Go Home

Saving Private Ohio

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (186)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2318)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Privatization is all the rage these days in right-wing states, but Ohio's John Kasich may have just crossed a line he may want to reconsider.

Ohio, like other states, runs a liquor concession for anything harder than beer or wine. The profits from that concession go directly back to the state. It's one of the few bright spots in an otherwise miserably sad revenue stream, especially after Kasich's tax cut plans.

In accordance with his "laser-focused" jobs strategy which included killing a high-speed rail project among other things, Kasich has introduced legislation to create an agency for job creation called Jobs Ohio. Here's a January description of the plan:

Duffy said House Bill 1 is still being crafted and few specifics were available. The governor's office said Jobs Ohio will be run by a nine-member board, with the governor serving as chairman. Board members will be appointed to four-year terms by the governor and will be compensated for expenses only.

Board members will be bound by ethics guidelines similar to those regulating university trustees, Kasich said. The board will produce an annual report, hold four public meetings a year, and "they will be closed at times in executive session to discuss specific issues because you don't want to be negotiating out in the public," Kasich said.

The names and salaries of Jobs Ohio employees will be made public, Kasich said, assuring that transparency "is really important."

The House bill will appropriate $1 million to start-up Jobs Ohio, but Kasich said he will seek private funding for it.

"Part of it will be public, part of it will be private," Kasich said. "Ultimately, we hope to push it into the all for private."

Now this sounds benign. Sort of. Until you toss in the revenue from liquor sales and make Kasich the Chairman of the Board. Then, not so much.

Here's a more recent FAQ:

Q. Why not make leasing the liquor operation available on the open market to potentially increase revenue?
A. Kasich said that he wants Ohio to be able to continue controlling the day-to-day operation of liquor sales, which would not be guaranteed if he sold it to the highest bidder.
For example, by controlling the operation in-house, Kasich can direct liquor profits for public purposes such as job creation or to aid the general revenue fund. This approach also guarantees JobsOhio can take what it wants from the profits for its own operating procedures.
Q. How will JobsOhio use the liquor profits?
A. It is expected to use the money to help companies either start up or relocate to Ohio. But instead of giving loans, JobsOhio could ask to be partial owners or investors in the business and thus gain equity in companies.
"The profits from this will go back into supporting job growth, not government growth," Kvamme said Tuesday.

Let's stop and give that a few minutes' thought. 2010 liquor revenue was $238 million. What JobsOhio does is create a great big slush fund for Kasich to use as "walking around money" to bribe businesses to relocate and or start up in Ohio? Also, what's this business about "can direct liquor profits for public purposes such as job creation or to aid the general revenue fund?" That smells like a way to ram through some more tax cuts for corporations and wealthy folks to me.

The way I see it, Kasich is setting himself up to dip into public funds to pay off cronies and campaign financiers via barely-legal means. It is an arrangement which begs public officials to behave in corrupt ways. Begs.

And it's not only the liquor concession at risk.

Kasich also plans to sell 5 jails to "reduce costs." Corrections Corporation of America, the largest national private jail owner was a HUGE donor to the Republican Governors' Association in the 2010 races, and is a big money friend of Governor Jan Brewer's. But hey, Kasich swears they'll get no special treatment. To which I say sure they won't. Because there aren't any relationships with people close to CCA in the governor's office, are there?

Gary Mohr, director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, has pledged to remove himself from Gov. John Kasich's recent proposal to sell five Ohio prisons to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Mohr is a former consultant and managing director for Corrections Corporation of America, a Nashville-based company that is eligible to bid on the state prison contracts once they are made available next month.

The company, which bills itself the leading private-sector provider of corrections services to governments, also hired Kasich's former congressional chief of staff, Donald Thibaut, as a lobbyist in January.

That's not all. There's also the Ohio turnpike.

The governor's spokesman confirmed the plan to lease the turnpike is still on the table.

The governor's decision to exclude the plan from the 2012-13 budget proposal shouldn't be taken to mean he'll wait until 2013, when it's time to propose another two-year budget, said Rob Nichols, Kasich's spokesman.

"The turnpike could be brought up at any point in time and not necessarily in conjunction with the budget," Nichols said.

If the turnpike is leased, any money a private company pays the state for the lease would be used to improve the state's transportation system, said Melissa Ayers, a spokeswoman for the Ohio Department of Transportation.

If Kasich leases the turnpike, he'll be following in the footsteps of Mitch Daniels, Indiana's Republican governor.

The article goes on to note that post-privatization, tolls in Indiana went from $4.65 to $8 in 2008, and were raised again in 2010.

And still more: Kasich slashed the budget of the state Public Utilities Commission, giving his energy cronies a nice effective tax cut, since it is funded entirely by fees paid by utilities. Less costs; less fees. Oh, and as an added bonus, less regulation, too.

