Introduced by Rep. John Garfield (R) on April 25, 2006, to prohibit government agencies from competing against private enterprises, or subsidizing any charitable or not-for-profit institution that would use the support to compete against private enterprises. Activities normally provided by government would be exempted, including "essential services" and "necessary services," both defined in the bill. "Vital services," including things like food stores, drugstores, child care, elder care, and telecommunications services could only be provided if there were no private sector alternatives. Privatization of essential and necessary services would be explicitly allowed, including water supply, sewers, garbage and trash removal, recycling, utilities, streets and roads, public transportation, correctional facilities, fire departments, emergency services, and medical services. A private enterprise could sue to obtain an injunction forcing the government competitor to stop, and would only have to show prima facie evidence that the government entity is or is planning to compete, not that the private enterprise has been damaged. Governments already providing commercial goods or services would be grandfathered, but could not expand.
Referred to the House Government Operations Committee on April 25, 2006.
1) for profit... by crazycajun on August 10, 2006 what is the world coming to that you would DARE suggest that the government can do something... ANYTHING better than private enterprise, with the possible exception of building a standing army.
there is NOTHING wrong with making a profit.
if you think that there is ANY attempt at reducing the number of prisons now, or at any time in the future, you are not only sadly mistaken, but unforgivably nieve.
i simply stated that when the governments took over the prisons almost 150 years ago, it was with the promise that they could do it better and cheaper than the then privately run prisons and jails.
this hasn't happened.
reducing the number of jails is a laudible goal, but, alas, an entire criminal culture is against you. change that, and you may not need as many prisons. and i don't think that lead or dyslexia have anything to do with it, it's all about drugs and money.
2) You heard me, Cajun, immoral by Anonymous Citizen on August 10, 2006 By making it FOR PROFIT, that business wants to EXPAND to make more money for shareholders. We as a society should never EVER WANT to expand our prisons. We should WANT to get at the sources of the problem. We should NOT be proud EVER that they even exist, always striving for less prisons. Take care of the lead, screen for dyslexia in schools and prison. We should never we satisfied with the way the prison system is now or the reasons we need them in the first place. They will probably ALWAYS exist, but there should NEVER be profit in PRISONS. What is the world coming to that you would even suggest such a thing?
3) immoral???? by crazycajun on August 8, 2006 what is immoral about privatizing a prison?
the function of a prison is to keep inmates locked up for the duration of their sentence.
it matters not whether the prison is publicly or privately administered.
in fact, many early jails and prisons WERE privately run, and very profitably so, in this country and in others.
part of the big push for 'nationalization' of jails and prisons was the thought that the government could do the job for less dollars.
we know now that it hasn't worked.
maybe it's time we let the private sector give it a whack. who knows, maybe they can save us a few billion dollars in the long run.