Beware of"privatizing" it is not what it appears.If you go that route you WII BE SORRY.

Thanks for the story. I'm worried that services we need and want will be only available to the wealthy that can pay a premium. Fewer folks would could affort to golf, swim, ice skate, borrow books. It's a slippery slope and the intent seems to be creation of a underclass and upper class. Those that have capital & those that don't.

I cannot think of one instance where privatization of services would be of benefit to the consumer. My husband posited that if there were true competition, then the private sector could sometimes perform better. I challenged him to name one, and he couldn't, without resorting to the railroad under the control of the Soviet Union -- besides, there's no true competition these days. Managing to make the most money and managing to serve the public are entirely different goals with no common ground.

The bill appears to be a "small government" message bill rather than a carefully crafted public policy. Services should be government provided if (1) open public access to the service is desireable (as in garbage collection and recreation facilities); (2) there is a monopoly and the decision has been made to provide the servivce publicly rather than to regulate a private provider (as in the decision of some cities to provide electrical service); (3) the service should be provided to achieve the maximum public benefits and private providers are unlikely to do this (as in land-use planning); or (4) the program results in a transfer of resources from one group to another (as in the subsidy programs used to make housing affordable).