The Consumers Counsel office is not funded by the State’s general revenue fund. It’s entire funding is based on fees levied on the utilities. Cut the Counsel’s budget, and the money goes back to the utilities.

So Kasich found the perfect corporate giveaway. A double whammy. In his budget he slashes the agency’s budget by more than half. That creates a virtually impotent, underfunded consumer watchdog to fight against the utilities’ army of hired guns of industry lawyers and economists, many of whom are just biding their time around the revolving door that is the PUCO/utility relationship.

So, there you go. Private Ohio is in boot camp, ready to be promoted to...private. Why is it that there isn't more discussion about what it means to privatize services like this? Why doesn't it occur to these people to point out that privatization means for-profit, and that profit is going to come from somewhere?

These conservative governors are intentionally bankrupting states and state governments to hand them over to the corporations, many of whom can already buy the whole damn state if they want to. And corporations aren't creating jobs. They're sitting on capital and doing things like acquiring T-Mobile for $25 billion in cash, plus stock, which will mean MORE layoffs, not more jobs.

How long do they get to do this?

About karoli
karoli's picture
Card-carrying member of we, the people.
Share This Post

Link To This Post


32 Comments
Buford's picture

... everyone knows that the American government is too inept to actually run anything effectively... like the planet's largest military... even though other countries' governments are able to run various services just fine without the need to privatize.

The myth of the $600 toilet seat is largely to blame.

SonOfLiberty's picture

My father complained about "government ineptitude and bureaucracy". At other times he was railing about the ineptitude and bureaucracy of the corporation he was working for (McDonald's), which, if it isn't the poster-child of private industry it used to be, still represents the corporate side of dichotomy pretty well, I think.

The truth, of course, is that both institutions are run by greedy elitists, feeding off the labor of those who actually produce results; eagerly lapping up the profits when takings are good, and quick to cast the blame on "lazy workers" when things turn south.

The difference is that the public institutions direct "profits" to kickbacks for the elite as part of shady backroom deals, and private institutions just call them "profits", and boast about them in their quarterly reports.

Ah well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Her2M_zZDEI

BigD145's picture

VA: 3% overhead
private health insurance: 40% overhead

Man, the gov't is terrible at running programs....

Wilber1's picture

well, handing over government property or services to a monopoly or oligopoly has nothing to do with a damn "free market". there is a simple way economists decide if something is a real free market. if companies in a market are "price takers" then it is potentially a free market, or at least something close to it. this means that a company or a few companies actions cannot have a large effect on prices, there is competition and if they raise prices too high others will get their customers. so microsoft is a monopoly or damn near it because its actions clearly effect prices. in a monopoly or oligopoly the big companies are price makers, their actions effect prices and people don't have anywhere to turn. so handing over this to a single company or a handful of companies isn't a damn free market, it is something closer to feaudalism if anything. it is allowing the rents that would go towards paying social services to go to people who will make money in their sleep (a quote from mill, a classical economist). government activity or regulation is only one way to determine if an economy is a "free market" (which has never really existed in modern times), whether or not an industry is dominated by one or a handful of companies is also something that is considered. people who want to hand over collective services or property shouldn't be called "free marketers", they should be call pro-monopolists or feaudalists, cause that's what their policies will lead to, along with financialization.

besides, private companies are NOT better at delivering services and never will be. higher administrative costs, profits that don't benefit consumers (ie waste), marketing costs, executive pay, lobbyist money, amongst other things, makes that a certainty.

the problem with this really is what to do if this goes through. lets say these stores are privatized. they can be re-nationalized, expropriated, but that would involve mass push from bellow and people in government who are willing to go through with that. do you see a movement or a number of politicians who would sign onto expropriations, no matter how justified? if SS was privatized it would be an even bigger problem. they privatized the pension system in chile, it's been a horrible, horrible failure. 90% of chileans want the system in the governments hands again, across the ideological spectrum, and yet it hasn't been expropriated. people around the country better fight this off, push from bellow to get people in power to fight this and even to go on the offensive and to expropriate what has been stollen from the people in recent decades. if they don't we aren't back to pre-progressive america, we're back to pre-capitalist europe, if we aren't there already. it is a rentier class sitting on their ass and getting rich without adding much of anything to the world but debt and misery.

i was reading a history of economic thought by ek hunt recently. he had a good quote by lenin, and i'm sorry to say, it applies here, "The rentier state is a state of parasitic, decaying capitalism".

Samson-'s picture

Privatization is all the rage these days in right-wing states

while i am not sure what a "right wing state" is, the rush to privatize anything/everything is not just a rightwing/GOP "solution" to budgetary troubles: example, ed rendell tried to sell the PA turmpike

Augdir's picture

Rachael should have also mentioned IN Gov Mith Daniels selling off a highway in Indiana in 2006 to foreigners. It played in local media as being justified in the name of fiscal responsibility for Hoosiers.

cund_gulag's picture

You sell off things the government does well, and contains costs on, to the wealthy and to corporations.

