Why is it important that, finally, a movement has arisen to resist the slo-mo counter-revolution that since the 1970s has seized political and economic control of the United States?
Since before the Revolutionary War, economic
inequality has been a fact of American economic life, and indeed the
Founders went out of their way to institutionalize the advantages of
wealth, but in recent decades the gap between rich and poor has widened
to a pathological degree. Today, more than 40% of total income is going to the wealthiest 10%, and the oligarchs have purchased control of government at every level to cement in place the status quo.
The evidence shows that it is not possible to have a functioning civil
society and a vibrant economy when a tiny oligarchy absconds with nearly all the
benefits. In this TED talk from Richard Wilkinson, who with Kate Pickett wrote The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger, demonstrates graphically how inequality damages societies.
Occupy Wall Street is the middle class' way of
shouting "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more."
Americans are articulating, even as the oligarchs are too befuddled by greed to comprehend,
the simple fact that the current system is unsustainable.
Welcome to the Golden Age of Signage
Although the media has done its best to obscure the message of the Occupy movement, anyone interested in finding out what the demonstrations are about has only to look at the astonishingly articulate signs in the "what do they want" videos and newsphotos. Or you can download the following video of Michael Moore being interviewed on lower Broadway by CNBC's Carl Quintanilla (to the network's credit, for a full eight minutes).
Moore isn't confused by the protests, as the pundits pretend to be. Don’t the American people deserve some answers and some justice?, he asks. Where did their money go? Who stole it? Everybody down at Occupy Wall Street wants the wealthy to be taxed more. They want Glass-Steagall reinstated. They want the money out of politics. They want to know where the jobs went. They want to know if the jobs coming back.
“I’m not even sure equality of opportunity is there anymore," he says.
"Like an odorless gas, economic inequality pervades every corner of the United States and saps the strength of its democracy. Over the past three decades, Washington has consistently favored the rich -- and the more wealth accumulates in a few hands at the top, the more influence and favor the rich acquire, making it easier for them and their political allies to cast off restraint without paying a social price."
Americans are mad as hell and they aren't going to take it -- more of the same -- any more.
If 2008 had been a normal political year, John Edwards would have been the standard-bearer of the Democratic Party. He was young, attractive, articulate, far more liberal than his opponents, and had been the party's 2004 candidate for vice-president; it would have been unsurprising if he had captured the top spot in 2008. Disastrous, too, of course, but we didn't know about Rielle Hunter then. In the event, Edward's log-cabin story was overwhelmed by two other narratives, those of the first woman and the first black to make plausible candidates for President of the United States.
As he prepares to run for reelection, President Obama apparently hopes to resuscitate the rhetoric of hope and change he used to sweet-talk his way to the Oval Office. But it is going to be a lot harder than the White House imagines to recast this business-as-usual politician once again as an agent of change. The big donors, the corporate shills and Blue Dogs in Congress, and the "pragmatists" running the campaign may think the president can ride the same hot-air balloon to victory, but the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party will need something a lot more audacious than mere hope to get it fired up again.
As support for the Occupy protests makes clear, Americans still long for change. They want a government that treats them fairly and acts on their behalf; they want well-paying, meaningful employment; they want criminals imprisoned rather than enriched; they want safe streets, functioning schools, bridges that don't fall down; they want those who benefit from the system to pay their fair share for its upkeep.
In 2008, I argued that Barack Obama had no "politics," meaning that he was not animated by a vision of a better America; that he was not driven, as were many who voted for him, to make our nation more equitable, more just, more democratic; that, despite all the talk, he had no passion for change. Having politics, in this sense, is not about pursuing a particular set of policies; it is certainly not about elections. Rather, it is a kind of faith in the transformative power of collective action, a belief that acting together we can make the world a better place. If he cannot find that passion in the next few months, it's very unlikely he will gain reelection.
Eight years ago at the Democratic Convention, accepting the nod for vice-president, John Edwards had that passion. As a child of the working class, Edwards understood that there were two Americas, one that was benefiting unduly from the system; one that was benefiting little or not at all. He believed, and he made you believe, that it doesn't have to be that way. "We have much work to do," he told the convention.
Because the truth is, we still live in two different Americas: one for people who have lived the American Dream and don't have to worry, and another for most Americans who work hard and still struggle to make ends meet.
It doesn't have to be that way.
