Sunday, June 26, 2022|
Share this story
Privatizing the federal government was conceived by actual fiscal conservatives (they actually had them then) in the 1950s as a means of saving the government money.
Today, privatization has become a big thing with corporations, but why would a big business want to save a government money when they are already overcharging for goods and services and receiving subsidies as well?
While in the U.S. Forest Service, we had to undertake privatization training, which was eye-opening. All someone has to do is say they can do your job for less, and they don’t have to know your job.
My description was to run screaming into walls (it sure seemed like it at times).
Oddly enough, there is very little proof that it does save the government money (the privatization, not running into walls). The exceptions are very small companies that can be audited with a degree of confidence that they are not cooking their books.
Over the past 20 years or so, I have asked members of Congress in several states (not shock, confusion or euphoria) if they can find proof that privatization has in fact saved us money, and to date have not received a single response.
All privatization should grind to a halt until the Pentagon can be successfully audited. If that can happen, then anything is possible.
Would the new Honua Ola Bioenergy power plant cause more pollution then extracting oil from the ground, transporting, refining and burning it?
Is anyone replenishing the oil extracted?
Also, why are we not using hydroelectric power here? We get a lot of rain here in Puna. All the overflow from catchment and even the downspouts themselves. Every little bit helps.
Using a solar pump, one could pump water up to a tank, and when it flows down it would create energy.
It is not self-sustainable to depend on someone else all the time.