Out of sight, out of mind

It's summer. It has been, at least according to the calendar, for about a month now. By this time, even here in Germany where the summer breaks in the various Bundesländer are staggered so as not to unduly clog the highways when everyone heads south to catch some rays, just about everyone is on holiday (as they say here); that is vacation to those of you across the pond. Yes, I have written quite a bit about education lately, and I know it's time to stop. All of us know: when you don't have to think about school, you don't. I suppose not many of us now in the summer break want to think about it at all.

The powers-that-be (TPTB), however, take this particular opportunity to think about it a lot. That's why they are so successful. They do so much when the rest of us aren't looking that we always act surprised when we find out how badly we've been outwitted again. I read recently that in the US, efforts have been redoubled to institute voucher; that is, privatization programs; into a number of states in which they haven't taken hold yet.

You should know that I'm one of those long-extinct dodos who believes that an educated citizenry is a necessary component of a democratic society. Since we've turned our backs on schools and education, though, we've left them to the devices of those who only have one obsession: namely, getting all our money. All we're going to do is transfer some public funds into private pockets, we're going to call it market-based progress, and we're all just going to grab our ankles in the end. I guess it isn't welfare if you don't call it welfare, even if that is all it is. TPTB define what words mean. Reality can take a backseat.

As the old saying goes, "money talks", and so those who have it will simply tell the rest of us what we are supposed to think, how we are supposed to act, and what we are supposed to do. School vouchers are one small, but significant, ploy in the movement to simply get it all. All of you out there who think you've secured your finances, have figured out how to finance your golden years, and who think they might even have something to leave to their heirs ... if you aren't part of TPTB -- and if you're reading this, it's pretty safe to say that you aren't -- all I can say is dream on. They chip away at it every day. A lowered interest rate here, a smaller dividend there, a bit of inflation to spice up the mix, and when they finally do get around to raising taxes, which they will have to do eventually, you can bet it won't be on those who could afford it.

I wish the new were better, but it isn't. TPTB are not going to stop until they have it all. And, by the way, don't think for a moment that I'm talking about duly elected governments when I speak of TPTB ... not at all. Duly elected governments are merely the "face to the public" that legitimizes what is going on behind the scenes. This isn't a whacked-out, paranoid, conspiracy, rant. I'm just calling them as I see them.

The ultimate privatization?

I wasn't going to say anything else about the election in the States because, as should be obvious by now, I'm simply glad the freakshow is over. However, one thought did strike me that I just can't shake: the two parties, together, spent more than $6,000,000,000 on their campaigns. I don't care who you are, that's a proud chunk of change. Of course, it's an obscene amount of money. Of course, it's the most that's ever been spent. But, we have to ask ourselves what it actually means. I'll tell you what I think:

What we just witnessed in the US was the privatization of democracy. Oh, they've been trying hard in all kinds of areas, such as education, water, prisons, regulation, Social Security, Medicare, and privatization is a staple of American foreign policy (just look at what the IMF is requiring of Greece if you don't believe me) and, of course, the military and security (about a third of US intelligence operatives are private contractors). Americans love privatization, and now they've managed to privatize their elections as well. Who would have thought?

You think I'm exaggerating? Think again. Where did all that money come from? For the past four years the Teabaggers and the Republicans have been raving about the deficit. Cut! Roll back Reduce! Slash! Save! That's all we've heard. Americans don't have money for anything. They're facing serious infrastructure problems - very clearly revealed by that blowhard Sandy - community after community is going into insolvency (I would be they're giving the Greeks a run for their money ... or is it a run for their debt, no matter), and even earned benefit programs are being squeezed. There's no money for anything. But, there's more than enough money for elections. Where do we think all that cash came from? I can assure you that the people who fronted the cash, particularly those who hedged their own bets, know exactly where it came from. And, they know exactly whom they have to talk to in order to get their money's worth. I'm not a betting man, but I'd bet you a dollar to a doughnut without a hole in it that they're already calling in their chits.

No, I think for anyone who wants to see, it has become clear what democracy in America means. Money talks, and private money talks loudest, I guess. And what I hear is that a huge investment has been made in making sure that the same-old really remains the same-old. I guess you really do get what you pay for.

Precarious privatization

The conflict of interests spoken of last time dealt specifically with education, but that is not the only area in which we should be a bit more cautious. I realize there are many out there who are strong advocates of free markets, but they've really got no support to fall back on. Not every area of human endeavor is a market, nor should it be. And, there are some things that may look like markets but aren't.

Now, for all of you who now want to start beating me over the head with Adam Smith, I would ask that you at least read him before you use him as a weapon. The good scholar (a moral philosopher, no less, whose Wealth of Nations is hardly comprehensible without first understanding his Theory of Moral Sentiments and I'm guessing only a handful of people alive today have ever read that). Mr. Smith may have been skeptical about too much government, but he was a strong advocate of government in that it should oversee and take care of those areas which would not naturally profit a private individual. Government, in Smith's eyes was there to provide a justice system, enforce contracts, grant intellectual property rights, but also to provide public goods such as infrastructure (roads, bridges, transportation means, national defense, and one would suspect utilities). He supported public education and religious institutions because he believed they provided a general benefit to society, and most strikingly, he advocated protecting infant industries and regulating banking.

In other words, the "patron saint" of the free market was only in favor of those areas of endeavor that lent themselves to being regulated by the laws of supply and demand. He suspected that if left to their own devices, business would collude to the disadvantage of customers, therefore oversight was necessary. He was also in favor of several forms of taxation, such as taxes on rents, and was a very strong advocate of progressive tax rates: those who earn the most should contribute the most to the common good. For Smith this is common sense; for his so-called followers ... well, most of them ignore in him what they don't want to see.

What we learn from Mr. Smith, then, is that anything that has to do with the common good, with providing benefits to everyone, not just a privileged few, should include government involvement. The government also has a right and a duty to tax so that the common good may be assured. The solution to too much government spending is more discipline, to be sure, but it is not to turn over public trust to the private sector. Even Adam Smith knew that too much money in too few hands did too little good to too many people.