It doesn't have to be that way, he said. And it's wrong, he said. Inequality is wrong. Poverty is wrong. Lack of opportunity is wrong. Injustice is wrong. John Edwards had the passion -- the anger, the commitment -- we require now in our president. Barack Obama needs to get angry. Not annoyed. Not testy. Not petulant. Outraged. Pissed off. Passionately, righteously angry.
Barack Obama needs to get mad as hell. Or he's not going to be president any more.
There is very little time left for the president to "get it." If Obama had lost in 2008, it would not have been because he is too much like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, but because he is too much like Al Gore and John Kerry. Inaccurate or unfair as this may be, he comes across as cold, aloof, arrogant, privileged; he does not appear to understand the fears and hopes of ordinary people. He was quick to rescue the miscreants who nearly broke the system; he has still not responded adequately to the need to create jobs and to help folks whose lives were damaged or destroyed by the financial crisis. More people are living in poverty today than were there at the start of his term of office; this is not a fit record for a Democrat to run on. The perception is that Obama fought passionately for Goldman Sacks; now he needs to tap in to some of the passion that made ordinary people believe that John Edwards was mad enough to fight for them.
Barack Obama has been very lucky in his opponents. Taking nothing from his fine-tuned operation in 2008, the candidate had only to get past Hillary Clinton's disastrously managed effort before he was up against the hapless duo of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Also filling his sails were an imploding economy, an unprecedented advantage in fund-raising (tellingly, mostly from Wall Street and Big Pharma), unpopular wars, and what was viewed at the time as a failed Republican incumbency. And he had a large portion of the voting public ready to indulge a candidate who based his appeal on the promise that this time would be different. Yet, in the perfect political storm, he couldn't crack 53% of the vote.
This time, opinion is widespread that he is the failed incumbent. He now owns the war in Afghanistan, and if things go wrong in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia or Libya, he'll own them, too. He also owns the economy. If the jobless rate is still eight or nine percent at this time next year, well, he's the president. Though he has not been unproductive as chief executive, he has spent far too much of his political capital legitimizing his opponents instead destroying them. Until Occupy changed the topic, he and the Republicans were bickering about budget caps and spending cuts, not jobs programs and infrastructure spending, austerity not prosperity.
A lot of energy that went into the Obama campaign in 2008 will be focused this year on issues campaigns, Occupy, and retaking the House of Representatives.
And while it can be said that Obama is still lucky in his opponents, unfortunately the least clownish of the Republican aspirants appears destined to be the GOP candidate (the Mormon cult may be an issue in the primaries, but the conservatives will anoint the Church of Latter Day Saints a mainstream Christian faith within 24 hours of Romney's elevation).
While it's possible that Mitt's empty suit will leave room for the president to squeak past, it's more than likely that Romney's blandness and serenity will make him hard to beat. The former governor is presenting a facade strikingly similar to the blank slate Obama displayed three years ago. If you, the average voter, are offered two candidates with more or less the same personality who appear to favor more or less the same policies, do you pick the one who has presided over four years of decline and is surrounded by controversy -- he's a socialist; he's from Kenya; he wants to take your guns; he wants to raise your taxes; he favors death panels and death taxes; he has no birth certificate? Of course not. Where there's smoke there could be fire; you go with the new guy.
For daily updates -- minute to minute, really -- about Occupy Wall Street and its satellites around the world, follow Greg Mitchell's Occupy USA blog at The Nation. See, also: OccupyTogether.
Winter is acummin early to the Northeast and "[i]t's been dumping snow here in NYC all day, high winds and 3 inches of slush on the ground. With the NYPD and FDNY confiscating six generators on Friday and this unprecedented October snow, those occupying Liberty Plaza in downtown NYC are in need of emergency supplies crucial for cold weather survival (and occupation). We've made a lot of headway on getting winter gear here in the last 48 hrs but definitely need more. Please help by purchasing or donating supplies directly. Winter gear and other necessities can be dropped off in person, delivered, or shipped." -- New York Urgent: Winter Donation Needs (OccupyWallStreet 2011-0-29).
From Atlanta and Boston to Portland, OR, and points in between like Nashville, Austin, Denver and Oakland, the local gendarmes are earnestly cooperating with demonstrators to raise consciousness about which %'s interests are paramount in the current contretemps: "In Denver," the AP reported,
the clashes between demonstrators and the police were some of the most intense since the protest groups began gathering in a downtown park more than a month ago. The police used pepper spray on the protesters, some of whom surged toward police lines....In Nashville, where state law enforcement officials arrested 29 people on Saturday, the issue was a curfew imposed last week that barred protesters from inhabiting a downtown park near the State Capitol. The legality of the curfew has been questioned, and a magistrate judge immediately released the protesters, who had been charged with trespassing, saying that the state had no authority to create such a restriction." See, Occupy Protesters Regroup After Mass Arrests (New York Times 2011-11-31)
One of the motivators of the Occupy movement is the realization by the college and immediately post-college generation that they have been sold a bill of goods.
