In the fishwrap's "LET IT OUT" section that I can't avoid glancing at because it's next to the comics page, some idiot today crayoned:
When and where did privatization ever reduce utility bills?
There are two misconceptions here.
1) Private ownership, in fact, reduces utility bills every day right here in Indianapolis. IPL provides electric service for a lot less than most other cities in the country. (I know. I lived in the DC area for a year in an all-electric apartment. Unless you've lived somewhere else in the country, you have no idea what a deal IPL's rates are.)
2) Since the City of Indianapolis owns Citizens Energy Group lock, stock and barrel (and it does, read their page about the history of the trust, and note the municipal license plates on all Citizens Gas trucks while you're at it) what exactly is being privatized?
The main (and current) problem with the water and sewer utility is that the previous administration sold it to a bunch of idiot Frenchmen who apparently thought we were charging in francs instead of dollars. Well, not really true, but the fact is that the money for the privatization was raised by floating variable-interest bonds. How dumb was that? Pretty dumb, given that the interest went sky-high, taking rates right along with it.
The difference between now and then is that the city is selling the utility to a public charitable trust -- NOT A PRIVATE ENTITY, THEREFORE THERE IS NO PRIVATIZATION. The public charitable trust that runs Citizens Gas and Citizens Thermal is designed to keep costs to consumers low. It is non-profit and it is watched like a hawk by the IURC. It provides good service for a reasonable amount of money. (And if I had better insulation, I'd be giving them less of mine. But that's my fault, not theirs.)
I would be very surprised and disappointed if the public charitable trust that has served this city so well for so many years could not manage to keep the cost of running the water and sewer utility down and the level of service at a high level. For one thing, I'll bet the people who bitch about their water meters being read only six times a year (raises hand) will bitch a lot less in the future; the guy who reads your gas meter will probably be the same guy who reads your water meter. Not only does that help save you money by not forcing you to pay more than you actually owe every other month (if the estimate is way off, like mine usually are), but it requires half as many meter readers to accomplish the same purpose.
Which leads to the caller bitching I heard yesterday on Garrison about job losses due to the Citizens purchase...well...sure, I hate that, but at the same time, like the one caller said, the Citizens public trust does not exist to create jobs. It exists to provide utility services at the lowest possible price to the consumer. In fact, let's take a look at what the Citizens Energy Group's mandates really are:
The purposes of the public charitable trust are:
- to establish and operate a gas utility that is not controlled by private ownership and
- to provide light, heat and power to the City and its inhabitants;
The City of Indianapolis, as successor trustee, has two express duties:
- to engage in the gas business and
- to supply the City of Indianapolis and it inhabitants with light, heat and power.
I imagine they will amend that at some point to include "water and sewer services".
But the point is, NOWHERE in that is any mandate to create jobs. Nothing to see here, union jackoffs, move along.
Those same idiots do not understand the basic fact NO business exists to create jobs. If my company could find a way to create market and sell widgets without me, I would be gone in a minute -- and so would every other emloyee. Companies exist to make money. Period.
The trust exists to provide services without losing money. EOS. Jobs are a necessary evil.
I won't be quite as cynical as Hoosierboy. I will point out though that his employer pays him because he brings in more revenue than he costs.
In other words, both he and his employer are better off because of their exchange of paying him for his services.
But his employer is not in business to give him a job, any more than his employer is in business to, say, provide a use for expensive machine tools. His employer is in business to make money. All else is ancillary to his main purpose. This is the part that unions don't get (or purposely ignore, which is more to the point).
In a capitalist society, there is no "right to work", there is only a "right to make a profit by spending your own capital". Employees are tools used by capitalist entrepreneurs to increase profits, and, oh by the way, to create a middle class that will help enrich everybody through the profit motive...