The US is expected to hit the high-water mark of its federal debt limit by Monday and politicians are scrambling to cope—be it through raising the national debt limit or by selling off all the country’s assets—gold, highways, federal lands, buildings, etc.—in a huge-ass federal fire sale:
Economists of a conservative or libertarian bent have long argued that the federal government needs to get out of certain businesses, unload unneeded assets, and privatize such functions as passenger rail service and air traffic control. No one advocates selling Yellowstone, but why, some economists ask, should the federal government be in the electricity business?
Economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute said the federal government should consider the sale of interstate highways. Motorists would have to pay tolls to the private owners, he said, but the roads would likely be in better shape. Federal, state and local governments could raise hundreds of billions of dollars through highway privatization, he said.
Selling off bulk chunks of federal land, as some conservatives are proposing, is a stupid fucking idea. But what about this highway thing, or the gold thing? I mean, miles of roadway and tons of gold are just sitting there. Maybe we throw conservatives a bone, sell off a few highways, and make a little cash money for the country. Yes, private highway owners will toll their roadways, but ultimately, is that a bad thing? If we’re going to do it, and we need the money, let’s do it now because the only way to implement a conservative idea is with a democratic majority (it cuts through a few layers of crazy, at least).
Discuss.
Nice broad brushing there, SB.
This is just silly, now we’re going back to Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun. The Civil War decided all of this, I refuse to fight it again.
First, let’s note that “privatize” is a conservative euphemism for “profit from neglect while fleeing from oversight” before we discuss anything.
@52,
No they don’t. They want the top to pay more, not all, a fair amount for what this country has given them in order for them to make it to the top. Liberals want corporations to pay more too. Big corporations make a killing in profits, based in a country that gives them huge benefits (e.g., oil subsidies)… they should pay back a killing in taxes too. Liberals also want the middle class to pay too, and not the bare minimum either, but a fair amount.
Great, let’s start with the South. Let’s allow the Southern shit hole states privatize their highways. Everyone will naturally avoid visiting their states and they’ll come visit, and spend money, up North instead. Also, if all of the highways are toll roads I bet you’ll find people drive less.
If I were a trucking company, I’d buy some key highways and not allow my competitors to use them.
Some of you have misunderstood. Republicans don’t clean up messes, Republicans clean up during messes.
gas taxes are only a small portion of what pays for roads. Mostly, its property taxes and sales taxes that pay for them. OMG LOL SRSLY
Most of you posters seem to ignore or not understand publicly owned utilities. A privatized Interstate would undoubtedly be operated as a public utility, or rather a collection of public utilities such that no corporation would control more than a small portion (say 10%) of the Interstate system. An Interstate Utility Board would approve rates, maintenance, and extensions. Conceptually this is no different from the power and natural gas systems.
Major objections: The privatized system would cost more since the companies would expect a profit and the board would have to be funded. There would probably be constant bickering about rates and repairs which would open the way for more lobbyists. The schedule for repairs and new construction would probably be even longer than it is now. The board would eventually (actually probably less than 10 years) would become captive of the Interstate companies, like the Interstate Commerce Commissions with all its deficiencies.
While a private interstate system could be made workable, there are few, if any, benefits except to the owners and lobbyists.
Most of you posters seem to ignore or not understand publicly owned utilities. A privatized Interstate would undoubtedly be operated as a public utility, or rather a collection of public utilities such that no corporation would control more than a small portion (say 10%) of the Interstate system. An Interstate Utility Board would approve rates, maintenance, and extensions. Conceptually this is no different from the power and natural gas systems.
Major objections: The privatized system would cost more since the companies would expect a profit and the board would have to be funded. There would probably be constant bickering about rates and repairs which would open the way for more lobbyists. The schedule for repairs and new construction would probably be even longer than it is now. The board would eventually (actually probably less than 10 years) would become captive of the Interstate companies, like the Interstate Commerce Commissions with all its deficiencies.
While a private interstate system could be made workable, there are few, if any, benefits except to the owners and lobbyists.
Why the fuck throw the conservatives any bone? Fuck them. They’re ruthless uncompromising assholes anyway. Also, I often read whiny rants in the newspaper about how Public Utilities District commissioners make 6 figures a year. Big fucking deal. I ask myself would the ranters rather have the Public Utilities run by a private corporation and pay higher rates because the CEO will make at least 8 figures a year and pay dividends to stockholders, or just keep the Public Utilities public and quit bitching about the commissioners?