Then, they increase the fees whenever they damn well feel like it - because 'it's what the market will bear!'

This is just another way to move money from the poor and middle to the rich.

We're about to privatize our country into a Corporate Slave State.

"Serf's" Up!!!

You know rich people, just fucking shoot us now, and get it over with!
You'll be better off.
Because if you give us some chances, maybe we'll figure out a way to get rid of you first.
Any ideas, folks?

Peter G's picture

The government of Ontario decides to sell the brand new Toronto toll by-pass to a consortium to liberate some cash. They forget to include in the terms of sale any oversight or restrictions on toll rates. Oops! Tolls rise spectacularly as the consortium decides to coin it big time. Government of Ontario ruefully admits they screwed themselves and us but what can you do? Apparently not learn from your mistakes if recent history is any indication.


Hasa Diga Eebowai

do you think the people behind mass privatizations give a damn? the wsj just ran a piece saying that, i'm sure you'll be shocked to find out, greece can solve their budget problems by mass privatizations. it shouldn't do anything about the mass tax evasion, raise taxes on the rich, institute capital controls, or anything else, just sell off the people's property. these people are sociopaths to be sure, they're fundamentalist ideolgues, but they for the most part aren't stupid. they know the history of neoliberalism in practice, they just don't give a damn. change will not happen with these people or parties, it just won't.

just a heads up though to anyone reading this. the EU is moving ahead potentially with a tax on financial transactions, weighted towards speculation. these taxes are called "tobin taxes". this would generate billions of dollars for the EU. this is another logical sollution here. what is the chance of this happening here? even if the democrats controlled 3/4's of congress, does anyone think for a second this would pass. guess which country, and person, fought strongly against this when the issue was raised recently? if you guessed the us and timothy geithner you'd be correct.

pellegrini24's picture

....How are privately run prisons working' out? The incentive is to keep inmates for as long as possible....to maximize revenue, and to minimize empty cells.....which produce NO revenue.....a nightmare!

FloydGeorge104's picture

Private prisons are money makers and COST the taxpayers millions. Just look who has STOCK in them. The people from congress. I know first hand how they run. I worked in one for 6 years. First if the prison is a gooood repug based giver to campaines they get a diffrent contract than the oney who just want to run a peison. the oney who give to the repugs have a contract that says they get payed for posts. how many co's per inmates. ACA says one co for every 35 inmates. what it does not say is they must hire all the co's to do the job but they still get payed for them. at $41,500 a year US DOJ. contract. when there is no service contract they will pay about $10 to $12 an hr. Now if the private prison that will not give to the repugs has a contract that says, you will only get payed for man hours worked. The diffrance is one gets money for a co who is NOT there where the other one only gets payed for co's who are on the job. the place where I worked under ACA with there 35 to 1. it says we needed about 17 co's to run a unit. How many did we have to run a unit, 4 on a goood day. So the tax payers are paying the pravite peisons for 14 co's whom are not there. 14 x $41,500=$581,000. that is 1 shift and just 1 unit. they had about 9 units than ran 24/7. you do the math.

Sven Ortmann's picture

Privatisation of a liquor business is fine (if not absolutely the right thing to do) if the price is right.

A purchasing price for this business that correctly appraises expected future profits and risks is fine.
There's no reason why a state should run a liquor business.

Any negative effects of liquor business are unlikely to disappear by letting the state run it because the state is a greedy bureaucracy. Same with tobacco. Same with taxes on booze and tobacco.

Negative effects of such businesses should be regulated by law. To mix up this kind of business and the state means to make the state complicit - and this rather inhibits the urge of the legislators to protect the public against those negative effects.

In short: Don't criticise the deal before you know and understand the acquisition price.

glogrrl's picture

If he got $1.5 B immediately for privatizing the liquor business......and over the next several years (theoretically) the privatized liquor business raked in $7.5 B....who's the smart one? Not Kasich.


“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”

understand the deal, but the proposal does not sound like privatization of the state's liquor
concession to me. Here's what it sounds like:

One agency (JobsOhio) will lease it from the agency that runs it now. (Still Socialized hooch peddling)

They will finance the lease by borrowing money based on bonds (bankers get their cut) backed by bucks from Buckeye's on future benders.

Part of the bond proceeds go to the state to plug holes created by revenue shortages and tax cutting.

Part of the bond proceeds go to a slush fund operated by a board chaired by the
Governor and his appointees who line the pockets of companies promising to create jobs.

Imagine this scheme for a moment if proposed by say, Barak Obama, with sales of Marijuana by a JobsAmerica agency.