We were told to work hard and stay in school, and that it would pay off. We are not lazy. We are not entitled. We are drowning in debt with few means of escape.
We would give anything to pay our debt, but we are un(der)employed due to the jobs crisis and lack of consumer protections and refinancing rights make things extremely difficult.
The student loan bubble may not burst with a bang, but it is slowly suffocating us.
Please share your story. We stand in solidarity with the 99 percent.
Detroit may have been particularly hammered by the financial crisis, but protests there are representative of what's happening across the country. The message is the same -- the system isn't working:
Many are recent college grads, frustrated by a lack of jobs and saddled with student debt. Others work full-time, stuck with low wages. And some are middle-age Detroiters who are unemployed after working decades in the auto industry.
Despite their diverse backgrounds, the protesters with Occupy Detroit -- now camped out in Grand Circus Park for two weeks -- are united in their efforts to send a message: The system isn't working for them.
The protesters are part of a movement of people upset at the growing concentration of wealth. Income inequality in the U.S. is at its highest since at least 1967, when the census started recording household income. Challenges Don't Deter Occupy Detroit Protesters From Getting Out Their Message by Niraj Warikoo (Detroit Free Press 2011-10-29).
In a few places, though, the protests are too cheerful to be called confrontational. Take Fort Lauderdale:
If America's ultra-rich are feeling unappreciated, a trip to this weekend's Fort Lauderdale International Boat Show seemed to offer some solace. After all, it's the world's premier annual showcase for yachts, and the city bills itself unabashedly as the "Yachting Capital of the World."
But this year, not all the residents were in a welcoming mood. Members of Occupy Fort Lauderdale staged a demonstration Saturday afternoon, taking their placards on a nearly 3-mile march from downtown to the beach, where the boat show is being held. See, Occupy That Yacht by Thomas Francis (Salon 2011-10-30).
Despite the weather, Occupy Wall Street is in a holiday mood:
Anti-Wall St protesters plan to join New York City's Halloween parade on Monday and although several people have been arrested at recent rallies for wearing masks, demonstrators will have a free pass for the holiday....
Occupy Wall Street has set up Occupy Halloween and said on its website, www.occupyhalloween.org, that protesters had been invited to join the 39th annual Village Halloween Parade....
Occupy Halloween urged protesters to organize costume-themed blocs, suggesting ideas such as Wall Street zombies, corporate vampires and V-masks -- the Guy Fawkes mask made popular by the graphic novel "V for Vendetta." -- Anti-Wall Street Protesters to Join NY Halloween Parade (Reuters 2011-10-26).
It's true that in a newspaper column limning Christ as the "perfect conservative" (He came up with all those loaves and fishes without any help from an oppressive central government), Herman Cain claimed that a "liberal court" killed Jesus (ThinkProgress.org). But, honestly, how can that hurt him? It only underscores how thoroughly he belongs in the pack of fact-phobic, anti-science, climate change-denying, Bible-thumping, creationist Republican presidential postulants.
Now the front-runner, Cain may be just self-infatuated enough to sit comfortably for four years as one of our serial royals. Take, for example, this passage from his optimistically titled This Is Herman Cain! My Journey to the White House (talk about your audacity of hope):
I was sitting in my new office on the 31st floor of the World Headquarters one day when I looked out the window and saw that the inflatable dome of the new Minneapolis stadium had collapsed. I realized, as I sat there, staring out the window, that what had kept me happy and motivated was the excitement, challenge, and risk of the past few years.
While there is no daylight between him and the other GOP nullities on policy, he has shot to a lead in the polls because he comes across, despite significant barriers of logic and language, as nicer and funnier than his cohort. What other candidate of either party is capable of this?:
Herm Cain is our Jimmie Davis, our Michel Martelly. This is better than Bill Clinton Plays the Blues, better than if John McCain, Orrin Hatch and John Ashcroft started a band (and you know you want to hear them harmonize For What It's Worth).
Next up: Herman Cain's rendition of Revolution No 9-9-9.
