Some call it "crony capitalism," some "public-private partnerships." How about we stop futzing around with the English language (something American collectivists have raised to the level of a fine art) and call it what it really is: fascism.
My, that sounds nasty, doesn't it? That's because it is. It NEVER ends well.
The National Council for Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) has a website with lots of pretty photos on it, and they define a PPP as
a contractual agreement between a public agency (federal, state or local) and a private sector entity. Through this agreement, the skills and assets of each sector (public and private) are shared in delivering a service or facility for the use of the general public. In addition to the sharing of resources, each party shares in the risks and rewards potential in the delivery of the service and/or facility.
Sounds peachy, until you realize that it's
...the government still maintaining the final say over the delivering of the service. Taxpayers now have the noose of being forced to guarantee an “acceptable rate of return over the term of the partnership” to the contracted company around their neck.
In fact, PPPs are "a way to mask ever-intrusive government."
There are lots of examples of PPPs ranging from the Federal Reserve System to Solyndra to...Common Core, the Jeb Bush and Bill Gates-led race to the bottom destined to further enslave America's children:
Common Core is the conclusion of many years of the expansion of nationwide controls over educational issues...The current Common Core standards are limited to English and Math, but will expand to include all subjects in coming years.The beginnings of Common Core can be traced to the 2009 Stimulus bill which gave $4.35 billion to the federal Department of Education which then created the “Race to the Top” competition between states. In order to qualify for funding, the states needed to adopt Common Core sight unseen...
But in a sense, I digress. While Common Core may seem so huge that it's dificult for us here at Redneck Mansion to wrap our minds around, there are other examples of proposals for PPPs that are smaller in scope, close to home—and being proposed by our own congressman:
U.S. Rep. Tom Reed, R-Corning, is looking to revitalize American manufacturing.Reed, along with U.S. Rep. Joe Kennedy, D-MA, recently introduced to Congress the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2013. The legislation aims to create a network of regional institutes across the country, each focused on a unique technology, material or process relevant to advanced manufacturing. It would include local industry, academia and other stakeholders. The institutes would work to expand research and development, close the gap between R&D and commercialization of products, support small and mid-sized manufacturers and train a top-tier advanced manufacturing workforce...The network would be funded by a one-time, $600 million investment in the National Institute of Standards and Technology..."I care about building things here in America and selling it abroad," Reed said. "That will create long-term, good-quality, high-paying jobs. This act is right up the alley of accomplishing that goal. The purpose of the act is to create centers and institutes focused on bringing public-private partnership together...
What's wrong with this? This:
...There is actually another, more accurate term for public-private partnerships. It’s called fascism; plain and simple. Private business may act as an administrator but the state still pulls the reins. From a political perspective, public-private partnerships are quite ingenious. Politicians remain in control while convincing voters they believe in the efficiency of a robust private sector. And when issues arise over the performance of a service, whatever private firm was granted the monopolistic privilege of delivery can be treated like a scapegoat despite having to operate within government established guidelines. The state escapes criticism as the public ignorantly clamors for more protection from those evil hearted businessmen. To the ruling establishment, public-private partnerships are “heads I win, tails you lose.”What the non-exploitive supporters of public-private partnerships tend to forget is that it isn’t just the administration of the service in supposedly private hands that adds to its betterment. Why the market functions so well is that it is driven by competition from businesses that don’t rely on assistance from the band of thieves who occupy the offices of the state. Government assistance gives some businesses an upper hand on competitors which can lead to diminishing innovation. Why compete when Uncle Sam has your back to ensure a decent rate of profit? Then there are government grants of monopoly which give the chosen company absolutely zero incentive to cut costs. All of the advantages of private ownership become effectively nullified in public-private partnerships to the detriment of the taxpayer.In our world of unceasing centralization of power, lawmakers are finding more deceptive ways to mask their lust for dominance. Public-private partnerships are the embodiment of what Mussolini dubbed “corporatism;” that is the “merger of state and corporate power.” Under corporatism, the ruling class is able to expand unbeknownst to the Boobus Americanus and its equivalent in other countries. The Average Joe still has his wallet forcefully stripped of its contents but now the state’s cronies get to partake in the plunder. Meanwhile the same big businessmen who benefit from government privilege still maintain their praise for free markets while working with politicians to forcefully subdue their competition...