Being a born and bred East-Coaster, toll roads are nothing new to me. To date, they have been run by the state. The efficacy of tolls is debatable. Some state’s toll roads are in a sad state of disrepair – the PA Turnpike springs to mind. Some toll roads are still jam-packed, a la I-95 in the NE corridor. Some non-toll roads are convenient and in good shape, like I-70 and I-68 in Western Maryland. And some states with no toll roads have fantastic roads, such as WVa (but there’s another factor there, and that’s that they spend almost all of their road funds on major interstates, and don’t even bother to pave most of the secondary roads…it only works in a low-density state). A lot depends on whether an alternative and fairly convenient route is available, the level of the tolls, the purpose of the tolls (maintaining the roads versus reducing congestion), and the competency of those charged with managing the roads/tolls.
PA proposed leasing the turnpike, like these proposals in a lot of ways. While that doesn’t sound like a bad idea, it probably wouldn’t have worked out as well as hoped. This will be longish, so bear with me. We first have to lay out the necessary expenses: maintenance, toll collection, management, accounting, and oversight. Each of these expenses is paid for by either tolls or tax revenue.
Maintenance can be done most effectively by contracting out the work to construction companies that specialize in, well, construction (to keep it shorter I won’t explain why, but I think most people get it). The state is already doing that. Now, could this process be done more efficiently? Maybe. IF a construction company with a strong accounting and management division were leased the rights to collect tolls and use them to maintain the road, the middle-man of the government would be cut out, and greater efficiency would be achieved. However, this company would still have to do at least one thing that they DON’T have expertise in: collect tolls. This doesn’t seem like too hard of a process, but given the move to electronic toll collection, but the need for continued live toll collection, and that efficient toll collection is necessary for the road to be an efficient route, it MIGHT prove problematic for the average construction company to develop this expertise. A dedicated maintenance contract, where the construction company consults on the maintenance needs, costs, and appropriate toll levels to achieve the best maintenance outcomes would achieve the same result without requiring the government to give up domain over what is, ultimately, a public good.
Management is troublesome in both the public and private sector, in different ways. Public-sector managers are paid less than their private-sector peers, and therefore tend to have less experience and knowledge, as the best managers have more attractive offers in the private sector and typically leave. Not to say that there aren’t dedicated, amazing public-sector managers out there – I know a few of them, and these people have a true sense of public service – but there are *fewer* of them. On the private-sector side, managers are significantly more costly, directly necessitating higher user fees to fund this management. At the end of the day, I’d say this is a wash: you’ll get greater efficiency from the private sector but lower costs from the public sector.
Accounting follows basically the same trajectory as management as far as efficiency versus costs, but an additional accounting layer is necessary if the tolls are managed by a private company. As toll funds must be managed properly as a matter of public trust, the accounting practices of a private company collecting a public user fee must achieve BEST practices, and be subject to public auditing. Most private companies are audited, but a slightly higher degree of scrutiny must be applied to a private company utilizing public funds.
Finally, oversight is the one additional cost that must be borne at a much higher level if the roads are privatized. As others have mentioned, a profit motive is strong motivation to do the minimum in maintaining the roads. However, the safety and efficiency of our roads is of the utmost importance to all of us. Even those who don’t own a car or ever drive receive consumer goods that are transported over interstate highways. It is because of this additional cost that I am anti-privatization for ACTUAL MANAGEMENT of our road system. Oversight costs would have to be paid out of either tolls (a part of the lease cost) or some other tax revenue. As it stands now, the state decides what maintenance needs to be done, develops the specs for the maintenance, and then pays a company to do it. Under a privatized system, the private company would have to assess the maintenance needs for the roads, develop the specs for the maintenance, submit its plans to the state to make sure that they’re adequate, and then conduct the maintenance, all funded from either tolls or tax dollars, but with an additional step that adds costs.
It’s only when ACTUAL MANAGEMENT of the roads is forked over that costs rise and I’m opposed to forking over control to the private sector. I’m especially opposed because the “high bidder” on the PA turnpike proposal was not a construction company, with the in-house expertise to conduct the most important aspect of the management of the road, but CITIGROUP – who as far as I can tell, is only good at screwing me (I have my student loans consolidated with them and, boy, do they suck!). A well-designed public-private partnership, where a construction company provides its expertise in construction and maintenance management to the state, may lower overall costs and would probably be a good thing for road users (direct and indirect).
Nuance, lost on the GOP.