The Alternative Economy Cultures (alt.econ.cult) program last spring brought together leading international and Finnish thinkers, cultural practitioners and activists to present alternative economic visions. The aim was to tackle not just financial, but social, cultural, institutional, human, material, emotional and intellectual forms of capital; not just individual gain, boosting, balancing or bail-outs, but common good, peer-to-peer, shared wealth and appropriate reward-for-effort.
"Parecon" stands for Participatory Economics, a vision for an alternative way to operate an economy, neither capitalism nor twentieth century socialism. Here, activist and economist Michael Albert introduces Parecon to the gathering in Finland.
Ask the Los Angeles City Council
Local cops and city officials have been less than supportive of the consciousness-raising efforts of OccupyLA. Unlike police in Boston and New York City, say, who helpfully club, mace, arrest and otherwise harass demonstrators on a daily basis, the LAPD, county sheriffs and municipal leaders have gone out of their way to clear the path for protestors in front of Los Angeles' city hall. The city council went so far as to pass by a vote of 11-0 a resolution, written by councilmember Richard Alarcon, that is a model response to efforts by citizens to air grievances. The gist:
...Angelenos, like citizens across the United States, are reeling from a continuing economic crisis that threatens our fiscal stability and our quality of life...."Occupy Wall Street"['s] first official Resolution on September so", 2011, available at http://occupywallst.org/forum/first-official-release-from-occupywall-street/, provid[es] an overview of the goals and unifying principles of the "Occupy" movement....[T]he "Occupy" demonstrations are a rapidly growing movement with the shared goal of urging U.S. citizens to peaceably assemble and occupy public space in order to create a shared dialogue by which to address the problems and generate solutions for economically distressed Americans....[T]he causes and consequences of the economic crisis are eroding the very social contract upon which the Constitution that the United States of America was founded; namely,...allowing every American to strive for and share in the prosperity of our nation through cooperation and hard work...[T]oday corporations hold undue influence and power in our country....[O]ur economic system can only be called broken when one considers that currently, over 25 million Americans who seek work are unemployed; more than 50 million Americans are forced to live without health insurance; and, even using our current poverty measure that is widely recognized to be inadequate and outdated, more than 1 in 5 American children are growing up poor in households that lack access to resources that provide basic survival needs, such as food, clothing, and shelter....[T]he U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) released a "CDC Health Disparities & Inequalities Report - United States, 2011" revealing that income inequality in the United States is the highest in the world among any advanced industrialized nation, with wide-spread inequities in U.S. health outcomes by income, race, and gender....[O]ver the past 30 years, both the average and the median wage in America has remained almost stagnant while the average individual worker contribution to GDP has soared to 59% and the economy has doubled, all after adjusting for inflation; and highest in the world among any advanced industrialized nation, with wide-spread inequities in U.S. health outcomes by income, race, and gender....[A]lmost all the gains to the economy have accrued to the very top income earners-largely the top 1%, who now control 40% of the wealth in the United States, in great part as a result of policy changes that are reversible such as taxation; and...the Institute for Policy Studies indicates that the top 1 percent of Americans own half of the country's stocks, bonds and mutual funds; and...the 400 richest Americans at the top control more wealth than the 180 million Americans at the bottom....[T]he Los Angeles County Federation of Labor has officially endorsed "Occupy Los Angeles" and "Occupy Wall Street" in a statement of support saying: "The Los Angeles labor movement stands with its sisters and brothers occupying Wall Street, downtown Los Angeles, and cities and towns across the country who are fed up with an unfair economy that works for 1% of Americans while the vast majority of people struggle to pay the bills, get an education and raise their families...The Occupy Wall Street movement is mobilizing for a fair economy across the country including in Los Angeles. This movement is taking a stand against the corporate bullies, banks and investment firms that not only created our economic collapse in 2008, but continue to take advantage of it today, making billions in profits while demanding further wage and benefit cuts from American workers."...Americans must resolve some of the divisive economic and social realities facing our nation in a peaceful way to avoid the further deterioration of our greatest asset -- our human capital....[O]ne of the factors spurring recent violent revolutionary protests in the Middle East is high income inequality, though the sobering reality is that income inequality in the United States is even higher than that of some of the countries torn asunder by violent revolution; for instance, according to the C.I.A. World Fact Book, the United States Gini coefficient, which is used to measure inequality, is higher than that of Egypt's pre-Revolution....