I'm not a fan of privatizing many government services. I can't think of any current government services I would like to see privatized, but then I don't think about that a whole lot. Whenever I do hear the right suggest that a lot of government should be privatized, I like to ask what specifically they mean. Should we privatize roads? The police?* Fire service?
I can usually make a pretty strong argument against privatizing any of these things, especially as people look at the costs of laying roads or fighting their own fires. However, the backlash coming from Fountain Hills Arizona's decision to consolidate trash pick-up service shows that privatization of basic services is a fight we'll see more and more.
The decision is expected to save the city of 25,000 over one million dollars a year, as well as add recycling pick-up to a city that currently is without. They will replace the five companies providing service with one company to serve the entire population, which is expected to reduce noise and pollution as it synchronizes pick-ups across the town.
Tea Partiers have fought this decision by the council, arguing that "trashcare" will eliminate choice and somehow threaten the liberty of the citizens.** According to AZ Central, a flier was circulated around Fountain Hills with an ominous icon and the phrase, "The Hills Will Have Eyes," and that claimed the "Fountain Hills Green Police" checked residents' garbage and recyclables, and as a result, "you are wanted for questioning."
Although I strongly disagree, I can understand the Tea Party's argument for "more choice" and even their anti-environmental dislike of recycling, but isn't saving government money part of what drives these groups? Shouldn't a government agency finding a way to "cut waste" and save a million dollars in a small town budget be a positive thing in anyone's eyes, let alone the "cut government spending"-happy Tea Party?
____
* We've actually seen a lot of this, at least here in Portland, where you see far more private security guys running around on the street than you do police. These private security cannot, of course, do anything to help the general public (they aren't allowed by their employer) but do help cover the gaps left behind after tax cuts cause budged cuts to public security.
** I wonder, do these same Tea Partiers feel that grocery store employees keeping an eye out for shoplifters are threatening their freedom? How about gas station employees watching for those who leave without paying for their gas? Or restaurant managers calling the police on dine-and-dashers?
I have no idea, Sean, how the Tea Party's vision is able to inspire anyone. So far as I can see, it ranks among the most insipid political visions ever.
ReplyDeleteI have written about their vision before. So I won't repeat myself here, but suffice to say, I cannot fathom how their vision could inspire a worm to burrow, let alone a human do anything.
"Trashcare"?
ReplyDeleteI'm hoping that this is a term that you just made up, and not one tea partiers are using. (If so, Jesus H. W. Christ.)
I don't understand why there is this negative connotation they have with "care." Obamacare is the most obvious example. Do they hate caring? Or taking care of people? It's just a bizarre language choice, of all things. (Yet, oddly, weirdly, popular terminology.)
Paul, I have a few friends who are tea partiers. While I can, in theory, comprehend why they might agree with some of the ideas, I do run into a lot of trouble understanding how they can contradict themselves. I've found that most of them are convinced by the manipulations of Beck/Limbaugh/Fox/etc and it's difficult to convince them of reason.
ReplyDeleteAstasia - "Trashcare" came from the article I linked to, and they attributed it to the local Tea Party. I agree, having "care" become a bad word is discouraging, but not really surprising. I don't even think it's a Tea Party position to not care for those less off... that's a standard Republican philosophy, even among moderates. "Caring" is a sign of weakness, and those who need to be cared for are taking advantage or somehow manipulating the system to avoid their responsibilities.
I'm not a fan of the "-gate" terminology either, I find it insulting and childish, especially as it is often used to turn a non-scandal into a scandal just by having the name attached. That's just a function of the lazy, sensationalist media and their manipulation through headlines, imo.
I agree with you about the "gate" thing, as well. I hope that most people are smart enough to see through the media hype.
ReplyDelete