TFR

SonOfLiberty's picture

I'd propose it right away. Once there's a media uproar, repeat ad nauseum that you got the idea from the governor of Ohio. Make it clear, you're trying to use Republican ideas. Go further and make it clear, Ohio isn't creating any new revenue, they're just making a slush fund from money they already had.

No accounting tricks with the weed monies. Just sweet green in the pockets of your corporate masters.

Sven Ortmann's picture

That would be a bad deal, but financial math is a bit more complicated anyway.
We would need to consider the marginal interest rate of the state's debts or the marginal interest rate of the state's capital investments.

1 billion now is more valuable than 200 million per year in the next five years, for example.

---

Btw, why do you blame Kasich? Do you know the price? Maybe (unlikely) he has negotiated a great deal!? It's possible. This is not about an essential state service, after all.

glogrrl's picture

privatizing everything. Then We the People will never again have any say in our government. And that's exactly what they want. And besides, when would we ever know? Once they privatize everything, nothing will be known.

It's like when the city of Chicago sold off the rights to all the parking meters to some foreign company....then the company started raising and raising prices, and the city said the price was too high...but they had no recourse, because the foreign company now owned the rights to the parking meters. Be careful what you wish for.


“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”

the revenue will keep going to Ohio. It's just that now it will go to a special "jobs fund" managed by Kasich. Why do I blame him? Because it's a flat-out power grab.

ronhohn's picture

There is this story that I gave a starving man a fish and he had a meal for one day, then I taught him to fish and he had a meal evryday. (or something like that).

Here I can sell the liquor business and I have enough to live on for a year or two or three
or
I keep running the business and have income that keeps me going the rest of my life


If you need funds to pay for essentials, you have a revenue problem
If you need funds to pay for frivolity, you have a spending problem

BlueTrooth's picture

There is no "acquisition" price. The State will continue to run day to day operations. Ready to criticise yet?

drshatterhand's picture

That the bright spot would be that after Kasich is done scorching the earth in Ohio, we wouldn't see a republican governor for many years, but voters here are way too stupid for that. 4 years after the trainwreck that was Taft for two terms, the morons here turn around and elect this asshat.

glogrrl's picture

private saving Ohio.


“The greatest evildoers are those who don’t remember because they have never given thought to the matter, and, without remembrance, nothing can hold them back,”

"I tried to be honest," said Governor Foghorn, "but the sight of that poor child on her knees begging me
to take her daddy's whiskey money and put it in my friend's pocket was just too touching to ignore."


TFR

karoli's picture

Or this. "Here, Governor. Here's a quarter of a billion per year for you to play with. Just be sure it benefits the state."

It'll burn a hole in his pocket.

under Perry. He got reelected. But we met get Formula One racing in eastern Travis County.
And if you like European racing, you can get there on a Perry toll road built by and leased to
Europeans.


TFR

karoli's picture

So let me know if it's worth it after you pay the tolls.

BlueTrooth's picture

Whenever I see some conservative plan for "privatizing" anything, my first question is "Why isn't it ALREADY privatized"? There's usually a very good reason. If the private sector is so capable of providing every public sector service, why does the public sector even exist? Why does it require an "anti-government" government to be elected to transfer ownership from "we the people" to GOP, Inc ? And seriously, WHY should PRISONS be a profitable enterprise? They aren't exactly institutions of higher learning (which maybe they should be). The macro view is pretty obvious. The "government" makes the initial investments in startup costs, procurement, infrastructure, supply lines, training and hiring and THEN it becomes a target for the hostile takeover from the private sector. VOILA! Instant profitability. The Liquor Store scam is an evolution of sorts. Now the private sector is using the government to collect their startup costs for a completely unrelated service. A service that is already a competitive business in the private sector. But it won't be competitive for long with that guaranteed revenue stream coming in to Jobs Ohio, will it? They can be profitable regardless of results. It's just more of this "Capitalism Gone Wild!" in America and around the World. It's causing revolutions and America is not immune.

moraltrumpslegal's picture

"How long do they get to do this?"

As long as enough people think that "government" is necessary.

Samson-'s picture

when are people going to finally rise up against the constitution?

moraltrumpslegal's picture

No need to rise up, just walk away. Watch & learn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

Diabolus est Deus Inversus

dosido's picture

...because it's so inconvenient to let the public know that you are about to vote yourselves and your buddies into some really big bonuses at the tax payers' expense. woohoo!

Hey Ohio, Don't get me started on how well our California UC trustees are doing with their fiscal and fiduciary responsibilities. Cutting profs and services while hiring their buddies from out of state and lining their pockets.

Yeah, go ahead and cut higher education but start with the incredibly bloated administrative positions at the top.

Chop from the top.

Comments are closed on this entry