[T]he fiscal impact of the continuing economic crisis is disastrous to education, public services, infrastructure and essential safety-net services that have historically made America successful, with school class sizes growing while teachers are laid off and forcing Cities and States to make sobering choices that just a few years ago would have been unthinkable, such as how to cut hours and services from public safety provision, delaying or neglecting to maintain essential physical infrastructure including roads, sewers, and water and power delivery; and cutting services provided by our libraries, recreation, and park facilities....[O]ne of the largest problems causing our economy to continue to flounder is the foreclosure crisis, with some banks continuing the use of flawed, and in some cases fraudulent, procedures to flood the housing market with foreclosures, such as the recent revelations of widespread foreclosure mismanagement by mortgage servicers who fail to properly document the seizure and sale of homes, in some cases foreclosing without the legal authority to do so, prompting the 50-state Attorney General investigation of foreclosure practices....California has been particularly hard-hit by the foreclosure crisis, with:
• 1 in 5 U.S. foreclosures in California; and
• 1.2 million foreclosures in California since 2008, with a projection of a total of 2 million
California foreclosures by the end of 2012; and
• More than a third of California homeowners locked in an underwater mortgage, with few banks offering any type of principal reduction modification, even given Federal, State and City programs offering to split the balance of a modification with the bank....[T]he costs of the foreclosure crisis to California taxpayers includes:
• Property tax revenue losses estimated at $4 billion; and
• Local, county and state government losses to respond to foreclosure-related costs estimated at $17 billion --including costs such as the maintenance of blighted properties, sheriff evictions, inspections, public safety, trash removal, and other costs at $19,229 for every foreclosure....[W]ith the concurrence of the Mayor,...the City of Los Angeles hereby stands in support for the continuation of the peaceful and vibrant exercise in First Amendment Rights carried out by "Occupy Los Angeles"....
You could slap Michael Bloomberg and Boston mayor Thomas Menino upside the head with this declaration without much hope they'd get the message. (Totally parenthetically, it's worth pointing out that L.A.'s response demonstrates the superiority of legislative government over the executive model: it is difficult to imagine a group of citizens arranging a face-to-face with the mayor of a big eastern city the way the organizers of OccupyLA were able to with their council representative. Like members of state assemblies and Congress, councilors are more likely to be responsive to voters than are mayors -- or governors or presidents). It is also worth noting that Los Angeles is practically the only locale being occupied that has suffered no major confrontations between police and protesters.
Is fighting economic injustice such a righteous pursuit that it
entitles Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protesters and their disciples to
indefinitely control whatever space they invade? Even though the whole movement
is centered around the word “occupy,” deciding which property to take
over, or how long to monopolize it, doesn’t seem to be based on any
guiding principle. Occupiers need to clarify what, in their eyes, makes
terrain seizable.
The owners of Zuccotti Park in New York are apparently authorized to prohibit camping and similar activities, and yesterday they gave entrenched demonstrators a day’s notice
to vacate the park long enough for workers to clean and inspect it.
Thereafter, they warned, only those who obey park rules will be allowed
to use the premises.
The decision announced early this morning to postpone the scheduled cleaning, made no mention of those rules.
The protesters say
the City of New York should neither enforce the rules nor “evict”
occupiers from the park. But what they haven’t explained is how the
police could legally or morally justify ignoring a property owner’s trespass complaint.
Although occupiers pride themselves on adhering to a strict and democratic decision-making method,
it’s not clear how – or if – that procedure honors the wishes of park
owners, besieged neighbors and various non-OWS users of the park.
The movement’s overall mission has great legitimacy, but its land grabbing policy requires some elucidation.
"The right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," enshrined in the Constitution, is a sacred privilege of citizenship. It must be protected more ferociously than, oh, say, private property.
"Behind every great fortune there is a crime," Balzac wrote. It hardly needs mentioning in present company that Occupy exists only because crimes of epic proportions perpetrated by the oligarchs who control the political mechanisms of this republic continue unabated despite the havoc they wreak on most of its inhabitants. Fixating on Occupy's possible violations of health codes, noise ordinances or park regulations misses the bigger picture. To ask the protestors to expend time and energy explaining the legal or moral -- moral? really? -- justifications of the occupations is to ask them to take their eye off the ball.
The guardians of public order and private property -- from cops on the beat to prosecutors to magistrates -- make judgements all the time about which rules and regulations need to be enforced, to what degree and against whom. It is for the City of New York to explain why the unimpeded flow of vehicular traffic or a prohibition against handing out food in a park exceeds the right of the people peaceably to assemble. Besides, the demonstrators, as proper heirs to Gandhi and MLK, are not attempting to avoid prosecution; they just don't want dangerous unnecessary confrontations with armed police and private security personnel.
