not narrow the focus to the point of being useless for meaningful analysis. If you sell off utilities (with competition for bidding for contracts ofcourse) that does not mean that after the sale there will be no competition. In extreme case scenarios new utilities would come in to service the population. In less extreme cases they will lose customers to other methods of providing the same service. For example bottle companies exist precisely for this reason. If our utilities were good at providing drinkable water we would not have a big portion of population buy water for drinking at home. Is it more expensive? Yes it's more expensive. Could it represent a systemic problem with a utility? Such as bottle companies would exist even with privet utilities. Sure that could be a possibility but point being is that it is still competition and as such you will not see a monopoly in "utilities". Even in a specific geographical region a utility company would have market pressure to provide the best service possible at lowest possible price.

[awake]

Kind of like selling your neighbors car and keeping the money. The neibour can protest it, and I can claim to be looking out for his best interests, oh, did I mention I have gun and that makes everything I do right.