In any case, this is a political fight, not a legal confrontation or debate about right and wrong. Physically "occupying" is a political tactic; it requires no legal sanction. In fact, like sit-ins, it draws much of its power from the willingness of the occupiers to defy authority. That the demonstrators hold the high moral ground, as I believe, is beside the point. The outcome, as always, will be determined by who is strong not who is right.
For now, the good guys are winning. The oligarchs and their political camp followers are nervous and confused and, in most locales -- Oh, Oakland! -- overreacting. This is a "which side are you on?" moment, as the old Labor anthem had it. (It seems to me that the Oakland "general strike" and the shut down of the port is to be celebrated. It is only when the confrontation begins to really cost the oligarchs that they will be willing to relinquish some of their power.) The Occupy Movement has already changed the focus of the political debate and transformed public opinion; if it goes on long enough and gets big enough, the occupiers might even force a change in the arrangement of power. It would be a shame if the movement gets distracted by nitpicking in its own ranks.
Parenthetically, the Constitution does not mention that the people's cause must meet some standard of righteousness. You and I may believe that to be for economic justice is to be on the side of the angels; John Paulson and his cohort would probably beg to differ (okay, "beg" is the wrong word). It wouldn't matter if the assembled were petitioning for free Jujubes, wax lips, Zagnuts, candy cigarettes and Sugar Babies for all; the right to do so would stand. -- John Gabree
The Democrats are circling Zucotti Park like cold-eyed vultures hungry to feed on the flesh of its idealism and passion. Already, bits and pieces of the heartfelt conversation inside the Occupy Movement about purposes and principles are being cut-and-pasted into the stump speeches of Democratic pols from Barack to Barney. But we are long past talking about hope of change.
"The country needs," Franklin Roosevelt said in May 1932,
and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands, bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something. The millions who are in want will not stand by silently forever while the things to satisfy their needs are within easy reach.
Roosevelt in 1932 was no more a radical than was Obama in 2008. But FDR demanded solutions. He made plenty of mistakes in his fight for a new deal for the American people, but unlike Obama he was hamstrung neither by lack of imagination nor an obsession with process. It's still a long time until the 2012 election. Are we in for another 12 months of homilies about the need for change? Or will Barack Obama flex the powers of his office and "try something?"
Says who? Bill Maher, having celebrated the assassination of an American citizen earlier in the week, last night joined conservative humorist P.J. O'Rourke in ridiculing Occupy Wall Street. But neither smugster had accounted for the presence of the indomitable Alan Grayson:
In the wake of massive of tax giveaways, governments are having trouble maintaining public services.
The Right will use this crisis to achieve a long-time goal: privatization (through tax cuts, many billions of dollars that belong to the public have been privatized already).
This is how privatization will go.
Businesses will use some of their new cash surpluses to buy public services (roads, bridges, parks, stadiums, libraries, water and waste water systems, trash collection operations, prisons, police/fire/rescue departments, power generation and distribution setups, etc.).
Many will be sold at fire-sale prices. Or given away.
Once in private hands, services that were created with public wealth and have worked well for generations (roads, bridges, parks, stadiums, libraries, water and waste water systems, trash collection operations, prisons, police/fire/rescue departments, power generation and distribution setups, etc.) will be milked, trashed, bled to death.
The public will continue to transfer more tax revenues to private hands for continuing operations or will pay directly for services through fees, tolls, etc.
The services will decline. They will reach the point where new money will need to be invested to keep them going. Business noggins will not regard this as money well spent.
The services will be returned to the public. They will not be sold at fire-sale prices. Nor will they be given away. The companies will demand -- and receive -- compensation, not only for the value of the land, buildings and "improvements," but also for "lost future revenues."
The service infrastructure will be repurchased by the public using tax dollars.
New taxes will be needed to restore the infrastructure to the condition it was in before privatization.
We have a jobs crisis not a regulatory uncertainty problem. "The demand for goods and services is depressed because of the collapse of the housing and stock market bubbles—the financial crisis—that has led to both a deleveraging (paying off debts) of households and a cratering of the construction sector. The initial shock of the bubble’s burst then cascaded into non-construction business investment that dried up as customers disappeared. Finally, all of this led to state and local governments cutting back services and jobs as tax revenues plunged." Regulatory uncertainty: A phony explanation for our jobs problem by Lawrence Mishel (Economic Policy Institute 2011-09-27).